At the second reading we made it clear from this side of the House what in the main our objections were to this Bill, but as the main provisions of the Bill in respect of which we raised objections are contained in Clause 2 I would like to say at once that we do not propose to have a long-drawn-out debate on every clause of this Bill. We shall oppose Clause 2 and call for a division on it because it is the kernel of our objection to the Bill. The fact that we do not speak on and oppose the subsequent clauses does not mean that we approve of them, but we feel that we want to centre our objection in Clause 2, and for that reason I would like just briefly to put the position so far as this side of the House is concerned. Sir, we are much more concerned with the public statement issued by the Minister in regard to how he proposes to use the powers to be conferred by this Bill and which are contained in Clause 2 because these powers provide for expropriation of land. That is imported into certain sub-sections of Clause 2 which provide for the proclamation of certain areas as Native locations. The Bill has two sets of powers of appropriation, one under the Housing Act and one under the Slums Act but there is also provision here for the Peri-Urban Areas Board to be a local authority in respect of certain of these areas. The powers of the Resettlement Board are imported here, and they also have powers of expropriation. In the main this is concentrated in Clause 2, and I want to say that we on this side of the House are concerned about the freehold title of people in areas such as Alexandra. I do not want to limit the discussion to Alexandra; the Minister rather complained about that in the previous debate. However, this principle is being established here and we believe that it is unnecessary. We believe that under existing legislation and the other provisions of this Bill, power already exists to clean up Alexandra and similar areas. The powers provided for in this Bill are therefore unnecessary. We have no objection whatsoever to the clearing up of those areas. The Minister has also made it abundantly clear that he proposes to establish, in place of the existing dwellings which are owned in freehold, certain blocks of flats to provide for altogether 20,000 single housing units or bedrooms in that particular area.

While I am on that may I just say this to the hon. the Minister. I noticed that he rather took my colleague to task for having said the flats which the Government intended to establish were very undesirable. The hon. the Minister went so far as to say that the Johannesburg City Council would not thank my hon. friend, the member for North-East Rand, for the line he had taken and that the Johannesburg City Council were very much in favour of those blocks of flats. No sooner had the hon. the Minister taken my hon. friend to task than he quoted from a letter which he said he had received dated 18 April this year. That letter destroyed his whole case. Let me read to the hon. the Minister what he said. This is a letter from the Town Clerk of Johannesburg to the Minister—

That was what they said, Sir, and the Minister read it out as proving his case that they wanted hostel accommodation. Then the Minister himself went on to say—

Precisely, Mr. Chairman. The hon. the Minister was proving our case for us. It is a matter of principle; we agree with them. He goes on—

That is precisely the point. What we want from the Minister is proof that there is going to be provision for family housing, that freehold is going to be undiminished as far as the Bantu are concerned and that the hostels are going to be more in keeping with the requirements of the people in that area and that he will not carry into effect the idea contained in his statement that there are going to be 20,000 female and male Bantu living in these vast rabbit warrens. In the absence of anything to the contrary we must oppose this clause. We are quite in favour of cleaning up the area; we want to see it under proper municipal control. We think the City Council of Johannesburg agrees with us; we want family life as well as hostel life under proper control. In the absence of an assurance on that score we must oppose this clause.

I am going to vote against this clause as well. It is, as the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has said, the very kernel of this Bill. I have three objections to this particular clause. The first is that I believe it to be a complete betrayal of undertakings which were given by the Government to the African population of Alexandra Township on several occasions in the past. I shall quote my sources in a moment, Sir. One was given in 1957 by the then Minister of Bantu Administration, the present Prime Minister. Later, in reply to a question put by the then member for Parktown, Mr. Cope, further assurances were given that freehold title would not be affected. Although not in those specific words, the understanding was clear enough from what was said, and that was confirmed at a later stage when the hon. the Minister made statements as to the fate of Alexandra Township. I believe that the present Bill is designed mainly to move not only the surplus inhabitants from Alexandra Township but also gradually to take over the freehold properties of the Africans living in that area; and I believe it to be a betrayal of those undertakings of the past. Although specific statements were not made I think it will be clear to anybody who interprets language in the normal way, what was meant by those statements. In 1957 the then Minister of Bantu Affairs, the present Prime Minister, stated that there was no intention to remove Alexandra completely as had been necessary in the case of Sophiatown; that it was necessary to reduce the number of inhabitants to reasonable limits. He said nothing whatsoever in that statement, which was an official statement by the then Minister, that there was any intention whatsoever to touch freehold rights. People were entitled to assume, since the hon. Minister did not mention the removal of freehold rights, as had clearly been done in the case of Sophiatown, that there was no intention to touch freehold rights in Alexandra. In reply to a question put by Mr. Cope in 1959—

the Minister replied—

In other words, the section dealing with the compensation. The clear inference from that question and the reply given by the hon. the Minister was that property owners would not be affected. Even more recently statements were made to the effect that this was simply a slum clearance scheme. I put it that this is not a slum clearance scheme. It is a scheme with several objects, firstly, to reduce the number of people. [Interjections.] It is still a slum despite the efforts of the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board to which everybody has paid such glowing tribute in this House; so therefore the slum clearance side has not been implemented at all. The number of inhabitants has certainly been reduced drastically in some respects. But the object is to remove freehold rights because this is another Black spot in a so-called White area in the eyes of the Government. The other object, of course, is to turn the whole of Alexandra into an area for single people, whether married or not; people who are destined to be single as far as the Government is concerned. In other words, the setting up of hostels. My third main objection is that the arrangements which are made for expropriation are grossly unfair. I have here an example to prove my contention. There is a Bantu property owner in that area who in 1951 was granted a first bond of £950 on his property. Later, in 1956 and in 1958, he was granted two further loans amounting to £1,400. So that the total amount of his bond amounted to £2,350. The property is valued at a minimum of £3,000 and the amount still owing under the bond is £1,500. The Peri-Urban Areas Board, which is the only purchaser of property in that area, the only purchaser who is allowed to purchase in that area, so it is not a matter of free choice of buyer and seller, has offered £657 for that property. [Interjections.] This property is valued at £3,000 and £657 is the amount offered by the Peri-Urban Areas Board which is the only legal purchaser of property in that area.

A stand in Alexandra township valued at £3,000!

The stand is valued at £3,000; that is the official valuation by the estate agent; it is the official valuation of the land.

The purchase price in respect of another stand valued at £2,000 is £800. So I claim it is grossly unfair to force sales in Alexandra Township. My third objection is the same as that raised by the hon. member for South Coast, namely, that I am completely against this idea of dormitories set-ups in our urban areas, this housing of vast complexes of single Africans, males or females. A lot of attention was paid to a recent report by the Government. The Government has conveniently forgotten other commission reports headed by, I should say, at least equally illustrious Judges, commissions which found both in the case of the Dube riots and the Cato Manor riots that one of the main causes of those riots was the concentration of large numbers of single Bantu in urban areas. I am not saying that family life per se is being broken up by this, because I quite understand that the family units are being moved to other areas. But in so far as the whole of Alexandra Township is now being set aside completely for the dormitory type of labour for compound labour, for barracks labour, to which I have the strongest objection, on sociological grounds, I am going to vote against this clause.

I want to repeat what I said on a previous occasion namely, that we appreciated the attitude of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). We are grateful for the measure of support we are getting from the Opposition that an undesirable urban area like Alexandra should be cleared up, that it should be better equipped for housing purposes, that it should be better administered and that this Bill is necessary for that.

The hon. member for South Coast has raised two points in regard to which I should like to enlighten him a little. I do not blame him for not understanding the position completely because this is a difficult Bill to understand. There are numerous cross-references. The hon. member has qualms about the reference to the Resettlement Board. The hon. member will notice that Clause 2 (4) (d) refers to the possibility of co-operation with the Resettlement Board. It is clearly stated that that co-operation with the Resettlement Board will be possible in terms of Section 10 of the Urban Areas Act. That means that the local body, the Peri-Urban Board which controls Alexandra, will be able to regard the Resettlement Board as a local authority with which to conclude an agreement. I want to remind the hon. member that an agreement has already been entered into with the Resettlement Board. Over the past few years the Resettlement Board has already been assisting in removing the surplus inhabitants from Alexandra and in settling them in the south-western areas. It is only to make such co-operation possible in future that that has been inserted here. But it will not be possible to use the legislation governing the Resettlement Board, i.e. the Resettlement Act to expropriate in Alexandra.

It will not be possible to use the machinery of the Resettlement Board, i.e., the Resettlement Act of 1954, for expropriation in Alexandra. I want to repeat what I said during the second-reading debate, namely that we hope it will not be necessary to resort to expropriation. So far it has not been necessary to expropriate in Alexandra. I want to stress, however, and this is something the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) should also bear in mind, that right up to the present it was possible to expropriate in Alexandra without this Bill, had it been necessary. It was not necessary, however, and we hope it will not be necessary in future. We cannot give any guarantees in this respect. Should we have to expropriate in future it will not be possible to do so in terms of the Resettlement Act. It will have to be done in terms of the Housing Act as was stated during the second-reading debate. I should like to correct the hon. member for South Coast in that respect and I hope he accepts it because that is the position. The second point in regard to which I want to correct the hon. member for South Coast is in respect of the hostels. It is in this respect that his Whip from the Transvaal has made the position somewhat difficult for him. After I had asked the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) the specific question, after he had said so by way of interjection, he said that nobody wanted hostels in Alexandra. That was what the hon. member for North-East Rand said at a moment when he was not thinking what he was saying. I then quoted from the two letters from the Johannesburg City Council to the effect that they did want hostels plus family quarters. I did not ignore the last aspect; I mentioned it. But the hon. member for North-East Rand said that nobody wanted hostels there. I want to remind the hon. member for South Coast that in addition to their wanting family quarters there, the Johannesburg Municipality also wants hostels there, inter alia, for the accommodation of single people from the northern areas. So we have that in common with the City Council of Johannesburg and I hope with the hon. member for South Coast, although not with the hon. member for North-East Rand.

*I think I replied to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) a few weeks before she put her question. Unfortunately she was not here during the second-reading debate.

I have read the whole debate; I know exactly what was said.

You have read it, but to listen is always more beneficial than to read. I replied to the question of the previous member for Parktown, Mr. Cope. I must say that the hon. member reads it completely incorrectly if she reads into it that there will not be expropriation. The reply was that “Alexandra is not being evacuated. Owners of property who are lawfully entitled to remain there are not being disturbed Disturb means that those 500 property owners who have already sold will not be disturbed. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I hope it will never be necessary for me to sing in the same choir as that hon. member. I want to repeat what I said during the second-reading debate, namely that we were not anxious to expropriate on a large scale. In practice so far there have been voluntary sales, on a reasonable basis. I totally discard the idea of the hon. member for Houghton that those acquisitions have so far been “forced transactions”. The figures she quoted in connection with the valuation of properties carry no weight. Why did those people sell voluntarily? I think the hon. member is exaggerating. We know what her attitude is in this connection. There is a fundamental difference between us. It is no use arguing much with her. Having said this, Mr. Chairman, I think I have said enough.

I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister if he owned a property in Roodepoort and wished to retain that property and if he was told that if he did not sell to the one person who was prepared to buy it at the price laid down by that purchaser, his property would be expropriated and that if he wanted to own any property in return he would have to own it at a point at least 50 miles away from Roodepoort, he would not be “disturbed Of course property owners are being “disturbed”. What does the Minister think this word means? What does he think the property owners of Alexandra read into that reply to Mr. Cope’s question? What does he think the property owners of Alexandra understood when they were told that property owners who were lawfully entitled to remain there would not be disturbed? All property owners in Alexandra Township now understand that if they do not sell their property voluntarily, the property will be expropriated. Therefore they are selling and in some cases, as I have shown, at a great loss to themselves. [Interjections.]

Order! I am asking for order and the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet goes on talking.

He might on occasion make a contribution to the debate, Sir, instead of just interjecting. I say that that is disturbing property owners whether the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to get out of it the way he has tried to or not. I say equally that when the present Prime Minister said that Alexandra Township was not to be removed as Sophia-town Township had been removed, everybody understood that to mean freehold property since that was the cardinal point in regard to the Sophiatown Township removal.

I have another point I wish to raise with the hon. the Deputy Minister. I wonder whether he would be kind enough to tell us whether it is his intention to disturb or not to disturb some of the very fine institutions that have been set up in Alexandra Township, and set up for the specific purpose of dealing with the families and the children in Alexandra Township. I refer to the child welfare clinics and to the schools. According to figures given to me in this House earlier this year there are 10,618 married couples, that is, 21,236 people, and they have about 20,799 children. All these people presumably are going to be disturbed; they are going to be moved. Because it is not the Government’s intention to allow families to remain there unless they are prepared to be split up and live in single quarters, which obviously they would not want to do. What is to happen to their children in those circumstances I do not know. So I presume they will all be moved to Diep Kloof or somewhere else where the Government will resettle them. I want to know what is going to happen, for instance, to the Alexandra Health Clinic, to the University Centre, to the Family Welfare Centre and, of course, to the Holy Cross Mission School. All these are large and well-established institutions catering for children and family welfare. What is the Minister’s intention here? Is he going to leave these institutions undisturbed? Could we have language which is a little bit less ambiguous, language which not only we can understand, but which the Africans of Alexandra Township can understand and the owners of the clinics and of the schools can also understand, unequivocally and clearly.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Perhaps the hon. Minister will reply to my question I put on a previous clause. I may have to divide the House on every clause if he refuses to reply.

The hon. member for Houghton is behaving in a typically feminine way, always wanting to have the last say. The hon. member should know the reply to that question, and I maintain that she perfectly well knows what the reply is.

Order! I cannot allow the hon. Deputy Minister to reply to that question now.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

I move—

As hon. members are aware, the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act of 1945 is one of the most important Acts whereby Parliament delegates authority to the provinces to legislate in such matters as Parliament deems expedient. In this proposed amendment Bill it is suggested that authority be granted to the provinces to legislate in respect of four matters of a diverse nature, and I shall deal with the four different matters under the relevant clauses.

Clause 1 relates to the establishment of a Central Bursary Fund. Sub-sections (a), (b) and (c) of Section 18 provide for the training of teachers and nurses, but sub-section (d) of the same section deals exclusively with the award of bursaries to persons who wish to qualify themselves to hold professional or technical posts in the provincial administration or in any institution controlled, aided or subsidized by the administration. Since the incorporation of this sub-section in 1959, the provinces, the Public Service Commission and the Treasury have come to the conclusion that this is not advisable for each provincial administration and then also the Public Service Commission to receive applications for bursaries from qualified persons and thereafter to negotiate with the universities or other educational institutions in regard to the administration of such bursary schemes. It has therefore been arranged with the Treasury and the Public Service Commission that the amount which the provincial administrations are prepared to provide for the awarding of bursaries to persons who wish to qualify themselves to hold professional or technical posts in the administrations be deposited in one central fund under the control of the Public Service Commission, and the administration of only one scheme be undertaken by the Commission. For the awarding of bursaries, the needs of provincial administrations will of course be kept in mind. The provincial administrations are, however, not legally empowered to contribute to such a Central Bursary Fund, and at their request it is now proposed that subsection (d) be amended to grant them such authority. At the same time it is realized that occasions may arise when the provinces on their own may want to incur expenditure even if it is only for the purpose of making a small donation to one or other studying official. It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that the authority at present vested in the provinces is not being curtailed, but is rather enlarged to permit such donations, subject to consultation with the Public Service Commission, and authority therefore being obtained from the Treasury.

Clause 2 deals with the contributions by the provinces to the funds of the regional councils for the performing arts. As hon. members know the Government has taken active steps to advance the performing arts in the Republic, that is music, opera and ballet.

Order! I have repeatedly asked for order and whilst the hon. Deputy Minister is addressing the House hon. members are carrying on an audible conversation.

One of these steps is to undertake the subsidization of a R2 for R1 basis of the organizations to be established. The four provinces are in agreement that through a combination of unforeseen circumstances it may happen that they will of necessity have to render financial assistance, but due to the provisions of the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, as it reads at present, it will, however, not be possible for the provinces to do so. In the nature of things it amounts to this that the respective provinces will be very closely associated with the whole project that they will have to take care of in a great measure and will have to further its interests and that they will have to approach local authorities, such as municipalities and divisional councils falling under their jurisdiction, for funds, while they themselves as regards the financial aspect will be unable to assist even though the organization should find itself in financial embarrassment because of the inadequacy of available funds. This can happen for example as a result of a shortage of subsidies which the regional councils must find themselves or even because the funds which are collected, together with the Government subsidy, may prove to be inadequate. Such circumstances would place the provinces in an unenviable position in the eyes of all the other external bodies to whom the provinces will have to appeal for aid. It is therefore suggested in view of the foregoing that the 1945 Act be so amended as to enable the provinces, should it become necessary to place funds at the disposal of the regional councils for the advancement of the performing arts, subject to the conditions as set out in the clause, namely that such contributions by the provinces are not to be taken into account when the Government subsidy is determined— that these contributions will not be taken into account when determining the subsidy to the provinces out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and that it will be possible to render such assistance only with the approval of the relative provinces.

Clause 3 deals with the contributions to the 1820 Settlers Memorial by the provinces. As hon. members are aware the 1820 Settlers Memorial Trust is responsible for the erection and upkeep of the 1820 Settlers Memorial, a national monument in honour of those of our forefathers who are known as the 1820 Settlers. The Government has set an example by donating R 100,000 to this fund, and the provinces felt that they also wanted to contribute towards this fund. Unfortunately their request last year reached the Government too late for the introduction of the necessary legislation, but the Government informed the provinces that it would approach Parliament during the present Session to obtain the required authority with retrospective effect. It is therefore now being proposed that the provinces be granted authority, with retrospective effect from 1 April 1962, to contribute towards the funds of this trust and to incur expenditure outside their respective provinces in connection with the 1820 Settlers Memorial. On several occasions in the past similar authority was granted to the provinces, for instance in the case of the Van Riebeeck Festival, during 1952, and the Centenary Exhibition in Rhodesia during 1953.

I now come to Clause 4 which deals with the safeguarding against prescription of land vested in or under the control of local authorities. In the State Land Disposal Act of 1961 (Act No. 4) provision is made to safeguard State land being acquired by prescription, because the State is the owner of large pieces of land which are sometimes situated in inaccessible mountains and which often cannot be controlled as far as trespassing is concerned. The administrators of the four provinces decided at a conference in August 1961 to request the Government to empower the provinces by way of an amendment to the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendmend Act to make ordinances whereby land under the control of local authorities can be safeguarded from being acquired by prescription. The administrators are of the opinion that local authorities are no more able than the State to take adequate precautions against the acquisition of land by prescription under their control, as for instance nature reserves, parks, open spaces, roads and streets. The administrators are, in addition to their responsibility, to further the interests of local authorities, directly concerned with this as the provincial administrations contribute large amounts towards certain local projects, the cost of which are often increased by compensation for prescription claims. Section 3 of the State Land Disposal Act of 1961 stipulates that no person may acquire State land by prescription after a period of ten years has lapsed from the date of commencement of the Act. At the time when the State Land Disposal Bill was introduced it had no provision for a grace period of ten years, but this was incorporated in the Senate by the Minister of Lands to meet the bona fide occupiers of State land whose occupations stretched over a long period. Otherwise a person who had only a few years left to complete the period of possessive prescription would experience that his whole life’s task was of no avail. The Act came into operation on 28 June 1961. In other words, any person whose period of acquiring State land by prescription is completed before 28 June 1971 will retain his rights. It is therefore suggested in Clause 4 of this Bill that the provinces be empowered to make ordinances to safeguard against the acquisition of land by prescription which is vested in or under the control of or which is being held in trust for a local authority after the expiration of a period of ten years from the date of the coming into operation of the ordinances.

I think the hon. Deputy Minister has given a very clear picture of the contents of the four clauses of this Bill. On this side of the House we are prepared to support the second reading, but there are one or two points that I would like to have cleared up, and perhaps when the hon. Deputy Minister replies he will make a point clear in regard to Clause 1. I listened carefully, but I did not quite follow the hon. Minister in regard to the new (d). Sir, in the case of 1 (b) it is clear now that there will be established a central fund for the purpose of paying scholarships and bursaries and so forth, the training fees for certain persons who wish to increase their qualifications, mostly academic qualifications, pursuant to their employment in the service of the State. I understood from the hon. Minister that in the case of sub-section (d) that was put in because there was no intention to deprive the provinces of their right to make such grants themselves to people who, outside of nurses and teachers, are in the service of the province. In terms of this clause, the province concerned would first have to get the approval of the Treasury, after consultation with the Public Service Commission. The crisp point I would like to ask the hon. Minister to reply to is: As this clause is set out now, does it mean that, subject to the approval of the Treasury, after consultation with the Public Service Commission, there is no hindrance on the provinces continuing to subsidize by way of scholarships or bursaries the training of people who are within their own service other than teachers and nurses? I understood the hon. Minister to say that that was the case, but I would like to make sure, because in common with other parts of the administration, the provinces of course are woefully short of trained personnel, and it seems to me that where we have people who are willing to go on with their training after they have come into the Civil Service, and who are willing instead of taking time off to go to bioscopes and so forth, to get down to studies so as to increase their academic qualifications and professional qualifications, we should encourage that by all means in our power. I can quite realize that as far as State Departments are concerned, it might be extremely desirable, and in fact we on this side have no quarrel with the idea that there should be a fund from which will be defrayed for the purpose of the Civil Service and State Departments such expenditure as may be necessary to give these young folk that further training and education. But where it comes to the provinces, their requirements vary, and one is not able to, shall I say, earmark the students, you cannot put a brand on them, they are people whom you want for a specific purpose and who are willing to train themselves for that purpose in a provincial administration, which has many and varied interests and activities. For that purpose some provinces will find that they require people of a certain type and certain training, and others will be requiring people of a different type and a different training. And if it is clear that the rights of the provinces remain undiminished to provide for the necessary funds to assist in the training of these people, we will find this provision satisfactory.

In regard to Clause 2, the payment for the advancement of opera, music, the stage and ballet, and so on, by means of performances in the province in question, this is an issue that has been knocking at the door of the provinces for very many long years. This is a permissive clause, and I think the hon. Deputy Minister will realize that its implementation by the provincial administrations is going to cause a considerable amount of administrative difficulties, and that we are going to have the same trouble that we have had in regard to other matters, namely that if you get a province that is financially well off, if it has got members on the Executive Committee who are patrons of the arts, and there is a feeling that the money is there and that something could be done in the way set out in this particular clause, and if they cut the ice and create a precedent, then the other provinces will have it quoted against them and they will be asked “Why do you not appreciate art and why are you not prepared to assist us in the same way as province X is assisting?” You will get that kind of thing very easily. I say it has been knocking at the door for many years. It was knocking at the door when I was in Pietermaritzburg, and that is 15 or 16 years ago, and it had been knocking on the door for a long time before that. The trouble will not fall on the shoulders of the hon. Minister. May I say that I congratulate him in this respect that he has passed the buck, the ballet buck, to the provinces, and he will stand back with a halo around his head as being the bringer of all good things to the arts, and he will have none of the troubles of administering and finding the money to meet the demands of these people, more so by reason of the fact that, as the Minister quite frankly said, of course any money so paid out will not rank for subsidy from the Central Government. It will be on the provinces’ own shoulders for them to find the money from their own taxpayers.

With regard to Clause 3, I am going in the main to leave it to the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) to put the point of this side of the House. I know that this is a matter which is very dear to his heart, and I will leave it to him to say those things that represent the view of this side of the House.

With regard to Clause 4, the right to acquire land by prescription, I wish to say that I think we were all pleased when in the Other Place, in 1961, the hon. Minister of Lands provided a ten-year period during which persons who were acquiring a right by residential servitude, or by occupational servitude, should be given the opportunity for that right to come to fruition for the necessary period (I think 33 years), to give them an opportunity to assess the position. If the period would not come to fruition within the period of ten years, they would have to make some other arrangements. Here the Bill is before us at the request of the municipalities, and I know that many of them have had very great difficulties. We have had difficulties as far as the provinces are concerned as well as the Government, but our interests were taken care of at the same time that the interests of the provinces were taken care of in 1961 when a Bill was passed. Now the municipalities are in this trouble, and I again would like to say that I think that a ten-year period in which people who are occupying municipal land will be given the opportunity to assess the position is satisfactory. If the period of prescription is not going to be completed during the ten years ahead of us, then it is up to them to do something about it. Acquisition of land by prescription, Sir, is a very old concept, but it is a concept that is falling into disuse in terms of modern conditions, and probably quite rightly particularly where public-owned land is concerned. But curious circumstances arise from time to time where pieces of land are completely lost sight of for one reason or another, and now the municipalities will have the same powers as the provincial administrations and the Government in that respect as they are also experiencing the same difficulties. Therefore we want to give this Bill our blessing and we have no objection to the second reading being taken.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House deeply appreciate the stimulation the provisions of Clause 3 of this Bill will give to the 1820 Settlers Monument project. The descendants of the 1820 Settlers to-day claim to stand on the same national footing as if their forebears had landed with Van Riebeeck. Although they came over 160 years later and only comprised about one-tenth of the White population they came here as the second wave of civilization to our eastern frontier, after the Afrikaans pioneers. In the wake of the 1820 Settlers followed the privileges of modern civilization, self-government, religious and educational advancement, agriculture, trade, industrial development and, above all, the unity of our races in a new homeland. Since that time we have drifted apart, but this monument is designed to be the third wave to ensure that our traditions and history will not only be depicted as part of our South African structure, but will further the cause of unity, on which the maintenance of our Western civilization depends. In the national drive for contributions from all sections of the community, and to ensure building a people’s monument, it is of the utmost importance that our provincial councils are aligned with this idealism. The 1820 Settlers Monument Trust is deeply appreciative that the combined provincial councils made representations for this legislation, and it is also grateful to the Prime Minister and his Cabinet for promoting this great endeavour and for introducing the Bill now before us. I can assure hon. members that the proposed 1820 Settlers Monument will not only be designed to depict 1820 Settler history, but to open up avenues for research into a period of our history which is now being neglected. Amongst its component parts this monument will ensure the preservation of the rich and unique indigenous flora of the Eastern Province in a 62-acre garden. It will comprise a museum for which relics are waiting, and there will be a library. It will be a utility monument in that it will provide for and inspire advancement and enlightenment, and it will even promote the arts and sciences. An organ will be installed in the central structure. Contributions from individuals and institutions will be inscribed in a golden book, and out of the inspiration of the past and mutual pride in our common tradition, this monument, to the 1820 Settlers, will be a beacon indicating the course along which we as a nation should shape our future.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, I rise to talk on this Bill in the interests of the Coloured people whom I represent. Clause 1 deals with the opportunities which will now be afforded to the Public Service Commission to assist persons to study for professional and technical posts. Take the case of a Coloured man who wishes to take up a professional legal post. Apparently there is no opportunity for such a person to obtain a bursary. Whilst I am very happy indeed that this Bill will now enable White youths to obtain financial assistance, I do feel that the time has arrived that there should also be a quid pro quo for Coloured students who are most anxious to become professional men. Particularly is that the case in view of the fact that the Minister of Justice last year indicated that if there were Coloured men who were proficient in the legal profession he would be only too happy to have them in his employ. Unfortunately there appears to be no opportunity for these Coloured youths to obtain bursaries and there is a bottle-neck. I hope that the Minister will try to persuade the Cabinet and the Minister of Coloured Affairs, who unfortunately is not here now, to give the same opportunities to Coloured youths. Many of them are most anxious but they just do not have the opportunity. It seems unfair, and it is to be regretted that the same opportunities are not afforded to the Coloured youths as are now to be afforded to the Whites.

In regard to Clause 2, I remember that two or three years ago when I was still a member of the Cape Town City Council, a conference was held in Pretoria in connection with a South African dramatic or operatic society, with the same object in view as indicated in Clause 2. Here again I want to ask the Minister whether there are any strings attached in this clause to the benefits which will be given to these organizations which are recognized by the Minister as advancing the interests of ballet or art by means of performances. The conference in Pretoria failed, I believe, because there were strings attached. Those strings were that these performances could not be given before mixed audiences. Will the hon. the Minister tell me whether any of these organizations which are to be assisted by the provincial councils through the Government will be entitled to perform to mixed audiences, and if they do not agree to that condition, whether their subsidies or grants will be withdrawn. We have a case already on record of perhaps the most outstanding operatic company in South Africa, the Eoan Group.

What has that to do with the Bill?

It has this to do with the Bill, that financial assistance will now be given to dramatic or ballet societies for performances, and the Coloured people in every province contribute to the revenue of South Africa in more than one way, and I therefore want to know from the Government whether this Bill will attach any strings in respect of the type of audience to which these people can play. The Bill is silent on the point. I was dealing with the Eoan Group and I referred to it as perhaps the most outstanding operatic company in South Africa. There is not a person in this House who can deny that they have raised the cultural standards of South Africa in opera. They are outstanding in their performances and they are known throughout South Africa, but they had to paddle their own canoe because of the fact that the subsidy which the Government gave them was withdrawn because they refused to comply with the condition that they should not play to mixed audiences. It is germane to this Bill to point out to the Minister and to the Government that this cultural organization has been able to surmount all its difficulties because of the support given to them by the people of South Africa, Coloured and White. They have played to mixed audiences and nobody has been prejudiced by it, but the Government refuses to recognize this brilliant cultural organization because it insists on conditions which the public of South Africa, I venture to say, reject. I think it would be a thousand pities if the same conditions are going to be attached to the provinces as have been attached to the Eoan Group. I should like the Minister to tell me whether that is so, because if so, I should like to move an amendment to make it applicable to all people, that everyone who wants to attend a performance can do so, and that there will be no division on lines of colour.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support this measure has received in this House. To me it was like a fresh breath of air to hear the appreciative words expressed by the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker). When you are told on the one hand how much the Government has done and you see on the other hand the measure of co-operation which exists, it seems that after 300 years we have at least made some progress. A few matters have been raised to which I should like to reply briefly.

I should like to tell the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) that it is not the intention to deprive the provinces of the right to contribute towards the study fund of their own officials whom they would like to subsidize. They will be able to do so subject, of course, to consultation with the Public Service Commission. That is merely the procedure but it does not affect the principle that they will be allowed to contribute to the studies of their own officials.

Then they will not have to pay it into a central pool?

No, not after obtaining the permission of the Public Service Commission. The hon. member also referred to the performing arts and expressed the opinion that we have passed the buck to the provinces. Well, all I can say about this passing of the buck is that I hope the provinces will handle this with discretion, because I think the performing arts need some local stimulation. So I hope they will treat this matter with enthusiasm and with the necessary discretion.

*The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) is very concerned about those Coloureds who, on the one hand, would not get enough bursaries and, on the other hand, would not get sufficient recognition by mixed audiences. As far as bursaries are concerned there is nothing in this measure which limits them to Whites only; they are there for all deserving cases and if there is a deserving case of a Coloured in the employ of the province his application for a bursary will enjoy the same consideration as that of a White person. As far as mixed audiences are concerned, the hon. member wanted to know “whether there are any strings attached to this clause”. No, I am unaware of any strings attaching to it. All I want to say is that it will be the task of the provincial authorities concerned to decide. It does not state that it is limited to White audiences, but I do not hesitate to express the hope that where it will be the responsibility of the provincial authorities to decide about a performance they will give due consideration to the racial pattern in this country and our traditions. I hope they will do so and I think they can do so without doing any injustice to any Coloured audience. They can do it in such a way, for instance, that it will not offend the White audiences in Cape Town but that it will be a pleasure for them to attend these performances and at the same time give the Coloureds the opportunity to see the same performance. I have no doubt about it that they will exercise sound discretion.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I should like to discuss the question of the medium of instruction under the Minister’s policy, although I wonder—I hope the Minister will enlighten me—whether it is worth while doing so at this stage, particularly when one bears in mind the fact that he will soon have to relinquish Bantu Education as the result of the new legislation that we passed recently. I cannot pursue this matter but I just want to refer to this in passing; as a matter of fact the Minister himself admitted it.

Only in the Transkei.

I am only talking about the Transkei at the moment. Perhaps you will permit me, Sir, to say a few words about the thorny educational problem of the medium of instruction, particularly in pursuance of this enlightening document that we have before us, the report of the Commission of Inquiry in connection with the use of the mother tongue as the medium of instruction in the Transkeian primary schools.

But before dealing with that I should like to refer to this report that we have before us, particularly in connection with certain figures and statements which appear in it, and with special reference to English A, the teaching of it and the quality of the tuition. I want to refer particularly to page 3. In paragraph (e) it is stated that the percentage of failures in English A in the Junior Certificate examinations in 1959 was 5.3, and in comparison with that, the percentage of failures amongst White children in the Cape Province was 1 per cent, while in the case of Coloured schools it was 3 per cent. In 1960 the percentage of failures in Bantu schools was 2.4, 4 per cent in the case of Whites and 7 per cent in the case of Coloureds. In 1961, the last year in respect of which the figures are given, the percentage of failures in the Bantu schools was 2.4, in White schools 4 per cent and in the case of the Coloureds 5 per cent. It is evident from this that the standard of teaching of English must have been very high and excellent if these figures are correct, and I have no reason to believe that they are not correct; secondly, the figure compares very favourably with the number of passes or failures in the White schools and in the Coloured schools; and, thirdly, what disturbs me is the fact that this rather contradicts what the Commission says in connection with the extremely poor quality of English in the Bantu schools. On page 4 the Commission says that the standard of English is extremely low. I leave it at that and I should like to hear the Minister’s views in that regard.

I should like now to deal with the question of the medium of instruction. The Commission deals fairly fully with the question of the medium of instruction, and in this connection if we want to dictate to the Transkei as far as the medium of instruction in concerned, or if we want to give the Transkei the best advice in connection with this matter, I should like to issue a note of warning that we must be careful, particularly having regard to what is stated at pages 17 and 18. You will permit me, Sir, to quote a few extracts from those two pages. Inter alia the Commission says [Translation]—

Lower down the page it says—

Then in paragraph 7 the Commission says—

I assume that by “most people” the Commission means the majority of those who gave evidence. In paragraph 7 (b) the Commission says—

Then I want to turn to page 31, question No. 9: “Sixty-three per cent supported the principle of mother tongue instruction only as far as Std. II.” Then I come to question 10: “Do you regard Xhosa as a suitable medium of instruction in primary schools?” Then there seems to be a contradiction of what was stated under question 9: “Up to Std. II 22.1 per cent —no, 34.1 per cent”. Then it continues: “If your reply to No. 10 above is ‘no’ can Xhosa be developed into a suitable medium of instruction in primary schools?” To this question 25 per cent replied “yes”, 49.9 per cent replied “no” and 25 per cent were uncertain. Surely that is inconsistent! The arguments advanced here are conflicting.

As far as we Afrikaans-speaking people are concerned the position is that we pleaded right from the start that the mother tongue, or the language of the family, should be introduced as the medium of instruction. That was opposed. Here we have the peculiar position that we want to introduce the mother tongue as the medium of instruction but that the people concerned oppose it; they do not want it. [Interjections.] It seems to me that they want us to recommend that Xhosa should not be introduced as the medium of instruction; in other words, that unlike ourselves they do not want that principle to be introduced. [Time limit.]

The previous speaker has referred to this very important document before us, this report of the Commission of Inquiry, and no matter how he tried to put it anybody who has read this report calmly and objectively will have concluded that it is nothing else than a great triumph of teaching through the medium of the mother tongue. He has referred to pages 17 and 18 but if I can take this House step by step through the report hon. members will agree that apart from what a large number of Bantu parents may say, educationists emphasize the absolute necessity that if you want to offer real education teaching should be through the medium of the mother tongue. On page 18, in support of his attitude, the commission quoted from the memoranda by Dr. P. A. Duminy of the Educational Faculty at the University College of Fort Hare in which he says the following—

The commission then finds that the reasons for mother tongue education are so strong that they are unassailable and that if in fact the mother tongue is not available as a medium of teaching it must be developed until it is suitable for that purpose or else another mother tongue should be accepted. That is why I say that this report is nothing else than one of the strongest proofs of that which we have always pleaded for on this side of the House, namely, that the Bantu child should be educated through the medium of the language which he best understands, namely, through the medium of his mother tongue. Other speakers who follow me will get deeper into this matter. I just want to emphasize that as far as I am concerned, this report proves three things very conclusively: In the first instance, the necessity for mother tongue education and in the second place the progress which is made in the field of Bantu education with the development of the language and the actual training of the Bantu child in developing his insight and in the third place the necessity for research and planning in the various educational fields which have been opened up. Where I refer to these three things I want to plead in the first instance this afternoon with the hon. the Minister to see to it that his Department develops along much stronger lines. We are pleading for more experts at the head office of Bantu education with a view to planning. The progress which is being made is so extensive and so comprehensive that you require many more experts to undertake the planning. I speak subject to correction but I understand that there is only one professional assistant with five assistants at the moment; the hon. the Minister can tell us whether that is right. That is by far insufficient for this gigantic building programme which must be tackled. Let me mention just two things in support of this: The Bantu Education Advisory Board will shortly submit suggestions which will call for investigation. That Advisory Board will be an active board which will make many suggestions in connection with the transfer of education to the Transkei and experts are required to give advice in the various fields to effect that transfer. That is why the hon. the Minister will have to see to it that more professional men are appointed to his Department. Furthermore, one of the most important branches of education remains technical training to which reference is also made in this report, and with a view to the establishment of border industries it will be necessary for many more Bantu children to undergo technical training. More should be done in regard to the technical training of the Bantu child. Then you have the question of the establishment of psychological services. Every educationist will agree that it is impossible to carry out a real educational programme unless you introduce the necessary psychological services and we know that the multitude of tests which we can apply in the case of the White child to-day will be of no value whatsoever in respect of the Bantu child because his reaction is totally different and his problems should be approached in a different light. The tests which we apply in the case of the White child cannot be applied to the Bantu child. The tests in the case of the Bantu child must be standardized and that is why it is necessary, as far as psychological services are concerned, that much more should be done. At the moment only a small team is active in that field where a great amount of work has to be done. [Time limit.]

I want to point out to the hon. member who has just sat down that so far I have expressed no opinion in connection with the question of the medium of instruction. All I did was to warn that we must be careful. He says that all the experts recognize that the use of the mother tongue as the medium of instruction is the only principle that ought to be applied. There I differ from him, of course. Although we in South Africa have always recognized the mother tongue or the home language as the medium of instruction and although it has become traditional to do so in this country, I know of no scientific ground on which that is done. Other methods are followed with great success in other countries of the world as far as the medium of instruction is concerned. May I refer the Committee to what is being done in certain countries of the world. I do not want to lay down a hard and fast rule here; I have already explained what we do in South Africa. I repeat that in South Africa it has become the convention, where it is possible to do so, to use the mother tongue as the medium of instruction. We encourage the parents in this direction; I personally did so for many years. We advise parents to have their children educated, as far as possible, through the mother tongue as the medium of instruction, and it seems to me that that is what is suggested here, but there are other countries in the world where this principle does not apply, and as far as I can ascertain the fact that this principle is not applied has no detrimental effect on the children.

In Quebec in Canada, in Southern Canada, for example this principle is not followed.

Is that not perhaps the reason why there is trouble between the French and the English there?

I do not know that there is more trouble in Canada between the French-and the English-speaking Canadians than there is in this country, for example between the Afrikaans-speaking and the English-speaking sections. I know of no trouble there at the moment, but what I am discussing here is the principle; I am not discussing any quarrel between two racial groups. In Quebec we find that the language of the Church becomes the medium of instruction. The language of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada is French, and all children from Roman Catholic families are educated through the medium of French.

But they are not all French.

All English-speaking children who come from Roman Catholic families are educated through the medium of French.

I should like to know from the hon. member whether he is aware of the resolution of the International Conference in Brussels in 1948 with regard to mother tongue education and the fact that they recommended it?

I have no quarrel with that resolution. I have already said that that has become the convention in South Africa but we cannot contend that because it has become the tradition, it is scientifically and educationally correct and that it is the only correct method that can be followed, because in other countries such as Canada, for example, a different principle is followed.

But let us look at the position in Switzerland. There you have three different language groups and the medium of instruction depends on the language of the municipality in which the child finds himself. If the language of the Municipality is French, then French becomes the medium of instruction in the schools in that municipality. Where the language of the municipality is German or Italian, then German or Italian becomes the medium of instruction. If a child is French-speaking in a German municipality, then the medium of instruction is German. If a child in a French area is Italian-speaking, then its medium of instruction is French. As far as Switzerland is concerned therefore there is no fixed principle of mother-tongue education. As the Commission points out in its report, there is no scientific basis for our view in connection with the use of the home language as the medium of instruction.

But the best example is America. There we have millions of Italians and Germans and French and Irish, but there the language of the country is the medium of instruction, and I refuse to accept that the American nation is inferior because of that fact or that the American children do not receive education which compares very favourably with the best in the world.

What are you trying to prove?

The point I want to make is that we should not try to dictate to the Transkei what its medium of instruction should be; that we should rather advise them and that we should also bring to their notice the fact which I have just mentioned here, and that is that scientifically it is not necessarily a mistake not to introduce the child’s mother tongue as the medium of instruction. I repeat that that has become the convention in South Africa but there are no scientific grounds, no educational grounds, to support. Personally I too say that we should continue with mothertongue instruction in South Africa, particularly in the early stages of the child’s schooling. Let us also advise the Bantu to use the mother tongue as the medium of instruction in the initial stages, but we must not dictate to them what they should do. We should leave the decision to them. The vast majority of the Xhosa people in the Transkei do not want Xhosa as the medium of instruction. They want to use one of our official languages as the medium of instruction. It is in that spirit that I put forward the suggestion that we should view this matter in a broad perspective and we should not try to force upon the Transkeian Territory what has become the traditional policy in South Africa.

The hon. member will forgive me if I say that I could not make head or tail of his argument. I think his argument amounts to this that he does not want Xhosa to be introduced as the medium of instruction. If there are Xhosa who do not want to have their own language as medium they have simply been misled just as many Afrikaners were misled in the past. There was a time when it was considered etiquette to write letters in English only and when English was preached everywhere in our churches. People did not know any better and they were misled all the time as they still are in Natal to-day. A great number of the Afrikaans parents there are being misled. And that is precisely what the hon. member wants; he says we should only give them advice but that we should leave it to them to decide. I do not know how the hon. member can quote America as an example. What is the percentage of German-speaking people, for example, in America as against its own population?

And Italian?

Yes, take the Italians and the Dutch and the other races; what percentage do they constitute of the whole population? Here we practically have an equal number of Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people and that is why we have two languages here. But where we have two languages we still say it is sound principle to use the mother tongue as medium. I again want to return to the Brussels conference. Mr. Chairman, the representatives to that conference were not picked indiscriminatorily; you had there the most outstanding educationists in the whole world and they unanimously decided that the only sound educational principle was that the child should be educated through the medium of his mother tongue.

Throughout?

Yes, throughout. You cannot quote a country like America as an example. The accepted language in America is English; that is the official language and here in South Africa the two official languages are Afrikaans and English; in the Transkei the official language is Xhosa.

And English and Afrikaans.

Yes quite right, but the mother tongue is Xhosa. No Xhosa will tell you, Sir, that his mother tongue is English or Afrikaans, although they are official languages there. The mother tongue is Xhosa there. Why does the hon. member want to put a spanner into the works?

No, I only want to give them advice.

No, the hon. member wants to put a spanner in the works. He wants to wreck education in the Transkei. Why does he, as an educationist who has advocated mother tongue education so strongly in the past, try to oppose this sound policy? No, I am sorry that I have to say this to the hon. member but he is once again trying to throw a spanner in the works as far as the development of the Transkei is concerned.

May I claim the privilege of the second half-hour? Firstly, I want to reply to what the hon. member for Vryheid (Mr. D. J. Potgieter) just said when he compares the question of the home-language medium, as adopted by the Brussels Conference, with which I must immediately say that I am not fully conversant, with the position as it has developed in South Africa. I am perfectly certain that the Brussels Conference could not have been considering the position of a tribal society with a vernacular which had not even, until recently, reached the stage of being a written tongue nor, I am sure, were they considering the position of a society which was rapidly attempting to adapt itself to modern industrial society and the needs of such a society. It is quite a different proposition to discuss the need to educate children through the mother tongue in a society where modern industrialism has already developed and where the people have developed along with it. But here we have a completely different situation. We have a tribal society with a vernacular completely unsuited to the needs of a modern society, and these people themselves are not striving to return to tribal society but quite the contrary; they are seeking as fast as possible to be absorbed in the industrial society where they know that they and their children will have the best economic opportunities. Sir, I may not know anything about the Brussels Conference but I do know something about the desires of African teachers because I have made it my business to attend conferences of African school teachers. I know that the almost unanimous opinion of the teachers, certainly in the urban areas, is that the vernacular should not be used over and above the first few standards, where they admit that it is easier to start off in the mother tongue of the child, but they want a progressive discarding of mother-tongue vernacular in the higher classes—not, as is the policy of this Government, an ever-increasing use of the vernacular as the medium of instruction. The reason why those teachers want that, Sir, is very clear. They have stated over and over again that their own language is simply not capable of being adapted to the needs of a modern industrial society; that they do not have the necessary vocabulary and the necessary scientific background.

Were those not exactly the same arguments used against Afrikaans at one stage?

I think the hon. member is doing Afrikaans an injustice because Afrikaans is based on Western tongues. It is based on all the root tongues of the German, English and Dutch languages. These are European tongues of countries which themselves were being industrialized. Afrikaans was an adaptation of various tongues, and it was a developing language. You cannot compare Xhosa, which is a vernacular with no roots in Europe, with no roots in the industrial and developing civilizations, with a language like Afrikaans. Afrikaans had a very much broader field from which to choose for its evolution and for its new vocabulary. [Interjection.] Sir, I have answered the hon. member’s question and I hope he will now keep quiet and allow me to get on with my speech. The vernacular is in a different position altogether, and therefore I disagree entirely with the argument of the hon. member for Vryheid.

I now want to come to the Bantu Education Department per se. I want to raise several matters with the hon. the Minister and first of all I want him please to explain to this Committee—and I hope I will have a more courteous reply from him than I had from his colleague in a previous debate this afternoon— why it is that his Department in two previous years according to the last available reports of the Auditor-General, has under-spent the amount voted to his Department by nearly R2,000,000. He might have seen an article referring to this interesting phenomenon where the Department under-spent the amounts voted to it by this great amount, a Department which has a need for expanding its services, not for contracting its services, an article written by an authority on the subject, Dr. Ellen Hillman. I want to know why this should have happened. Many of us in this House have repeatedly complained of the manifestly unfair position whereby the amount spent from general revenue on Bantu education has been frozen at R13,000,000. I want to say at once that I am very glad that this year a change has been made in that higher education has now been removed from that limit of R13,000,000, so we have a little more for primary and secondary education for African children, but of course, the basis remain R13,000,000 for primary and secondary education. It is a frozen amount, and I have pointed out and other members have pointed out over and over again that it is manifestly unfair to make the remaining amount come out of taxes paid by the poorest section of the community. This does not apply to any other colour group in South Africa. It does not apply to the White group or the Indian group or the Coloured group, although fears have been expressed in this regard since Coloured education has been taken over by the Department of Coloured Affairs. There is no such provision whereby the colour group concerned has to provide out of direct taxation the amount to be spent on education. I think it goes against all the principles of equitable budgeting that the poorest group should be responsible for any additional amount spent on education. What astonishes me is that despite this amount and despite the fact that anybody who knows anything about Bantu education knows about the overcrowding in the schools, knows about the numbers of children clamouring for admission into the schools and who cannot be admitted because of lack of accommodation, knows that teachers have to cope with 50 to 55 children in a class, that teachers have to repeat sessions for children, that books and writing materials are severely restricted and that in fact there is no provision for the free supply of books to children, other than language books. Yet the Department has underspent the amounts voted to it for the years 1960-1 and 1961-2 by R2,000,000. The amount underspent in 1961-2 was R968,751, and of that amount, according to the Auditor-General’s Report, R160,000 was underspent on supplies and services. The Accounting officer tells us that the decrease was due to savings in respect of school requisites and the maintenance of schools and hostels. Why could this money not have been spent? The Minister could not have found it difficult to have found schools which are in a deteriorating condition and which are terribly inadequately supplied with the necessary school requisites on which he could have spent this amount of roughly R969,000. It is palpably absurd to say that there was any reason for such savings. Hardly a week goes by without the newspapers coming out with some story about these appallingly dilapidated structures in which children are having lessons—children sitting on the floors, children using broken slates. I have three examples here which I have simply taken from a big file of cuttings which I have on this matter. Here is one quotation: “School for many means a seat on the floor. Pupils being taught in unfurnished classrooms”. As I say, hardly a week goes by without some article appearing in the newspapers showing that the schools are indeed very badly furnished with the necessary requisites.

Which newspapers?

English-language papers. I am sure the hon. member will agree that these are not slanted reports. If he is not sure of this, I can take him to schools where he will see that the conditions are indeed as reported.

Anything that appears in the English-language Press is prima facie slanted.

The hon. member must not reveal his blank prejudices in such a way! Yet we have this report saying that zealous officials in the Minister’s Department have managed to save R160,000 on supplies and services. They have managed to save R18,000 out of the miserably depleted school feeding fund; the whole amount allocated is R80,000 and out of that miserable amount for school feeding they have managed to save R18,000 and the explanation given is that school boards have elected to give up school feeding in the interest of education. Of course, why they should ever have had to choose between supplying education and supplying a meal for children who are grossly malnourished, is quite beyond me. No doubt this is another way of reducing racial friction; simply let the school boards decide whether they would rather feed the children or supply more educational facilities. But even so this R18,000 was saved. Could the Minister not have said to one of these schools, “I have an additional amount, out of the R80,000 allocated for school feeding; you need not make the choice; your school is situated in a particularly poor area; here is R18,000, which otherwise would go back to general revenue; you may have this for school feeding”.

The hon. the Minister told a meeting in Bloemfontein in October last year that there was now 3,000 Bantu school teachers who did not receive a subsidy from the State and who were paid for by the Bantu themselves. Here again, why should the poorest section of the community have to pay for its own teachers? Why has this amount of nearly R2,000,000, according to the recent reports of the Auditor-General, been surrendered to general revenue. Why could the Minister not have spent that on salaries for Bantu teachers instead of making the Bantu communities pay for their teachers? School boards were asked to provide bursaries for indigent students out of the funds that they collect from parents, and yet out of R40,000 that was set aside for the provision of bursaries, half has not been spent; half is going back to general revenue. Why could the Minister not have found indigent students to whom he could have paid out money for bursaries? Because I can assure the Minister that there is no shortage of indigent Bantu children desperately wanting bursaries to enable them to continue with their studies. In fact there was an article in the Star of 11 January of this year which tells the story of a huge pile of applications for bursaries from hundreds of African children, received by a private bursary fund. The Isaacson Memorial Bursary Fund, sits there with its committee sifting out hundreds upon hundreds of applications from African children for bursaries, but the hon. the Minister’s Department is unable to find children to whom it can give bursaries out of this amount of R40,000. Only R20,000 have been spent. The same thing applies to this question of school books. I asked the hon. the Minister whether there were any funds for the provision of books, which after all are a vital necessity for children attending school and he told me that he was now giving instruction that indigent children could apply for books. I do not need to point out that White children, of course, are in fact supplied with books free of charge. The African children only get a free issue of books as far as language text books are concerned. Again may I suggest to the hon. the Minister that instead of turning this money back to general revenue, he should instruct his Department to make available more books to children free of charge. I want to point out that of the total amount of R21,000,000 which is spent on Black education, as against R97,000,000 which is spent on White children, it is absolutely absurd that nearly R1,000,000 last year, and R1,000,000 the year before should have been surrendered to the general revenue account.

Then I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he thinks it is equitable that while expenditure per White child has risen from R99.84 per annum in 1950 to an estimated R163 per child per annum in 1959, the expenditure per African school child has steadily been going down. I want to point out that when Bantu Education was introduced in 1954, the expenditure per Bantu child was R17 per annum. According to an answer given to me by the Minister on 5 March this year in relation to expenditure last year, I note that the expenditure per child dropped to R12.03 per child. I might say that this figure would have been even less had the 120,000 children who are going to church and private schools been included in the Minister’s Estimate. I want to ask the Minister whether the Government has discovered some miraculous way whereby education can be improved or whereby the quality is not reduced while the amount of expenditure per child is reduced? Will the hon. the Minister tell us the secret of his success in this regard. If in fact he has discovered a secret, why then is this secret not passed on to the Department which deals with the education of other races? As far as I am concerned there can be no such secret. The real answer, of course, is that the quality of education given to the Bantu children, despite the flowing tributes paid by the hon. member there earlier this afternoon, is unfortunately deteriorating and not improving. There is a tendency in this House for people constantly to say that because South Africa spends more per head on education for African children than any other African Territory, that is in itself testimony that this must be the very best education that is provided for African children. So I could use the same standards; presumably, the fact that only R12.3 is spent per child this education must be a good deal inferior to the education which was given to a child when R17 was spent in 1954. But I do not agree with the argument that South Africa is doing so very well because, as I have pointed out over and over again, you must relate expenditure to income. It is just as silly, I believe, to compare the amount spent by Kenya for example which has a national income of R64,000,000 per annum as compared with South Africa which has a national income of R665,000,000 per annum as it would be to compare the expenditure on entertainments for example by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) with somebody whose income is 100 times less than his. So this is a meaningless comparison. By real international standards South Africa should be spending 5 per cent of her national income on the education of her children. Actually we are spending 3 per cent on the education of our children and on the education of African children we are spending less than one-third of 1 per cent of our national income. These are the international standards by which I think we should judge what we are doing.

What should be concerning the hon. Minister is not so much how to increase and expand the vernacular education, of how to reduce the amount spent per capita on Bantu children, how to save money on his Bantu Education Vote, how to turn back hundreds and thousands of rand which this Vote has voted him on what I believe to be a hopelessly inadequate budget, but the fact that 1,500,000 African children are not attending school at all. 1,600,000 are attending school. Is that right? The hon. Minister looks surprised. [Interjection.] All right I stand corrected for 100,000. But a little less than half the number who should be attending school, are not attending school. I hope the hon. Minister understands me correctly: I am not referring to the pre-school age children but those who should be attending school; in other words, children of school-going age. The vast majority of African school children leave school after Std. IL I think the hon. the Minister gets my point now. My contention is that those children should not be leaving school but that they should continue to a higher standard of education. Not only to the benefit, may I point out, of those children themselves but to the benefit of the whole community because an educated community is a valuable community; it is valuable to everybody, White and non-White. An uneducated community is not a valuable community. It is therefore in the interests of everybody that we extend the years at school in the case of Bantu school-children. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that only about 70 per cent of the Bantu children get as far as Std. II; about 25 per cent of all the children at school are in Std. III and only 4 per cent finish Std. IV; 1 per cent reach matriculation standard. I am not going to go into the question of the number of failures. The number of failures in matriculation has decreased but nevertheless only 362 out of 911 who wrote matric passed. It is better than the 1960 figures where only 182 passed out of 957; it is better than the 1961 figure where 212 passed out of 839. The figure is still bad however, in that nearly two-thirds failed. As far as the other standards are concerned I am afraid the percentage of failures is also very high. I have the figures here. Of the 9,679 pupils who sat for J.C. only 5,224 passed. That is just over 50 per cent. Very few schools can say that they have had really good results. A high percentage did pass in Std. VI but it is not nearly as high as it should be; most of them passed in the second and third grade. I believe that the lower educational standard which shows itself in the high percentage of failures, especially in matriculation, must largely be attributed to the fact that the teaching is of a low standard. The teaching is of a low standard because the teachers are badly trained. The vast majority of teachers simply have Std. VI plus a lower primary teachers’ course of two years. I think the Minister has said that he intends doing away with this.

It has been done away with.

I am pleased to hear that but up to last year that was the position. The vast majority of teachers who are still teaching only have that qualification so it will take several years to derive any benefit from the new policy which is being pursued, namely to raise the standard of the teachers. Unfortunately, of the 28,000 teachers in the employ of the Department of Bantu Education, 15,000 only have the lower primary qualification so it will be some considerable time before the advantages of the new policy will be felt. 9,500 teachers out of 28,000 have the Std. VIII qualification and only 900 have matriculation and less than 900 have degrees. These figures, I am afraid, reflect a low standard of qualification amongst the teachers. Of the 3,964 teachers who are undergoing training at the present moment only 109 are taking post matriculation courses and only 27 are taking post-graduate courses. These are the Minister’s own figures. So I say there is no question about it but that the whole standard of teaching should be raised before we can raise the standard of education amongst the children. I sincerely hope the Minister will make bursaries available to teachers so that they can take post-graduate courses and that we will not be scanning the Auditor-General’s Report next year, or the one which we will shortly be scanning this year, only to find that the Minister has been able to save nearly R1,000,000 on the Vote which this House granted him for his Department. The hon. the Minister should spend every last penny of the money voted to him because enough money is not being voted if we wish to train and educate our Bantu population which, after all, is the source of our labour requirements and constitutes the greater percentage of our population. It is no good bluffing ourselves that we shall be able to do without Black workers in future. We all know that we are not going to do without them. Whether they are called migrant labourers or stabilized workers they are still going to be here and we want them to have the highest education possible. I am now talking from a purely economic point of view. Producing a semi-literate people with only superficial knowledge is not going to help us in South Africa to develop at the rate at which this country should be developed economically.

I want to point out that according to the Natural Resources Development Council it is estimated that in the year 2000 we shall have a population of 36,000,000 people of which 26,000,000, or 72 per cent, will be Africans and 5,000,000 will be White. The rest will be Coloured and Indian. In other words, of every seven South Africans one will be White, one will be Brown and five will be Black. So that we are going to be more than ever dependent on Black hands to see that this country develops economically if our standards of living are kept at a rising standard, which is what every single person in this House wants to see despite the ideological and philosophical adoption of policy. There will certainly never be enough Whites to do these jobs. As we know there is practically full employment amongst the Whites to-day. I believe the Minister’s policy requires radical changes if the lack of trained men in this country is not to retard our growth. It is absurd for us to go ahead with this concept that there should be no “place for the Native in the European community above the level of certain forms of labour” to quote a former Minister of Bantu Administration. That does not make sense in the face of what South Africa is going to require in the way of trained workers in future. We have vast schemes such as the Orange River scheme, Iscor, Sasol, let alone all the private schemes which are all going to require a greater integration of semi-skilled and skilled labour. We have not got the White hands to perform this labour. I can quote the statement made by Mr. Rousseau, the chairman and managing director of Sasol, in which he said that South Africa was in the throes of a labour crisis and that it was urgently necessary to train Bantu and other non-Whites to do more advanced work than they were doing now. He said that South Africa had a relatively small effective population. Unless you have a properly educated population you cannot train people to be semi-skilled and skilled technical workers. I believe that this semi-literate, illiterate Bantu population, trained through the medium of the vernacular, is grossly ill equipped to be trained to do any sort of technically skilled work. If South Africa wishes to develop at any decent sort of rate in any way which will measure up to our vast natural resources, we have to change our educational policy radically. I think changes are needed. Vernacular training should not be extended into the senior classes. On the contrary, the use of the two official languages, which are the languages of modern industrial South Africa, which is what Bantu teachers wish and which Bantu parents wish, is what should be the policy of the hon. the Minister. In other words, a decrease in the vernacular education and not an increase. Secondly, schools in urban areas should be encouraged and not discouraged. I want to ask the Minister what the idea is of proposing that the greater percentage of secondary schools should in future be located in rural areas. This is obviously absurd in view of the fact that industrial development in South Africa, despite border industries, will continue in the industrial complexes of South Africa simply because of the economic factors which always have and always will determine the location of industry in this country. It is absurd therefore to locate secondary schools in the rural areas. All these new restrictions on children returning to the urban areas after they have been to school in rural areas are going to militate against those children going on to secondary schools. They will be frightened to give up their stake in the urban areas by leaving those areas to attend rural schools because after a certain time they will not be allowed to come back. They are therefore not going to take advantage of the offer of secondary education in the rural areas. I do hope the hon. the Minister is not going to make this a basic principle of policy in regard to the establishment of secondary schools.

Finally. I want to emphasize again that better trained teachers have to be provided. I want to congratulate the Minister on the fact that he has already started on this particular pattern. I believe that is an improvement. But I want to point out to him that if he wants better trained teachers he must pay them better. The salaries of African teachers are appallingly low. Not only is it appallingly low in the case of those teachers who have Std. VI plus two years training but teachers in the higher grade are also very badly paid indeed compared with the teachers in the other racial groups who are not sufficiently paid either. So that shows you how underpaid I regard Bantu teachers to be. Again, the hon. Minister must not hand back any money to general revenue please. Let him rather spend that money on paying better salaries to those teachers who urgently require better salaries. Far more teachers are required; not only a better quality but far more teachers. It is absurd to have two sessions; it is a tremendous strain on teachers as anybody who has done any teaching will be ready to admit in this House. It is absurd to expect the teacher to take two sessions per day where classes range from 50 to 55 pupils. In that case it becomes practically an impossibility. No teacher can work efficiently in those circumstances. [Time limit.]

As I do not have the privilege of the half-hour I shall leave it to the hon. the Minister to reply to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) in regard to the amounts being spent and the numbers trained. I want to discuss the question of the language medium briefly. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) very pertinently put the question, by way of an interjection, whether all the arguments used by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) and the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) against the use of Bantu languages as the media of instruction at schools, were not the same arguments that were used formerly against Afrikaans. [Interjections.] Exactly the same arguments were used at the time. Afrikaans was then not sufficiently developed, they said; it was hardly a written language; it was a kitchen language, and for that reason it could not be used as the media of instruction! To-day they are singing a different tune. The reply of the hon. member for Houghton was that Afrikaans is derived from the Western languages, and that therefore it could be developed and used. Now I should like to ask her: What about Hebrew. Hebrew is not a Western language. Hebrew is one of the oldest and most ancient languages, but it is used in Israel as the medium of instruction at schools and in universities. It has no modern vocabulary. Words have to be coined. Their concepts are of things that existed before the time of Christ. They do not know what television is; they do not know what a radio or a telegram is; they had to coin words. But Hebrew is used because it is the mother tongue. I think that is a conclusive reply to the hon. member for Houghton.

I should like to revert to the question raised by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), namely that the University College of Fort Hare is a tribal college, and is so backward. I should like to point out to him that, in the first place—I am doing so as a member of the Council of that university college—Fort Hare has never in all its history had a teaching staff such as it has at the present time. Never in its history has it had anything approaching what it has to-day as far as its numbers and its standard are concerned. I should like to point out to him that the examinations of Fort Hare are to-day conducted by the University of South Africa.

That ensures that the standards at that university college to-day equal those of any White university in this country. Fort Hare to-day has many more faculties than it had before its transfer. I should like to read from the Year Book of the University College for 1963 [Translation]—

These are faculties which that university college never had before. When the hon. member for Kensington alleges that Fort Hare prior to its transfer to this Department was on the threshold of becoming an autonomous university, he is making a very big mistake. I can assure him that this hon. House would never have permitted Fort Hare, in the condition in which it was, to become an independent university. However, at the present time Fort Hare is moving rapidly towards becoming an independent university. The hon. member need only go to Fort Hare to see not only the new faculties which have been established, but the extra buildings that have been erected there, the bigger and better teaching staff, etc. The hon. member for Kensington should note what we inherited at Fort Hare. The other university colleges had the good fortune to be able to start from the beginning. We however inherited a lot of spoilt material, material we had to thin out and which we had to redirect into the right channels. The hon. member for Kensington referred almost with melancholy to Masombo who had committed sabotage. He was one of the lecturers; that was one of the things we inherited. Masombo always had those inclinations but he did not have the courage of Professor Matthews to admit it and to say that he would continue to belong to the A.N.C. He remained there as a lecturer and what did he do? For a long time we suspected that he was one of the inciters until the police, in an extremely smart piece of work, caught him in the act of sabotage committed by him. Now the hon. member for Kensington comes along and he is almost a defender of Masombo who committed that crime. That was one of the things we inherited; that was one of the things we had to contend with at Fort Hare. We had to tear ourselves away from the past of theirs. Today Fort Hare has a future such as it has never had before.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to say I am a defender of Masombo?

Did the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) say that the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) was a defender of Masombo?

I said he almost acts like a defender of Masombo.

[Inaudible.]

That is not what the hon. member said. The hon. member knows Afrikaans well enough to know what he said. He said the hon. member was almost a defender of Masombo.

I am no defender of Masombo; not even almost.

I should like to mention one example to show what happened at the University College of Fort Hare. As I am particularly interested in the teaching of Greek, I checked on the records. Under the old regime one student out of eight passed in Greek. Under the new professor we have there and under the new regime seven out of seven students passed. I think one passed in the first class. Greek is one of the most difficult courses you can take at a university. That shows the standard that has been achieved there. What a future there is for that university and what a future there is for the young Bantu men and women who go to that university to be trained for service to their own people.

I think I should now reply to the questions which have been put, because as you know Mr. Chairman, there is an old adage to the effect that a fool can put more questions in one minute than a clever man can reply to in an hour. When clever people like the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) and the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) and the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) have put to me the numerous questions they have already put, and I am not even a clever man at that, it is going to take me still longer to reply if I have to wait for more clever people opposite to put still more clever questions. That is why I think I should first reply to some of the questions. I want to begin with the hon. member for Houghton, because I think I can very briefly dispose of the questions she asked, because the answers in all cases are clearly self-evident. She has made a basic error in her arguments as to the amounts of money that have been voted by Parliament for the Bantu Education Account, and which were not spent in the relevant years, by assuming that those sums of money are paid back into the Consolidated Revenue Account, and are therefore lost. That money is not lost to Bantu Education; it remains standing to the credit of the Bantu Education Account and is available in the following financial years. In that respect the position is otherwise than in the case of other Departments of State. That is why the Bantu Education Account is a separate account, because unspent amounts are not forfeited, but remain credited to the Bantu Education Account and thus are available for the succeeding years.

May I ask the Minister what is the meaning of this sentence: “The surplus of R901,166 on the Bantu Education Account for the financial year 1960-1 has been surrendered.” What does that mean? Does it not mean it has been paid back into the general Revenue Account?

Unfortunately I have not seen that particular passage in the Auditor-General’s report. If it is there, we shall have to ascertain what it means, because then he is attaching a meaning to it which is in conflict with the Bantu Education Act. The Act provides specifically that those moneys are not returned to Revenue Account.

That is an explanation by the secretary of the Department.

The fact remains that it remains available to the Bantu Education Account and it is available for expenditure in the next year. For that reason hon. members will see that in the Estimates for Bantu Education, it is indicated regularly what the balance carried forward from the previous year is. I hope the hon. member is following me. The balance carried forward is indicated and accordingly it is available together with the R13,000,000 plus the taxes collected during the year. That then constitutes the revenue from which the expenditure must be met. The reason for the saving is not attributable to the fact that officials of the Department are zealously trying to economize here and there, but there are problems connected with a great Department such as Bantu Education. Hon. members must remember that as regards education and the administration of education, the Department of Bantu Education is bigger than the White education departments of the four provinces together, as regards the number of schools, etc. There are many problems to be dealt with. For instance, there is the question of the provision of supplies to schools. That is an item on which there has been a saving. I have to budget for what we expect the schools will requisition, but it is a matter of requisitions by the school boards. Frequently those requisitions reach head office too late to make the payments in that particular year, and in consequence there is a saving on the Vote. It is not a saving because we want to spend less, but it is a saving because the payment could not be effected during that particular year.

Can you not ginger those school boards up?

For that reason we have specially appointed a number of administrative organizers to help the school boards with the work of filling in the forms and drafting the requisitions.

We do everything in our power to assist them, but sometimes it takes a long time; it sometimes also happens in respect of the payment of teachers; a new teacher is appointed, but because the people are not quite versed in the procedure they have to follow, it may take quite a few months before the requisite forms reach head office and the payments can be made. So it is not a matter of wilful saving, of stinginess, but of administrative problems. The saving on school feeding is there also because provision is made in accordance with what it was in the previous year. There is the policy adopted years ago, and I am not prepared to dispense with that at this stage, that the schools which have had school feeding, may retain the amounts they received for school feeding, unless they themselves prefer to obtain additional teaching staff or to utilize the money for additional classrooms that have to be built. The saving under school feeding simply means that a number of the schools which had school feeding in the past, decided in the course of the year to abandon school feeding in order rather to obtain teachers and classrooms. I maintain, and I believe it is a sound policy, that when regard is had to the tremendous back-log in regard to Bantu education, and the problems in respect of feeding the Bantu, it is not the task of a Department of Education to look after the feeding of the population. If something has to be done in connection with feeding, and I think it is necessary, then it is the task of another Department, namely the Department of Health. And the Department of Health is doing it. They are conducting experimental schemes throughout the whole country to see what is the best method to provide in a proper manner and in the cheapest and most economical manner, a food that could prevent disease among the Bantu children in particular. I think that is a task for the Department of Health and for Bantu Administration when there is starvation and distress in an area. I do not think I can provide some children of the Bantu with education and food, while I do not have sufficient money to provide them all with education.

The next saving the hon. member has referred to is in regard to bursaries. She asked why there should be a saving on bursaries now while there is such a shortage of trained teachers. Actually there is no shortage in the number of candidates offering themselves for training in the pre-matriculation course, the higher primary education diploma and formerly also the lower primary education diploma. The number of candidates offering themselves for training in those courses is far greater than the number we are able to accommodate, and for which we can make provision in the schools. This particular item referred to by the hon. member relates to bursaries for that group of teachers, and it was specially provided because there is one Bantu national group where an insufficient number of pupils have offered themselves for this course, namely the Venda group. This money has been made available specially to encourage the young Venda children to take a teacher’s training course.

Can it not be transferred to one of the other groups?

In the other groups there are quite enough pupils offering themselves for the courses. We know the Venda group is one of the poorest Bantu national units in the country, and this money is being kept there specially to attract them to the training schools, and if it is not utilized in any one year, it is not lost. It remains in the Bantu Education Account, and it is available the next year. While referring to this, I should like to point out that the hon. member has referred to the shortage of teachers with post-primary training, post-matriculation training. It is true we could have more of them, but bursaries are being made available for the training courses at university colleges where post-matriculation training is taught, and the number of bursaries made available for that is taken up fully. So there have been no savings in that regard.

The hon. member also asked what magic formula we have discovered to improve education while the expenditure per capita is reduced, and she said we must please convey the formula to the other education departments, if it is a magic formula that is not prejudicial to the education of the children. If the hon. member were to analyse the figures of attendance at schools, she will see that in recent years, since Bantu education was transferred to the State, the emphasis has been laid on the point on which in my view the emphasis ought to be laid, namely on the eradication of illiteracy among the masses of the non-Whites, and when a small group of Bantu pupils are brought to schools in which quite a large percentage go on to the higher classes where the number of children per teacher is less than in the lower classes, the unit cost from the nature of things is higher than it will be when you get a vast mass in the lower primary schools where one teacher can indeed handle a large number and where the pyramid therefore tapers steeply upwards. That is the reason for the reduction per capita. It is not a case of us effecting savings here and there or having special formulae, but it is because the number of children in the lower primary schools has increased tremendously in recent years, and the number of children per teacher in the lower classes is greater than the number of children per teacher in the higher standards, and the teachers in the lower standards receive less remuneration because they have not had such advanced training. Thus the increase of teachers is found in the lower standards and the largest increase of children is found there also, and in consequence the unit cost is so much less. Of course this does not mean that the education of the Bantu in the higher primary and post-primary schools has deteriorated. On the contrary, the numbers in the higher primary and the lower primary schools have increased considerably in recent times, but the increase in the bottom layer, Sub-A up to Std. II—was proportionately greater than in the post-primary schools. I think it is a good thing that this is so, because in the higher primary and the post-primary schools we must begin to train people to perform specific tasks in their communities, but the task of the lower primary school is to bring literacy to the masses. That is why I think Bantu Education has in the past seven or eight years performed an enormous task in the Republic as regards the eradication of illiteracy. I recently saw a Report of UNESCO in which reference is made to the progress in one of the South American States, and in that report they say that the number of children who attended school in 1950 in that State, was approximately 35 per cent of the total number of children in the State. That particular country had made a special attempt and the 35 per cent of the children who in other words received some form of literacy, was pushed up to the splendid figure of 55 per cent in 1961, and they laud it as a wonderful achievement of that South American State. But what have we done in the Republic of South Africa? According to our estimate in 1954, when we took over Bantu education, approximately 45 per cent to 50 per cent of the Bantu children attended school for a longer or shorter period, but we have raised that until last year, according to our calculations, at least 75 per cent of the Bantu children attended school for a longer or shorter period, an achievement that has not been matched anywhere in the world. That is one of the reasons why the unit cost dropped, because we have so greatly extended the base of the pyramid. So it is not a magic formula but only a sound policy that has achieved this.

The hon. member as well as the hon. member for Hillbrow referred to the poor results. The hon. member for Houghton said that the poor results must be attributed to poorly trained teachers. I agree with that to some extent. The better trained the teacher is, the better will be the results of the schools. No system of education can be better than its teachers are. But here we had to cope with a peculiar problem, namely the tremendous thirst for literacy among the Bantu. We had to provide schools for them, and we had to obtain male and female teachers for the schools. We did not have teachers of the calibre we would have preferred, and rather than give them nothing we gave them the male and female teachers with the lower primary education certificate, namely Std. VI plus an extra two years teacher’s training. However, we have now reached the stage where a sufficient number are passing the junior certificate so that we can now abolish the lower primary course, the emergency measure we had to adopt. We can now begin to provide better qualified teachers. We shall adopt other means too in this regard, and one is as a result of the report on the teaching of languages, from which the fact emerged that the Bantu, as all of us know indeed, experiences difficulty in expressing Afrikaans and English properly, and even the pronunciation of the teachers of both the languages leaves very much to be desired, particularly that of those who do not possess very high qualifications. I think the time has now arrived in view of the extension of the F.M. Radio services throughout the country, that we should now make available a special schools programme on the radio. I have already given instructions that surveys should be made, and that radios should be provided to the higher primary and the post-primary schools, and that an educational programme should be given to the schools by means of radio broadcasts. I think that will help a tremendous lot for instance to encourage correct pronunciation and grammar. Thus we shall utilize other means to improve the quality of the education.

The hon. member for Hillbrow also referred to the examination results and said that he finds almost incomprehensible these figures mentioned in the report and he quoted a number of figures. He says he finds it almost incomprehensible that the results of the junior certificate examination compare so exceptionally favourably…

For English A.

… whereas in the matric examination it compares less favourably. You know it is difficult to compare figures, as regards examination results. The hon. member will know that examiners and moderators have a method of drawing graphs according to their work. But I can assure the hon. member that I ensure that the standard of the examinations conducted by my Department, compare favourably with the standard of the examinations in the other White education departments. I achieve that by appointing examiners and moderators for the examinations from the Provincial Education Departments, and not only from the Department of Bantu Education.

Do they not write the same examination for the Junior Certificate?

No, the Junior Certificate is our own examination, it is the Bantu Education Junior Certificate Examination, but the examination paper is drafted and moderated by examiners and moderators drawn from the other education departments also. I think the hon. member will agree, and this report in fact confirms this, that as regards the syllabuses there are no deficiencies as regards the Bantu Education syllabuses. Indeed, it has been said that the syllabuses compare more than favourably with the other syllabuses in the Republic. So I cannot say why there should be the particularly favourable comparison. All I can think is that in the Junior Certificate more emphasis may be laid upon grammar and reproduction purely, whereas in the matriculation examination there is more independent study, more study of literature and that kind of thing that may be somewhat beyond the people speaking other languages. I think Afrikaans-speaking people also have a fairly difficult time with English A when they reach matric. If you are dealing only with grammar etc., there is progress, because then you can still learn things by memorizing them, but when it comes to the matric examination, and the pupil has to know more than only the grammar, and when more than mere reproduction must be done, it seems to be beyond most of those who do not use that language at home. But as regards standards, I say that the syllabuses compare well with each other. We have proof of that. The examination papers and the allocation of points at the examinations are correlated inasmuch as we draw examiners and moderators from the other departments of education to ensure that the standard does not fall below that of the others.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question. Why is the standard of English according to the report so low throughout, whereas the examination results as regards the Junior Certificate A are extremely high and good. That is a thing I cannot understand.

The position is that the majority of the candidates sitting for the examinations are selected by the schools; the principals hold back the candidates who they think cannot pass. They do not permit them to sit for examinations unnecessarily.

Before I come to two important matters that have been raised, namely the question of mother-tongue education and the matter of the transfer of education to the Transkei, and how it will work, I should like to deal with some of the general matters raised by the hon. member for Kensington on Friday. He made a great fuss about the tremendously long delay there was in Tabling the Report of the Commission of Inquiry in regard to the Teaching of the Official Languages etc. in the Transkei. The hon. member rightly said that the Commission reported to me in October, 1962. That report was drafted and signed in English by the Commission and in accordance with the practice in the Public Service, my Department itself was responsible for the translation of the report, and thereafter the translated version was submitted to the Translation Bureau, because they check the translations. Now you must understand that for the translation I had to employ the services of my professional officers, but October, November and December are the busiest months really for these people because then it is examination time. Consequently they could not attend to this extra work before as late as January, and the translated report was completed in February; then it was checked and thereafter we had to wait on the Government Printer who had a tremendous quantity of work in connection with parliamentary business. There was no wilful delay on our part. I did everything in my power to have the report Tabled as soon as possible. But now the hon. member has charged me with having made unauthorized use of the report. I do not know on what he bases that. It was not a report to Parliament; it was not a commission appointed by Parliament. It was a commission appointed by me at the request of the Transkeian Territorial Authority. That also provides the answer to the other question of the hon. member, namely why, while I knew at that stage when I appointed the commission, that education in the Transkei would at some time or another be transferred to the Transkeian Government, I still appointed a commission of inquiry to investigate their educational position? The answer is that they requested me to do so. Indeed, the members of the commission were not appointed by me on my own. I consulted the Chairman of the Transkeian Territorial Authority and asked him: “You submit to me the names of people in whom your people will have confidence,” and he submitted to me the names of the Bantu members of this commission. I originally never thought of some of the members, but when he submitted the names to us, my Department and I immediately appointed the people. I for my part appointed only the two White assessors, and they were not, as the hon. member said, officers of my Department. One of them is an officer of the Department of Education of the Natal Province who was kindly seconded to us by the Provincial Administration of Natal for this specific purpose. Now the hon. member has asked me what the value of this report is in view of the fact that the Transkei will shortly have self-government and then will itself control education? Of what value is the report to me, if they are going to apply a wholly different policy? The value is this that the findings of this commission in respect of the Transkeian schools apply to a very large extent to all the Bantu schools in the Republic, and it is a good random test of what has happened in our schools in respect of Bantu education, and the report contains valuable information and suggestions which will be investigated further by my Department. Various recommendations have already been adopted, and I propose to refer a number of the other recommendations to the Bantu Education Advisory Council which I am now constituting to see to what extent we can apply it throughout the Republic in order to effect the necessary improvements that may flow from it in all Bantu schools. This report has its value to Bantu education in general, but for the Transkei it of course also has its value because I believe and anticipate that the Transkeian Government, once they have been constituted, certainly will take notice of this report by people enjoying their confidence and who were appointed to that commission at their request.

Then the hon. member asked me what the position is going to be in regard to education in the Transkei once the Transkei gets self-government. What will be the division then? Will I still dictate to them how they should organize their education? My reply is that the education of the Bantu in the Transkei as a whole will fall under the control of the Transkeian Government and the Transkeian Minister of Education. That is why the syllabuses may differ from what we have here in the Republic. Then the Xhosa in the Republic’s area will still fall under the syllabus for Bantu education applying in the Republic.

The hon. member has asked what an untenable position it will bring about, but the hon. member for Pretoria East (Dr. Otto) has replied adequately to him, and the hon. member knows also that the syllabuses of the Transvaal, the Free State and Natal also differ from one another. However, what is important is not whether there are differences in the syllabuses, and whether there are differences of policy here and there, but whether standards will be maintained, and that will be our great problem of the future, to try to help in maintaining standards in the Transkei, in spite of the fact that they will control their own education and will determine their own education policy. I hope the Bantu Education Advisory Council we are constituting will also contribute towards that. As I shall be using this Council as a valuable channel of consultation between the Bantu areas and the Government, I hope the Transkeian Government will find it possible to make use of the same Council or perhaps another one that could co-operate with this one, at least to ensure that the standards for Bantu education will be the same throughout the whole country. They will have to take into account that the products of their schools will have to secure admission to universities or university colleges, and therefore it is in their own interests to see to it that standards are not lowered. As long as that is so, I have no quarrel with what they do. They asked us for advice, and that our White officials who are presently concerned with Bantu education in the Transkei should be seconded to them in the transition period. We shall make those arrangements. We shall retain those officials on our establishment, but second them to the Transkei for as long as they are needed there, and they do still need them in many places, particularly in the secondary schools and the inspection of the work in the secondary schools, as well as in connection with the highest administrative positions. In the transition period they have asked for assistance, and we shall give them that assistance.

The hon. member has also asked what arrangements we have made to enable the Bantu to control his education himself. He said that in the course of time he has asked a number of questions which indicate that throughout the years my Department and I have reserved all the highest positions for White people only, and I did not enable the Bantu to take over. But the hon. member is completely wrong. He ought to know that it is Public Service practice that there are different salary structures for the various racial groups, and every time, every year, when the hon. member puts his question, he draws the notch on which he puts the question, just above the highest scale of the Bantu. Just compare how the figures he asks, the income group to which he refers, vary every year. At the outset he had it at a certain notch, but subsequently, as the salary scales changed, and more and more Bantu were introduced into the high position, he artificially raised his notch every time to just above the top of all the Bantu.

I was referring to the posts, not the salaries.

In the service of my Department, there are at the moment, professors earning a salary of R3,400 per annum. There are 49 sub-inspectors performing inspection work in the primary schools and who assist with the inspection in the secondary schools. In the Transkei alone there are eight of them. There are caretakers of schools, all of them posts we created in recent times. There are 162 caretakers, 29 of them in the Transkei. There are 470 school board secretaries, 45 of them being in the Transkei. There are 92 clerks in the regional offices and in the head office, 24 of them being in the Transkei. There are 12 superintendents of works. There are 23 university lecturers altogether, all Bantu. It can be seen how we have gradually permitted the Bantu to take over Bantu education. The total number of teachers in Bantu Education is 28,852, and 28,350 of them are Bantu, and only 480 are Whites. Then the hon. member insists we are not giving the Bantu an opportunity to prepare himself for his task. I think I have now said enough to indicate how we are preparing the Bantu.

The hon. member has asked about Fort Hare, and he asked what the position will be once the Transkei gets self-government. But Fort Hare is not in the Transkei. It is in the Ciskei. It is not in the picture at all. Or did the hon. member not know this? Did he not go to Fort Hare with me one day?

In those days Fort Hare was not a tribal college. It now belongs to them.

But it is wholly inconceivable to give the Transkeian Government control over an institution that is outside its borders. What can be done, and we have already done so is to appoint representatives of the Transkeian Territorial Authority on the Advisory Council, people nominated by them. In other words, we bring about liaison between the controlling body of Fort Hare and the Transkei. The hon. member has also said, in regard to Fort Hare, it is quite wrong for anybody to state, as was stated in the pamphlet of Information, that the Bantu colleges are going to be independent. He said everybody knows that these colleges will never become independent, because they are under the control of the Government. Of course that is so at this stage, but that is precisely where the difference lies between the viewpoint of those hon. members and our viewpoint. It is the easiest thing in the world to establish a college, and to give it an independent Council, and then it is only a replica of a Western University, but then there will actually be a monstrosity that will never fit in there. I wonder whether the hon. member is aware of the illuminating address given by Sir Eric Ashby in December, 1961, during an international seminar on Inter-University Co-operation in West Africa. On that occasion he said this—

That was said of America 100 years ago, and Sir Eric Ashby says the same of the universities in West Africa, and we are determined not to make the same mistake here by establishing an institution here on Western lines and soon giving it independence in such a way that it does not have its roots in that area of the community it has to serve. It must grow like a seed in that area and it must be fertilized with the knowledge and the civilization of the West, of course, but it must first establish its roots in the traditions of that community before it can grow to independence. That is why it is our policy to grant autonomy to those colleges, but it is not something we shall do in too much of a hurry. It is not a thing that should become a danger to the Bantu in the future. It must be something that will be of service to the community when once they have attained their independence, and which should be within the community, the centre of their cultural life and of their social, economic and political life.

I was very surprised to hear the hon. the Minister quoting Sir Eric Ashby. Surely it is the same Sir Eric Ashby who made a violent attack on this Government’s policy in regard to higher university education for the Bantu, and who objected to the open universities being closed. Is the Minister also prepared to accept that criticism of his, where he criticized the very same system which the Minister is trying to defend to-day?

In regard to the development of the Transkei, it is a fact that one-third of the Minister’s whole Department will become redundant, because a third of the Bantu children are in the Transkei, and the Minister’s reply on that point was very unsatisfactory. He did not tell us what would happen if the Transkeian Government demanded that a different language than the mother tongue should be used as the medium of instruction. He did not say what would happen to all the hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of school buildings which would be taken over by the new Government. He did not say what would happen if curricula were introduced which were inimical towards the Whites. His reply was completely unsatisfactory. I remember that he said two years ago that his Department would come to an end, and I see this as the first step in that direction.

But I want to deal with something else, and this year again I want to object to the Department of Bantu Education having become the dumping-ground for inferior literature printed by Nationalist Party Presses. You will remember, Sir, that last year I objected to the sale of copies of a certain pamphlet called Bona, which is disseminated gratis in the Bantu schools falling under the control of the Minister. The year before last no fewer than 241,800 such copies were distributed at a cost of R14,000, and I expressed the hope that this state of affairs would not continue, because Bona was not something which I regarded as desirable literature for Bantu schools. An Afrikaans edition of it would not be desirable literature for White schools either. But instead of the position improving, it has deteriorated, and last year even more copies were purchased, no fewer than 252,000, to be distributed gratis, at a cost of R16,321.

This pamphlet is printed by Bona Pers Beperk and it falls under the Dagbreek Trust. I have here a very nice photo of all the members of Dagbreek Trust, on which appear, inter alia, the Prime Minister, Mr. J. H. Steyl, M.P.C., Minister Albert Hertzog, Minister Schoeman, Mr. F. Odendaal and Minister Jan de Klerk. They are the power behind Bona which is now being offloaded on to the Department of Bantu Education as a gift, to raise the circulation of this pamphlet so that it can attract more advertisements in order to make it possible for the directors of Dagbreek to boast of the fact that Bona Pers is doing so well.

But that is not all. Since referring to the matter last year, another new pamphlet has appeared, and whereas in the past 250,000 copies of Bona were distributed, 750,000 copies of this new pamphlet are being distributed gratis in the Bantu schools. It is called Wamba. It is also published by a subsidiary company. Its name is Via Afrika-boekhandel, but at the back of it says that Via Afrika-boekhandel is a branch of Nasionale Boekhandel Beperk, 42, Keerom Street, Cape Town. Here we have Keerom Street’s contribution to the Department of Bantu Education, and 750,000 copies are distributed at a cost of R37,000. And the Government is not even given a discount. It costs 5c in the retail trade, and the Minister pays 5c per copy, whereas he pays at least 6½c per copy for Bona, which costs 7½c in the retail trade. The Nasionale Pers has made a much better bargain than Bona, I think this is a very unsound state of affairs. Here we have a pamphlet with a circulation of 62,000. In other words, if the Government had not agreed to buy this publication there would never have been a Wamba, or it would have gone under. This is a direct subsidy from State funds paid by the Government to the Nationalist Party printing works, and a stop should be put to it. I should like to know what arrangements were arrived at before Wamba was distributed to the Bantu children. Who asked for it? If the Cape Times were prepared to print a monthly periodical for Bantu children, would the Minister agree to buy 30,000 copies of it? It is a scandal. With a circulation of 62,000 this pamphlet can now attract more advertisements, thereby swelling the profits of the Nasionale Pers.

You would of course like to distribute New Age amongst them.

The Minister may perhaps ask us whether a periodical for the Bantu children is not necessary, but I say that something may be done in that regard, but then full opportunity must be given to all persons issuing pamphlets of this nature, and there should not be negotiations with the Nasionale Pers alone, nor should it be necessary to pay the full price for it. When the hon. the Minister buys books he gets a discount, but here the Nasionale Pers gets the full amount. I hope that a stop will be put to this, and that if I raise the matter again next year we will not find that a third and a fourth pamphlet, also printed by the Nationalist Party printers, is being distributed amongst the Bantu. [Interjections.]

I just want to refer to one other matter, and that is the way in which books and periodicals are purchased for the Department of Bantu Education, or rather by the schools through the medium of the Department. Such strict rules are laid down to-day as to what books and periodicals may be bought for the Bantu schools that it practically amounts to brainwashing these Bantu children. A special list of approved books is drawn up by the Department, and only those books may be bought, and only those books receive the 50 per cent subsidy from the Department, and it is a very restricted list. Then it is said, further, that the schools may in fact purchase other books, but they must first be approved by the Department, and those books receive no subsidy. To make it even more difficult, it is laid down that there should be an equal number of books in English, Afrikaans and the Bantu language. Again I see in this an attempt to benefit certain Nationalist Party printing companies when it is laid down that one-third of the books practically has to be supplied by those companies. That is an unhealthy state of affairs and I hope that a stop will be put to it.

I cannot allow the insinuations made by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) to go any further. I think I should at this moment hurl them back in his face with the contempt they deserve. If ever something mean has taken place in this House, it is these mean allegations made by the hon. member. Wamba was distributed in the Bantu schools before Bantu education was taken over by this Department, although under a different name. It was distributed amongst the Bantu schools before Bantu education was taken over by the Central Government, during the règime of the United Party Government, when the provinces were controlled by the United Party.

What was its name then?

I cannot remember at the moment, but it is not a new publication. It is an old publication which was distributed in the schools in their time, and it was done for a very good reason, because this was the only pamphlet which provided suitable literature for the children, particularly in the primary schools. Therefore the whole allegation made by the hon. member is devoid of any truth.

Give us the name of this previous publication.

I will get it. [Interjection.] Does the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) doubt my word?

No, I am just asking how many copies were distributed?

The number varies according to the number of schools, and the basis was laid down at that time that so many copies were to be distributed per school, and there has never been any deviation from that basis. The only ones which were distributed additionally was at the time when Bona appeared, and thereafter still another one was published, Utlwang, the only publication in Tswana. One cannot buy just any periodical for the schools, and one must provide literature. There must be literature over and above the ordinary textbooks, and these pamphlets are available, and if these people have the initiative to publish books of a reasonable quality, it is only fair to take them. That is why Utlwang and Bona and Wamba are being purchased. The hon. member says Wamba would not have been published if it were not for the fact that my Department negotiated with that company beforehand and made promises to them. That was his insinuation. But when the provincial administrations at the time subscribed to these pamphlets, they were under United Party règime. Apart from that, even though that was the case, I say again that even though we subscribed to those publications anew I would still have done so if they provided reasonable literature for which a need exists. But do hon. members know what the other printing companies in this country do? They do not issue newspapers or periodicals in the Bantu languages. They must all be in English, because they want to make all the Bantu Black Englishmen. Because it is absolutely essential to provide other literature as well, apart from the ordinary textbooks, we must buy these periodicals. White schools also do so. There is a lack of suitable literature in the Bantu languages for these children, particularly in the lower classes, and one must make use of every possible aid. I wish to conclude by saying that I think the hon. member’s attitude deserves the greatest contempt, and on this subject I will never again reply to any further questions put by that hon. member.

The disclosures made by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) make my remarks about the precarious state in which the Bantu Education Account is even more relevant. The hon. the Minister certainly got very hot under the collar but he gave few facts and very little information in reply to the statements made from this side of the House. In other words, he brought forth a considerable amount of heat but he shed no light on the complaint put forward by the hon. member for Orange Grove. Sir, I will leave that matter there and allow the Minister to calm down and to give us the facts instead of merely stirring up heat.

I gave you the facts. I told you that your party subscribed to that statement in the provinces.

That was not the gist of the complaint of the hon. member. His complaint was a very different one. He quoted who the printers were and he dealt with the matter on an objective level which calls for facts and a definite reply, not an evasive reply such as that given by the hon. Minister.

Sir my colleague, the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) said on Friday that it was indeed satisfactory to know that criticism and comment from this side of the House had produced some good effects and had resulted in getting the Government to change its outlook to a degree and to be slightly more generous in meeting some of the costs of Bantu Education from general revenues. I am sure, Sir, that you will agree that the Bantu Education Account is one of the most complicated bits of accounting mechanism in our system of public finance, and it is also a subject about which some legislative action has had to be taken practically every year since the Account was established in April 1955. Moreover, I think you will agree that this is the only opportunity which the House has to discuss the policy of the Government in meeting the cost of Bantu education and also to examine the solvency or otherwise of the Account. Two years ago I pointed out that the Government had changed its policy and had changed its mind so often about what expenditure should be met as a charge against this Account, that it is exceedingly difficult to keep abreast of those changes. But as I said at the outset there is this satisfactory evidence that certain criticism from this side of the House has produced good results, and I want to commend two changes in the Government’s outlook in regard to the voting of supplies for Bantu Education. But before I do so I would like to ask the hon. the Minister two questions. Firstly will the Minister explain why it was considered necessary by his Department in June last year to include provision in the Finance Act for an expected deficit on the Bantu Education Account to be met temporarily from the Loan Account. I refer to Section 3 of the Finance Act, No. 77 of 1962. The relevant provision reads—

1. (1)
   1. (a) Any deficiency arising during the financial year ending on 31 March 1963, in the Bantu Education Account… may be met by means of interest-free recoverable advances out of the Loan Account.
   2. (b) Any such advances which are on the said date still outstanding, shall form a first charge upon the moneys accruing to the said Bantu Education Account during the ensuing financial year.

That, of course, is during the current year. Secondly I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what the exact state of the account was as at 31 March 1963. Accurate information should now be available and I think the Minister should disclose to the committee whether in fact there was a deficit or a surplus and what the extent of that deficit or surplus was. Sir, I ask that question because according to a note on the Estimates for 1963-4, the state of the Account at the time these Estimates were prepared seems to indicate an expected surplus of some R500,000. Seemingly someone has erred or someone has had second thoughts, and on the evidence before me at present it seems that it was entirely unnecessary to burden Parliament last year with the provision which I have just quoted. I believe that the hon. the Minister was correct when he said in reply to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) that any amount left in the Account at the close of a year was not surrendered but was carried forward to the next year. But the hon. member for Houghton was fully justified in making the deduction which she did because the accounting officer, i.e. the Secretary of the Minister’s Department at the foot of his appropriation account, says, “surplus to be surrendered”, and he gives the figure. In regard to the year 1960-1 he makes the specific statement, “the surplus of R901,000 on Bantu Education Account for the financial year 19601 has been surrendered”. I said just now that it seemed to me that someone had erred, and if the Minister is correct then someone erred again because the conventional term “surrender” means, of course, to surrender to the Revenue Account of the Exchequer. I put these two questions to the hon. the Minister because I think they are questions which should be answered at this stage and because we are dealing here with one of the most complicated bits of accounting mechanism that this House has ever seen.

That then brings me to the two bright spots in the Government’s change of policy that followed on criticism from this side of the House. Firstly, for the first time last year, that is to say in 1962-3, and again this year, 1963-4, the Minister’s salary and certain staff salaries have been charged to Revenue Account, i.e. to Vote 30 which we dealt with last week. To that extent, there has been some relief, since the full burden of those charges do not now fall on the Bantu Education Account as happened in previous years. Then, secondly, the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech this year made this confession; he said this—

Sir, that is a plea that we made from this side of the House for two years in succession. I say it is satisfactory to note that that has now been accepted by the hon. the Minister. The Minister of Finance then went on to say that an amount of R2,000,000 will be transferred to the Account in 1963-4 to cover expenditure on higher education up to 1962-3. Thereafter there will be an additional annual contribution not exceeding R1,500,000 but for the year 1963-4 there will be a contribution of R1,250,000. This special grant of R3,250,000, which is shown on page 6 of the Estimates, has still to be included in Supplementary Estimates which are still to be Tabled. So far so good, but instead of leaving the financial position of this Account fluid, it is quite clear from what the hon. the Minister of Finance went on to say that this additional contribution is again going to be a fixed statutory appropriation in spite of the fact that the Government recognizes that the charges to the Account will go on increasing year by year. The Minister of Finance then said—

I think he really meant R1,250,000. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) will forgive me if I do not deal with his arguments in detail. I just blame him for his remark when he said, “The disclosures made by the hon. member for Orange Grove” after the hon. the Minister had already replied to it. The hon. the Minister has also saved me the trouble of replying to the hon. member for Orange Grove. In the short time I have been in this House I have learnt to regard him as an expert in ferreting out sinister information. If Afrikaans interests were not concerned in these printing companies the hon. member would never have taken the trouble to ferret out all these details.

But I want to confine myself to the remarks made by the hon. members for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) and Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) in regard to Xhosa as a medium of instruction. The hon. member for Houghton, inter alia, said: “The Bantu vernacular is unsuitable for the needs of a modern society”. The hon. member for Hillbrow contended: “There are no scientific and no educational grounds for mother tongue education”. I hope I understood her correctly. I should like to put this question to the hon. member: Does he, as an ex-educationist, believe that education should be concentrated on the child? I want to ask him whether he agrees that there are more educationists who agree with this proposition of mine.

It stands here.

Very well, it stands here, but the hon. member must now give his personal opinion as an educationist, and not the opinion of his party. Does he agree that education should be directed at and centred on the child, and not so much centred on the subject or on the language where the child has to learn a strange language by using it as the medium of education? Then I just want to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) last Friday, with which I agree. The hon. member for Kensington, inter alia, said that he agreed with the idea of education of the Bantu by the Bantu for the Bantu. Well, that is nothing else but education centred on the Bantu child. There is ample proof of it here, and the hon. member will have to agree with what is stated here. I want to refer him to para. 7 On page 18.‘The hon. member very conveniently read just one line. The hon. member read the following in 7 (a)—

And then it says, further, “See Appendix 1 The further data are given there, and I do not want to weary the Committee with it, but it also says—

I agree with that, and I think the hon. member will also agree with the following remark—

The mother tongue is the expression of his personality; it is the language in which he thinks. The mother tongue is the only means by which the child can express his experience of life. It is the only language in which he can crystallize his thoughts. If the hon. member had just read a little further he would have seen that an educational statement is made which he must support. He referred here to what was done in Canada and the United States, but he forgot to refer to what is being done in Wales, where they also have the difficulty in regard to two languages, English as against Welsh. In para. 7 (c) this statement is made, and it is quoted from a pamphlet published in 1954 by the Department of Education in Great Britain. I want to read it out because in my opinion it is an incontrovertible statement. The hon. member nods his head affirmatively.

Yes, I have read it.

I want to bring it to the notice of the hon. member once again—

Then it says further—

In that way one proposition after the other is stated to prove that the statement that the introduction of the mother tongue as the medium rests on a scientific basis. Sir, the biggest difficulty is that the impression has been created by certain people in the mind of the Bantu that he should despise his own language and that it is not good enough to serve as a medium of instruction. That idea has been instilled into his mind over the years. As early as 1846 Earl Grey, the British Colonial Secretary, wrote to the then Cape Governor, Sir Henry Pottinger, as follows—

I repeat that over the course of the years this idea has been fostered in the minds of the Bantu, and that is why the Bantu have that idea; it was instilled into them from outside. Other people told them that they should despise their own language as the means of education. The recommendations of this Commission show clearly in the first place that the education rule which is valid in other parts of the world also applies to the Bantu, and, secondly, that the pride every nation has in its own spiritual and cultural assets, of which the language forms a very important part, is also present on the part of the Bantu and also applies to him. The hon. member for Kimberley-South (Dr. Venter) also quoted from this report, and I should like to emphasize just one portion of it on page 18, para. 7 (e)—

Then the report says, further—

There is convincing proof by scientists and educationists that the mother tongue as the medium of instruction is the only sound basis…

Not the only basis.

… that the mother tongue as the medium of instruction is the most important educational basis for the teaching of various subjects. That applies not only to us as Whites, but also to the Bantu in the Transkei and everywhere in the Republic of South Africa.

I am sure the hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I do not follow on the remarks made by him to the Committee. I asked the hon. the Minister two questions and I have one further question to ask him. But before doing so I want to point out that there is a further unsatisfactory feature in regard to this Account, because although on paper it seems to be in a sound state, in actual fact it is far from being in a sound state and is really in a state of insolvency. The full extent of the expenditure commitments on this Account are not reflected in the Estimates before us. Because all capital expenditure on Bantu Education, both for university colleges and for primary and secondary education, is advanced from the Loan Account and recoverable from the Bantu Education Account, it means that the Bantu Education Account is indebted to the Loan Account in a substantial sum. At the end of March 1962 that indebtedness was just over R5,000,000, and by the end of March this year, 1963, that is at the end of the current financial year, it is likely to be nearly R7,000,000, and therefore your current receipts in the Account are mortgaged to the Loan Account to the extent to which I have indicated. By the end of March this year they will be mortgaged to the extent of more than half the normal contributions of R13,000,000 from the Revenue Account. This special contribution of R3,500,000 establishes moreover that the Bantu Education Account will continue to have to meet charges not only in respect of primary and secondary education but also in respect of university college education. I think the Minister should clear up the position and make a categorical statement as to how the expenditure in regard to these two types of education is going to be dealt with. Will each be dealt with separately on an accounting basis and shown separately on estimates or will these continue to be simply a globular account dealing with all three types of education—primary, secondary and university education? I think the main difficulty is the unsound principle of making contributions from general revenue on a fixed basis while the cost of education must inevitably go on increasing year by year; that is very unsound, and while that remains, the Account will remain in a precarious state. It does not seem to be unfair therefore to ask the hon. Minister to indicate precisely what effect the transfer of Education to the Transkei is going to have on the Account. There will obviously be some saving in expenditure and there will also be some loss of revenue. I think it is a fair question to put to the Minister that he should say at this stage how these figures are going to affect the Account in the coming year.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) referred to the position of the Bantu Education Account. He asked why it was necessary, by means of a loan last year, to provide for an anticipated deficit in this account, whereas in fact there seems to be a surplus of R500,000 this year. The reason was that we at no stage knew what revenue we would derive from Bantu taxation. One can estimate what Bantu taxation should bring in, but one does not know to what extent one will be able to collect that taxation. Various factors determine to what extent the Bantu pay their taxes. Whilst the Bantu Education Account was rather depleted and Bantu taxation was not coming in reasonably, or was less than expected, a deficit could easily arise, and that is why provision was made to cover such an eventuality.

What are the figures now?

I do not have the final figure of the balance, but we expect it to be in the vicinity of R500,000 as at 31 March. It is, as the hon. member said, a new fixed limit we now have in regard to university education; it is a repayment of what was more or less our current expenditure since taking it over, plus the expenditure for this year, and then it is fixed for the future at a maximum of R1,500,000 as an additional contribution to the Bantu Education Account especially for university education, but it does not mean that a separate account will be kept. It will all go into the same account. This is just an extra contribution, with the intention that the expenditure on the university colleges should not be more than that amount. That is done in an attempt to keep the expenditure of these colleges within certain limits. We consider that in so far as the university colleges are concerned, the large-scale expansion which cost a tremendous amount of money without resulting in much revenue from study fees, etc., has now really reached the high-water mark, and that from now on the position should be better; that the expenditure will increase to a lesser extent than the revenue increases. We think that by fixing it at R250,000, more than this year’s expenditure, we will in any case for many years be able to provide the necessary services at the university colleges. I do not think that in so far as that is concerned we will have any difficulty in future. But I want to point out to the hon. member that another important concession has been made in regard to the Bantu Education Account, namely that in future not only four-fifths of the Bantu taxation but the full amount of Bantu taxation, will be put into that fund. This is a very great concession which will result in a large sum of money for the Bantu Education Account in the years to come; and if hon. members bear in mind that last year not even 50 per cent of the Bantu taxpayers paid their taxes they will realize that if all the Bantu pay their taxes we will be able to do much for Bantu education. I think in future the emphasis must fall on the collection of Bantu taxation. There is a special committee which will now work in that direction.

I do not think it is necessary for me at this stage to say more about the question of mother tongue education. The matter has been discussed over and over on various occasions and various hon. members on this side have dealt with it fully.

We should ask the Bantu.

Loan Vote Q,—“Bantu Education”, as printed, and the Estimates of Expenditure from Bantu Education Account, as printed, put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, through you, I should like to address my remarks to the Treasury Benches and members of the Government. A year ago the hon. the Minister had assumed the responsibility of this portfolio and I remember that on that occasion we said that we realized that he had not had time to get the harness well round his neck and that it would be unfair on our part to ask him what his Department’s policy was. But he has now had 12 months to get a grip of his Department. One sees statements and news items in the Press from time to time. We are not going to judge the Minister on the strength of statements which appear in the Press. We should like the hon. the Minister to be very frank with us this evening and tell us what his policy is in regard to one or two matters on which I shall elaborate presently so that when we discuss Indian affairs we can do so in the light of the policy he has enunciated. In fact, Sir, we believe, that the Minister will welcome an opportunity, having been in office for 12 months, of putting his policy before this House and the people of South Africa.

It has come to our ears that the Minister is negotiating in regard to political matters associated with the Indians and that there are talks going on about the political parts which Indians are to play in future in this country. Perhaps the Minister would be so good as to tell us how he sees the political destiny of the Indians in Natal and in the Transvaal. In regard to the other matters, I need not go any further than the Sunday paper which appeared yesterday where a statement appears to the effect that the hon. the Minister recently travelled to Johannesburg to meet a committee or group of Indians where various matters were discussed. I do not know how far that report is correct but on the assumption that there is some basis for this report I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister that we shall be grateful to know whether he did go to meet this group of Indians; whether the report in this Sunday paper is substantially correct and whether in regard to group areas discussions took place on the basis of the establishment of what is called a fact finding committee staying in permanent session. That is the phrase that is used. The suggestion, at any rate in the newspaper, is that a committee of two or three people, including members of the Minister’s staff, should be in permanent sitting with a view to discussing group areas. I cannot discuss group areas under the Vote of this Minister because group areas fall under another Minister, but there is no doubt whatsoever that the application of the Group Areas Act and the policy of the hon. Minister’s colleague are matters of great concern to the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs because the Group Areas Act impinges very sharply on the policy and the work of the Department of Indian Affairs. So we should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would tell us whether he proposes establishing such a committee and if so what is his attitude with regard to group areas. According to this report where Indian traders are unable to find other accommodation with similar trading rights, where there is a similar opening for business, notwithstanding the fact that the period of their permit had elapsed under the Group Areas Act, no prosecution would take place and that they would be given further time to try to find an opportunity of re-establishing themselves without being prosecuted.

Then there is the question of job reservation. According to this statement, as far as job reservation is concerned, the hon. the Minister will make it his business to see that Indians are not, through the application of job reservation, kept away from their employment; but that on the contrary, provision will be made for the training of Indians in skilled jobs by the amelioration of the provisions of the Apprenticeship Act and that when they are trained the Minister will see to it that they get those jobs from which they would otherwise have been excluded because of job reservation.

That portion of the report is entirely incorrect. The question of employment was never discussed.

I accept that from the hon. the Minister. Will the Minister then tell us what was discussed? Will he tell us what is his attitude towards job reservation, even if that was not discussed, and the training of Indian youth as apprentices for the purposes of playing a part as trained artisans in whatever sphere it may be that his policy determines they shall take part in hereafter. Because we have a Minister of Indian Affairs these are all things we can bring to one man. As I have said, he has had 12 months and I hope he will be able to give us, at any rate in broad outline, the picture as he sees it for the political, the economic and the residential development of the Indians who will no doubt find him a most sympathetic Minister in attending to their welfare and their cares.

I am very pleased that the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has adopted this attitude here this evening in connection with the Indians. All he actually did was to ask the Minister what progress he had made over the past 12 months in developing a policy for the Indians and what his views were with regard to Indian Affairs. I appreciate that attitude very much indeed because I think that so far this Session we have had the most fruitless discussion on race relations that we have ever had in this country. What we had from the Opposition was a frivolous approach to race relations.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Vote.

With the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, I am confining myself to the Vote because I am talking about our relations with the Indians in South Africa, and this is one of the most important aspects of race relations in this country. I want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for South Coast for the fact that he did no more this evening than to ask the Minister what progress he was making in connection with this question of our relations with the Indians in South Africa. I hope that this discussion will continue in that spirit because this question of our relationship with the Indians in South Africa is in many respects perhaps one of our most difficult racial problems. I say that it is one of our most difficult racial problems because it has certain characteristics which are not to be found in our other racial problems. As far as the Bantu are concerned, that side of the House has a certain policy and we have a certain policy. We also differ as far as the Coloureds are concerned; the Party over there has a certain policy with regard to the Coloureds and we have our policy. But when we come to the Indians in South Africa, we are dealing with a group of people, many of whom still look to their own mother country. That is why I cannot take any exception at all to the attitude which the hon. member for South Coast adopted here this evening in simply asking the Minister for information as to his approach to the Indian question. It is not necessary for me to say what our approach is. We of the National Party have stated perfectly clearly that we have abandoned the idea of solving this problem by way of repatriation. Years ago both parties felt that it could be solved along those lines, but we have abandoned that idea and I think the United Party have also abandoned it. This problem simply cannot be solved along the lines of repatriation. The main reason why we no longer consider the idea of repatriation is because in the first place the country to which they would have to be repatriated refuses to have them, and in the second place they do not want to go because they are so very much better off in Verwoerd’s hell of oppression than they would be in Nehru’s paradise. They are having a much better time in this devilish South Africa than Nehru’s little angels have in India.

Were they born there or are they South Africans?

Very well, they are South Africans. We have all decided that they are South African citizens. The question that now arises is what we are going to do with these people. As far as this side of the House is concerned we say that in the first place we must determine what their economic needs are, their educational requirements and their medical requirements and that we should lead them as far as possible along that road before we look after their political needs. Hon. members on the other side of the House will forgive me if I ask what their attitude is. I do not do so in a provocative way. The hon. member for South Coast adopted a very reasonable attitude, all he did was to ask the Minister what progress had been made with regard to this question of our relations with the Indians. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) must not interrupt me now. We can do one of two things as far as the Indians are concerned. We can either follow the policy that we are following in the case of the Coloureds or we can say that they must be given representation in this House. I very carefully studied the statement of the Leader of the Opposition which appeared in the Sunday Times a little while ago but it is not clear at all from that statement what he proposes to do with the Indians of South Africa. As far as I can discover—I do not think I am doing him an injustice in saying this—he stated that they would discuss the matter with the Indians to find out how much representation they wanted in this House. The fact of the matter is that all the Indians were offered representation in this House. That representation was offered by General Smuts when he confined the Indians to certain areas. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) will probably remember it very well. At the time of the passing of the Pegging Act he and I were both good United Party supporters, the only difference being that he was not quite as good as I was. At that time General Smuts under the Pegging Act offered the Indians two representatives in this House.

Which Vote is this?

The hon. member for Hillbrow wants to know which Vote this is. Has he still not discovered which Vote it is? I suppose he will discover it somewhere around 9 o’clock. The old United Party under General Smuts offered the Indians two representatives in this House and a number of seats in the Provincial Council, and what was the attitude of the Indians? They simply rejected it. They wanted to have nothing to do with it. They said they wanted to have nothing to do with any representation in this House. All that one could get out of them at the time was that they wanted what all the most extreme Leftists desire and that is full representation in this House on a basis of equality with the White man. Neither that side nor this side, with the exception of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), is willing to accede to that request.

What is the attitude of this side of the House? We are faced here with a problem; we have decided that these people cannot be repatriated and we have to give them some place in South Africa. What place can we give them? As far as we can see the position is this, we say that we are prepared to develop the Indian community along the same lines as the Coloureds. And that is not such an easy task. The attitude of the Government is that we must establish an Indian Advisory Council as we did in the case of the Coloureds. But because these people are so reluctant to cooperate, that process will be a much slower one than it was in the case of the Coloureds. The Indians are reluctant to co-operate for many reasons—for religious reasons and because they still have a mother country other than South Africa, which does not apply in the case of the Coloureds. The problem of dealing with the Coloureds is a very much easier one. But we say that we are willing to develop the Indian community along the lines that we are following in the case of the Coloureds. I hope that the Minister will succeed—I know that he is already doing so—in establishing an Indian Advisory. Council as soon as possible along the lines of the Coloured Advisory Council that we had in the old days. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) says that the development of the Indian people should be on similar lines as those of the Coloured people. Does that mean that we are going to have four people in this House to represent the Indians? You see, Sir, the hon. member for Vereeniging tried to create a diversion. He even went so far as to say that the repatriation of Indians was a dead-letter. Obviously he has not read the Estimates because there provision is made for R5,000 for the repatriation of Indians. This hon. member, instead of studying the Estimates tried to create a diversion in which he has been unsuccessful. Sir, I think we are entitled to know from the hon the Minister what his attitude is towards this problem. According to this report in the newspaper the Indian people can expect far-reaching concessions. What we should like to know from the Minister is this: Does he propose to make any concessions and if yes, what concessions does he propose to make? Do the concessions which he proposes to make involve legislation? Will they involve a more sympathetic administration if they do not involve new legislation of existing laws which affect the Indian people? If they involve a more sympathetic administration of existing legislation why is the Minister only now administering that legislation more sympathetically? The Indians are concerned with the administration of existing legislation particularly as far as it affects their economic life.

We are interested to see that the deputation which met the Minister consisted of some Indian merchants. Does the Minister propose to go on meeting deputations of this kind and can he tell us how these people were appointed? If he is going to deal with the Indian people in future what kind of a body will he meet? Will it be the merchant class? In what way will they be appointed? What will he regard as representative? I submit, Sir, that it is not only the merchant class which represents the Indian people; you have the teacher class, the professional class and the working class. The working class has a lot to say, Sir. I want to know what practical assistance the Minister is going to give to the Indian people. I refer particularly to his Welfare Department. His Welfare Department will be eased if something is done to the unemployed Indians. We in Natal are particularly concerned about the number of unemployed Indians. We have the biggest Indian population in South Africa. It is all very well for people outside to talk about the Indian problem but the majority of the Indians in South Africa are in Natal and they are particularly the responsibility of Natal.

May I refer the Minister to a survey made recently by the University of Natal. I think the Minister has seen that survey and I should like to know whether he accepts the findings of that survey. If he does not accept their findings, will the Minister institute a departmental survey. That survey shows that about 15,000 adult Indians were unemployed and were actively seeking employment in January 1962. This figure represents 12.3 per cent of the Durban Indian population and 27.7 per cent of the Indian working population. The report goes on to say that the average number of dependants of an Indian worker was 4.2, so that on the average a worker’s earnings had to support 5.2 persons. It says that the average weekly wage earned by a worker was R10.56. It says that unemployment was particularly marked amongst people under the age of 25 years and over the age of 56 years. Mr. Chairman, one of the tragedies in the peri urban areas of Durban to-day is the number of Indians with the junior certificate and the matriculation certificate walking the streets looking for work. I have met many of them who have been out of work for six months up to 18 months; they are willing to work but they cannot get work. It is all very well hon. members of the Government appearing to be unconcerned about that, but every unemployed worker is a burden on the State; every unemployed person is a burden on the taxpayer of South Africa. This report goes on to say that the percentage of unemployment is highest amongst the workers of low educational attainments, being as high as over 30 per cent amongst workers who have passed Stds. Ill and IV and the lowest amongst workers of a higher educational standard being under 8 per cent amongst workers who have gone beyond Std. VIII and nil amongst workers who have matriculated. Over 90 per cent of the unemployed have not passed Std. VI and half of these did not go beyond Std. IV. Unemployment is most concentrated amongst those trained in skilled industrial occupations and amongst the unskilled workers about 32 per cent. With the exception of the building industry, where unemployment is high, industrial workers suffer less unemployment than non-industrial workers. It is this whole question of unemployment which has been a canker in the life of the Indian community of Natal. I presume the position is the same in other parts of the country and. I think it warrants the special attention of this Minister. I want to know whether the hon. the Minister is going to do anything about it. Is he going to make representations to the Minister of Labour? What assistance does he think he will be able to give this section of the community?

Another matter which deserves the attention of the hon. the Minister is the question of the administration of the Group Areas Act. It does not actually fall under his Department but it has been decided to form a new township outside Durban in terms of the Group Areas Act. The Minister knows that that township, the Chatsworth Township is going to involve a considerable amount of money. Housing without transport, Mr. Chairman, is not the answer, We do hope the Minister will use his influence with the Minister of Railways, whom I am glad to see in the House to-night, to ensure that transport and housing go hand in hand. Without adequate transport those people are going to be put out in the bush and they will suffer a hardship, no matter how good the housing is if their transport becomes an economic burden which they cannot bear. I hope the Minister will go into the whole question of the housing of these people, into the effect of the Group Areas Act on their domestic and economic life and into the question of unemployment which affects the community as a whole. Now that it is his special responsibility the Indian community will not be satisfied with assurances in a newspaper to the effect that special concessions are going to be given to them unless they see something tangible, something which means bread and butter and economic relief to them. I think all sides are agreed that this section of the community has been neglected for a long time, particularly under this Government. This Government came into power in 1948 with the solution of the Indian problem in their pockets.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot reply to the questions of the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell). He put those questions to the hon. the Minister and I take it that the Minister will answer all those questions when he replies. The hon. member insinuates that it is the sole prerogative of hon. members who represent Natal to discuss Indian Affairs. It seems to me that if any person wishes to discuss the subject, he is first expected to advance reasons as to why he arrogates the right to himself to participate in the debate. I just want to say to the hon. member that during the period that I served on the City Council of Pretoria I was chairman of the non-White Affairs Committee and that the Indians also fell under that group. Pretoria’s Indian population at the moment is 6,064, and I therefore claim the right to participate in the discussion on this matter.

The hon. member referred in passing to an inquiry which was instituted by the Indian University College in Durban—a thorough inquiry, as he described it. I should like to say a few words about that University College, and I want to do so because these university colleges are always referred to as being possibly inferior institutions. This university college for Indians was the last of the series of institutions for higher education which the Government established during the past few years. The establishment of this college was a direct outcome of Act 45 of 1959, the Extension of University Education Act. On the one hand it is the outcome of the Government’s policy to introduce parallel development for the various racial groups and on the other hand it is the outcome of the cry to introduce democracy in education. The idea of the establishment of university colleges for non-Whites is that they are to serve their own communities, communities which have not previously had that opportunity. Mr. Chairman, it was against this background that the University College at Durban came into being. I must admit that Durban is the right place because there you have the greatest concentration of Indians.

I should like to point out that at the beginning attempts were made to boycott that university. The Government’s effort was viewed with suspicion. Misgivings were expressed with regard to the staff, with regard to the buildings, with regard to the standard of the work and the examinations. The university had to start in an atmosphere which was actually hostile. It is true that the first few students were confused and uncertain and the suspicions of the Indian community were aroused through criticism in the newspapers. To crown everything, Mr. Chairman, the standard demanded for admission to universities was raised in 1960, and the first 120 students, may of whom were extra-mural students, who went to that university panicked because an unsympathetic Press and other bodies had made all sorts of dire prophecies. Then there was also the difficulty in connection with the courses. To begin with the students could not choose the courses which they were anxious to follow. But, Mr. Chairman— and this is my important point—in due course that wall of suspicion, distruct and prejudice was broken down. The Indian community came to have greater faith in this institution and accepted it because the State was making every endeavour to give those people the best education. Indeed that is proved by the fine laboratories which have been established and equipped there. The growing number of students affords practical proof of the acceptance of that university college by the Indian community. In 1961 there were 114 students at the university; in 1962 there were 291, in 1963—this is the latest figure—there was a phenomenal increase in the number to 681, of whom 474 are full-time and 207 part-time. I understand that it is anticipated that next year the number of students will be in the vicinity of 800, and when we bear in mind that the number of pupils in the secondary schools is also increasing, it stands to reason that there will be a further increase in the number of students at the Indian University in the future. Sir, we should like to express our thanks to the University of South Africa which is the examining university for the Indian University College. When we look at the figures in connection with the Indian University College, we find that last year 47 per cent of the students passed the first-year course and 69.6 per cent the second-year course, a very fine result. I regard this confidence which is reposed in the university college as symbolic of the break-through of confidence on the part of the Indian community. We know that generally speaking the members of the Indian community view each other with distrust and that they have not trusted the Government’s efforts either, but here we have evidence of a break-through. Sir, we know that the elements among the Indian community who stir up trouble consist of only a small group of Indians, the so-called Congress groups, and although their influence amongst the Indians is confined to perhaps no more than 3 per cent of the Indian population, it is those elements who still continue to look to India and Pakistan for assistance and who try to stir up feeling against South Africa at UNO. As soon as we succeed in breaking the influence of this small group of rich Indians, we shall have greater co-operation from the average Indian, the ordinary working class Indian, to whom we are very sympathetically disposed. But the important point is that our Department has broken through this wall of distrust, and in this sphere the university college has set the example.

I think it will be in the interest of these discussions if I put a few matters in the correct light and if we can get a little clarity in this connection, but I must say at once that after having read the report to-day in yesterday’s Sunday Times I wished that the hon. Senator Sutter was here so that I could address a few suitable words to him, because I have seldom come across such a complete misrepresentation as that published in the Sunday Times about the interview which I gave in Pretoria and in connection with which reports had appeared previously in other newspapers. It is simply scandalous that journalism in South Africa should descend to the level to which this report descends. Sir, do you know what the Sunday Times tries to do here? It tries to create the impression that my Department and I can be used as instruments of the Indians to act against the Department of Community Development as far as Group Areas are concerned. This is what the report says—

Just imagine, the Department of Indian Affairs is allegedly trying to win over the Department of Community Development—

In the first place there is an accusation here against my colleague and his Department that they do not regard the Indians as belonging in South Africa; that they are regarded as foreigners. And then the paper says that I am trying to persuade them to regard the Indians as South Africans. The report goes on to say—

This is supposed to come from the “informed sources” of the Sunday Times. But what appeared in the Rand Daily Mail immediately after the interview which I gave to this deputation? There it was stated—

The Rand Daily Mail has the decency to mention the source of its information, and because it gives the source of its information its report is fairly correct—

It is clear that that statement was not made by me but by Mr. Joosub who was the leader of that deputation and who gave this statement to the newspapers after the interview. In spite of that statement, which had been published in the newspapers, the Sunday Times publishes this report in which it suggests that I am the person who is trying to persuade my colleague, Mr. Botha, to change his mind and to allow the Indians to remain in the White areas where they are at present. I resent that because it raises hopes in the minds of the Indian community which cannot be realized. It must be clearly understood that it is not the function of my Department to administer the Group Areas Act or to take over the administration of the Department of Labour in connection with job reservation, etc. That is the function of those two Departments. In this connection my Department is only a liaison Department through which the Indians can bring their problems to the notice of the Government because they do not always know which Departments to go to and because frequently their problems are problems in which various Departments are involved and because it is difficult for them to go and see all these Departments. That is why my Department acts as a link in this connection. But it is not the function of my Department to try to persuade other Departments to abandon their policy or to apply a different policy.

What are you doing?

What I am doing is set out specifically in the statement issued by me. The hon. member for South Coast has asked me what happened on this occasion and whom I met. Let me give the Committee the whole history. I received a request from Mr. Joosub, the president of the Pretoria Traders’ Association, to interview a deputation of Indians and I then arranged it. There were 12 delegates, not only traders but also others whom he had invited to come along, because he told me that he did not wish to create the impression that the interests of the Indian traders were not the same as those of other Indians. They spoke to me in connection with certain problems. They asked me to appoint an independent commission of inquiry to go into the implementation of the Group Areas Act. I informed them at once that I could not support such a request for a single moment but that I was prepared—and that is how my statement in this connection which appeared in the newspapers reads—to appoint a fact-finding committee. Let me quote the statement which I issued—

The position is this: The Department of Community Development has certain information at its disposal and it takes certain decisions on the basis of that information.

Is this a committee for the Transvaal only?

What happens is that the Department of Community Development takes certain decisions on the strength of information which it has at its disposal and that Indians affected by those decisions then make representations through my Department to the Department of Community Development, but then they present me with information and facts which differ entirely from the information at the disposal of the Department of Community Development. That happens repeatedly. In order to enable me to satisfy the Indians and to enable both Minister Botha and myself to satisfy ourselves that the decisions arrived at were based on the true facts of the situation, it was decided to appoint this standing inter-departmental committee consisting of two men. Only those cases where the information submitted to my Department (which is used as the channel for making representations) differs from the information which he and his Department have, will be submitted to this committee for investigation to ascertain the reasons for this difference and to furnish us with the correct facts. That is the only decision that was taken. I want to add that the Indians are satisfied with this. They feel that they will have achieved something if there is some channel through which they can bring to our notice the facts in connection with cases of hardship. As a result of this the Indians decided—and Mr. Joosub in fact said so, according to a statement which he gave to the newspapers—that however difficult it was to do so, they must accept that the pattern in South Africa is one of separate development and that they must adapt themselves to that pattern. In that connection I want to make it perfectly clear that I informed the deputation on that occasion that I often gained the impression that the Indians were adopting delaying tactics in connection with the implementation of the Group Areas Act because they were hoping that something would happen to cause the Government to abandon its policy or to unseat the Government. They are doing everything in their power to cause delay. I said to them that they could take it from me that all bona fide problems would receive sympathetic consideration from all departments provided there are signs that they are willing to co-operate and that they do not intend to adopt delaying tactics. The result is that I have now received offers from Indians from various parts who wish to establish bodies or associations or groups in an attempt to persuade their fellow-Indians to shift in accordance with the provisions of the Group Areas Act. I mention this merely to make it clear that it is not my function and the function of my Department to lay down policy in respect of the Group Areas Act, nor is it our function to determine the policy in respect of job reservation. My department is simply the link through which the Indians can make representations to those departments. Any attempt such as that now being made by the Sunday Times to play me and my Department off against my colleague and his Department can only be described as reprehensible, particularly since it is entirely in conflict with the facts.

The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) has asked with whom we are having discussions; whether we are only having discussions with the traders. I have adopted the attitude from the beginning that in making contacts with the Indian community one must bear in mind the fact that there are not only different religious groups but also different interests, and that I am not going to accept any particular group which only represents a particular interest or a particular religion as the mouthpiece of all the Indians. If a group of traders ask for an interview with me, then in the nature of things I must meet them if they put forward a reasonable case. Similarly my doors are open to any deputation of workers or of teachers or of other interest groups in the community. But I have always insisted that when members of the Indian community wish to come and see me with regard to the interests of the Indian community as a whole, they should try to make the deputation which comes to see me one which is representative of all the different interests. I have in fact on various occasions met deputations which have included traders, teachers, waiters, factory workers and others. My Department is making fine contacts with the Indians in all the various professions and occupations and with Indians of all different classes in the country.

In this connection I want to refer to job reservation and the training of Indian artisans referred to here by hon. members. I say again that it is not my function or that of my Department to lay down policy in this connection. The policy in this connection is determined by the Department of Labour, but my Department does help to try to obtain information and to bring about the necessary co-ordination. That also applies in respect of unemployment.

May I say that I have no reason to doubt the figures contained in the report of the University of Natal because we have no other information at our disposal. But it is because we know that the position is serious that my Department keeps in touch with the Durban Chamber of Industries, the Chamber of Commerce the Department of Labour and also with the Municipality in an attempt to find employment for the Indians. But we cannot lay down the policy in connection with the implementation of job reservation, etc. We can only try, within the framework of the policy laid down by other Departments, to find avenues of employment. We have already done this with a fair degree of success. In the building industry, for example, we have succeeded in persuading building contractors to make use to a much greater extent of Indian workers and Indian artisans in the building industry when they build in the Indian residential areas. The training at the technical colleges, of course, falls directly under my Department. We have already asked the Department of Education, Arts and Science to make a socio-economic survey for us in connection with the Indians through its Social and Educational Research Bureau. It is, of course, an almost impossible task to make a socio-economic survey in connection with Indians throughout the whole country simultaneously and immediately. That is why the survey is being made in different regions and areas. In Natal we are being assisted by the Department of Sociology of the University College for Indians in co-operation with other Departments. In Johannesburg the survey at Lenasia has already been completed, but the information still has to be sifted. I expect to receive the first report within the next five or six weeks. Once we get these socio-economic surveys we shall really be able to start to conduct fruitful negotiations with the other Government Departments to see what avenues of employment can be created for these people. So much with regard to the question of unemployment and group areas. I might just say that as far as Chatsworth is concerned the hon. member for Pinetown referred to the problem of transport. There again it is not my Department’s duty to make provision for transport, but my Department, which was aware of the circumstances, immediately got in touch with the relevant departments and discussions then took place between the Municipality and the Railway Administration and the Department of Transport to see in what way this transport problem could best be solved, whether it should be tackled by way of rail transport or by way of bus transport or air transport. All the possibilities are examined by the technical people of the various departments with a view of finding the best solution. I may add that where transport services which have to serve Indians have to be instituted, my Department insists that preference should be given to Indian transport contractors when it comes to the granting of licences, that is to say, when all other things are equal, of course. We feel that this offers an opportunity to create more avenues of employment for Indians. There are quite a number of Indians who operated between the Cato Manor area in Durban and who lost numbers of their clients as a result of the removal of the Bantu from the Cato Manor area and who then obtained licences to operate in the Chatsworth area. In this way we are trying to look after the interests of the Indians to the best of our ability.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has asked me to give some indication as to the nature of my negotiations with the Indians with regard to their political future in South Africa. I made it perfectly clear to the Indians—and they know that this is so—that the Government’s policy in this regard was perfectly clear, and that is that we do not hold out the prospect of parliamentary representation for the Indians but that for the rest the pattern which applies in respect of the Coloureds will also be applied to them, that is to say, they will be able to have their own municipalities or management committees in their own residential areas; in other words, they will be able to manage their own local affairs. In addition to that, there is the possibility that eventually an Indian Council may come into existence, a council which will have legislative and administrative responsibilities in respect of all matters directly affecting the Indian community. We are already beginning, as a preparatory step, to take over certain services for the Indians. Hon. members will notice that as from this year we are responsible for the university and higher education of the Indians and also for welfare services and pensions. These services have all been taken over this year. Similarly my Department will gradually, step by step, take over all the services which have to be rendered to the Indian community so that eventually it will be easier to transfer these obligations and duties to the Indian Council when it is ultimately called into being. I do not think it is necessary for me at this stage to deal with this matter in any detail. The policy of the Government has been dealt with and discussed on so many occasions in this House that if hon. members still do not know what that policy is, then I doubt whether I shall ever be able to assist them in this connection.

Before we can proceed to constitute such an Indian Council it is necessary, of course, that we should satisfy ourselves that it will be possible to constitute the council in such a way that it will be representative of all the various interest groups of the Indian population. That is why I do not want to be overhasty in constituting the council. I want to make proper contacts first with the various communities. I want to build up the necessary goodwill first and I hope that we shall be successful in obtaining that goodwill. We are getting the goodwill of the Indians to-day to an ever-increasing extent. As soon as we feel, in consultation with them, that the time is ripe, the council will be established but I do not think that this is a matter in which one should be overhasty. We must take our time because we are dealing here with so many different interest groups, religious groups, etc. We must make sure that we satisfy everybody and that we do not handle this matter in a way which draws one group towards us but alienates another group. I want to give hon. members the assurance that the contacts which my Department and I have made with the Indians in recent times have produced very excellent results, to such an extent that we can testify to the fact that to-day there is a growing goodwill on the part of the Indian community.

I think the hon. Minister is being a little optimistic if he thinks that he is ever going to build up goodwill between himself and the Indians in South Africa on the basis that he has described. He told us that it is not his function to look into the question of job reservation it is not his function to investigate the policy of group areas. Job reservation, he says, falls under the Department of Labour and group areas fall under the Department of the Interior. It so happens that these are the two matters which of course gravely affect the lives of the Indian community. I have found it difficult to understand exactly what the function of the hon. Minister’s Department is in view of the fact that he has disclaimed all responsibility for the two matters that most specifically affect the Indian community in South Africa. He calls himself a link. Of course it crossed my mind that he is somewhat of a missing link because I do not know what he is linking up with. He is certainly not linking up on the important issues, the two most important issues that I have mentioned. What is more, he is a very expensive link, indeed.

How can he be a missing link and be expensive at the same time?

Well, his functions are missing but his Department exists, and leaving out the social welfare side of it, his Department exists to the tune of R230,000. That is what the missing link costs us. Of course social welfare could just as well fall under the Department of Social Welfare, unemployment could be done by the Labour Department and education, technical and otherwise, could fall under the Department of Education.

A lot has been said about goodwill and all the rest of it, and everybody coming to terms on this question of the Indian population in South Africa. Evidently the fact is now being recognized on both sides of the House that the Indian community is here to stay, that they are South Africans, and that in fact they have been here for a hundred years. That of course should have dawned on people a long time ago. But better late than never. It has now dawned on this House generally that Indians cannot be repatriated and that they are in South Africa to stay. Of course we have not got much further in deciding what is going to happen to them thereafter. Both sides are still unsure about the political future of Indians. One thing we know is that Indians are not going to get any political representation in this House under the Government’s policy, although the hon. the Minister contradicted himself almost immediately after making that statement by saying that the Government’s intentions as regards the Indian population are to follow the same pattern as in respect of the Coloureds. And of course the Coloureds do have four representatives in the Lower House. Now I do not know what the intentions of the Opposition are as far as the political future of Indians is concerned. This is still open to consultation, although the Indians have been here for a hundred years, and the United Party has been in existence for 30 years; therefore it is time that the consultations started so that we can all know what the intentions are.

What did you support when you were a member of the United Party?

I constantly pleaded for the extension of rights of non-Europeans, whether Coloured or Indian or anything else. The policy that I support is that individuals should be treated as individuals and not as members of racial groups. In other words, if they have reached a certain stage of responsibility, they should be given rights and privileges as any member of any other racial group. In other words Common Roll representation for Indians throughout South Africa, males as well as females, who have reached certain educational or other qualifications.

I want to come to the question of the Indian Congress which created such a furor in the breast of the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto). He dislikes the Indian National Congress. Now irrespective of whether he dislikes them or not, or whether I dislike them or not, which is quite irrelevant to this debate, I want to ask the hon. Minister whether certain facts presented in a report drawn up by the Transvaal Indian Congress are in fact true facts or false, and if they are false, perhaps he will show us where they are false. This report was produced this year, and it shows that out of a total population of Transvaal Indians of 48,892 people something like 38,000 people have to be moved under group area proclamations, which the hon. Minister says is no concern of his. Now I am not asking him for an explanation of policy, but what I want to know is what the effect is of the policy, and whether it is correct as the Transvaal Indian Congress states that something like 38,000 out of 48,000 people are going to have to be moved when the group area proclamations are actually implemented.

Ask the Minister of the Interior. Of course it is impossible for me to investigate what the Minister concerned is doing in his Department.

The hon. Minister is head of the Department of Indian Affairs and I put it to him that it is his specific responsibility to seek the welfare of those people, and if there is something which is gravely affecting their entire livelihood, their whole future mode of living, it is indeed his concern. He should use his influence to see what can be done about these people, and I am very sorry indeed that he says that there is no truth whatever in the Sunday Times report. I am sorry there is no truth in it because I saw in it a ray of hope for the Indian people that the hon. Minister had met this delegation and was going to do his best to intervene on their behalf, both as far as group areas are concerned, and secondly as far as job reservation is concerned, because these are the two factors that most grievously affect the lives of the Indian community. Sir, it is no accident or fate that the majority of Indians in South Africa earn their livelihood as traders, and on the traders depends the livelihood of about two-thirds of the rest of the Indian population. It is no accident, because they have been prohibited either by the apprenticeship regulations or by job reservation or by the customary colour bar, which in many ways acts just as harshly on people of colour as statutory regulations, but whatever the reason may be, Indians in fact are virtually prohibited from taking up any occupations other than menial occupations, or going into trade and becoming self-employed.

You are just making a general charge. Give a specific case.

Under the apprenticeship regulations they cannot be apprenticed.

That is not by law. Give me a specific case.

How many Indians does the Minister of Transport employ on the Railways?

There is no law prohibiting it.

I have said already that custom is very often as strong as statutory regulation, and that hon. Minister does not employ a single Indian in the artisan capacity.

You are making general charges that you cannot prove.

The Minister’s Department is the largest employer of labour, and if his Department does not employ them no one else will. There is job reservation which also applies against the Indians, who cannot be apprenticed.

That is not job reservation. Give a specific case.

I say it is very difficult for them to be employed.

But that is not due to job reservation.

Order!

For a number of years this House has been accustomed to the hon. member for Houghton… [Interjections.] I was quiet when you spoke; so will you please keep quiet too.

You will still have to tolerate me for a long time.

Order! The hon. member must not be so personal.

I say that for a number of years we in this House have become accustomed to it that any colour, except White, excites that hon. member to such an extent that she cannot contain herself, she then causes a flutter in the dovecot and on every occasion she tries to befuddle the issue and to disturb race relations. If I interpret the atmosphere in this House correctly to-night. Sir, I think it is in a mood to approach this very difficult problem in a calm and objective manner because we are faced with an exceedingly difficult problem. When they were in power the United Party also made a serious attempt to tackle this problem of the Indians, particularly the Indians of Natal, but there was simply no co-operation on the part of the Indian population and even to-day they are not prepared to co-operate. Encouraged by people like Dr. Dadoo and Dr. Naicker and others the Indians were unwilling to co-operate with the Whites to try to find a solution and to establish better race relations. Let us see what the real position is. I challenge any person, including the hon. member for Houghton, to go to the Johannesburg market, the Pretoria market and practically every market in South Africa and see what the position is there. Those markets are controlled by the Indians, by the Indian retailer and wholesaler and they do it in such a way that it gives great offence to both the Whites and the non-Whites. Hence the race riots which we had at Cato Manor. It is a fact, is it not, that the Bantu rioted against the Indians and the Whites had to protect the latter against annihilation. But will the hon. member for Houghton admit that? On no, she pours fat on to the fire. Why she wants to fish in those troubled waters remains a mystery to me. What does she and others like her want? Anybody in his right mind will admit that we cannot have a second Pakistan or a second India here in South Africa. It cost India the lives of 19,000,000 people to obtain partition but what is 19,000,000 out of 500,000,000? Where we have been forced into this unfortunate position by these people themselves, I repeat that we cannot bring about separation between Indian and Indian. South Africa is too small for that. But do we get any co-operation from that hon. member? She and I came here together in 1953 and right from the outset she did nothing but disturb race relations. She misrepresents everything as long as she can disturb relations and fish in troubled waters. Heaven only knows what she wants. The Opposition must say the same. We should tackle this problem as responsible people. I have listened to the speeches from that side and I take it that they feel as we do namely that this is a problem that must be solved. It is very difficult for us to fit the Indians into the pattern of this country. When the White man came here he found the Hottentot in the Western Cape. To-day we know them as the Coloured people. Further east he came across the Black man. They are indigenous to this country and we who have been here for 300 years must surely be recognized by the world as indigenous to South Africa. The Whites, however, or rather my dear friends in Natal, imported the Indian to come to work in the plantations and the position gradually got out of hand and to-day the Indian controls Natal and the Transvaal and the Cape Province in parts as far as trade is concerned. Retail trade as well as wholesale trade is in his hands. Let me give an example. The silk trade—and which lady does not like wearing silk—is in the hands of the Indians. The fruit and vegetable trade is in the hands of Indians and I challenge anybody to get up and say I am wrong. A former mayor of Pretoria has just spoken. I am a producer. I have been to the Pretoria market and let me tell you what happens there, Sir. Vegetables or fruit come to the market. Nobody except the Indians bid for it. He takes the whole lot and distributes it as he wants to. The market master and the other White buyers are powerless against those closed ranks. [Interjections.] I have seen beautiful watermelons being sold for fourpence each and five minutes later they are sold for 5s. each. I repeat that throughout South Africa the markets are in the hands of that element and where do we find them? In the Transvaal, with the exception of two towns, we find them in the main streets of every town. In those two towns you only find them on the outskirts of the towns. [Laughter.] That hon. member laughs, but he laughs through sheer embarrassment, because he does not want that either. It gives offence to the Whites and to the non-Whites. I want to know whether that is a desirable state of affairs. We are not children in this House. Let us think about this matter. If the trade in respect of a certain commodity is in the hands of one race alone will the other races be satisfied with that? No, then you get what happened at Cato Manor. Exactly the same position obtains in Kenya. The position in Kenya to-day is that the shopkeepers, the men, are still there but the women and children have left because they expect the worst to happen the moment the Natives take over. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down should have made that speech on the Vote of the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) seems to find the most extraordinary opportunities for batting all round the wicket. I do not intend pursuing the lines she followed, but I would just recommend that she read the Koran. She will find that it says that man is justified by the greatness of his acts but woman through the magnitude of her illusions. [Laughter.]

I have no illusions at all about you.

I cannot say that the hon. the Minister has done much of his homework in the 12 months he has been the Minister. I have known the Minister for a long time and I honestly thought he would be able to do better than this. What does it all boil down to? It boils down to his saying: I am a link between X and Y; I have no influence with anyone, but I have appointed a committee with my friend Mr. Botha, and I have appointed one member of the committee and he has appointed one member, and that committee of two people will hear objections raised by the Indians and listen to their troubles and then we will see what can be done about it. Sir, there are 95 members on his staff. The sum involved is R2,800,000. And I am not even counting the Minister as one of the staff; he is the head. The Minister says he is a link, and he will not say that he has any influence in regard to this matter or that matter; there are laws dealing with those matters and it has nothing to do with him. But on this Vote there is the matter of education. However, the Minister is not the Minister of Indian Education and one whole facet of education he has not taken over. Certain types of education fall under him, like the technical colleges.

One.

It seems to me that his capital expenditure comes from this Vote. The hon. the Minister nods his head; he agrees. The capital is defrayed from revenue, but the whole of the aspect of education other than university education and technical education the Minister does not have. He is not even the Minister of Indian Education. He is only partly the Minister of Indian Education, and otherwise he is just a link. I know his difficulty. I remember the Prime Minister not long ago saying in regard to unemployed Indians that that is not his responsibility. Nevertheless, and in spite of the fact that the Minister has to-night been, as the Scots call it, havering, he will not get down to grips. I do not know whether he knows his own portfolio. Just what purpose will he serve? Surely he will do more than appoint a committee of two people in 12 months when he is spending R2,800,000 and has this big staff? He must surely do something as the result of a policy he has enunciated. He is the Minister of Indian Affairs. Indians are entitled to go to him with their difficulties. It is no good the hon. member for Houghton trying to cross swords with the hon. the Minister of Transport, because he employs a whole lot of Indians. But wherever they may be employed, is this Minister going to say that they must go and see their own employer? Where does he fit into the scheme of things? It is true that he has taken over Social Welfare, which previously fell under another Department, but what is the Minister going to do? Let us try to get a clear policy now so that we will know precisely what path the Minister is following. If Indians come to him with complaints, what will he do? Will he send them to this committee of two men? The position is that we have this legislation and other Ministers like the Ministers for Housing and Community Development and Coloured Affairs and Bantu Administration have their laws on the Statute Book and they have their powers and they just go straight ahead, and if anyone gets in their way they get ploughed out of the road. But this Minister does not even have a plough. He can do nothing because he is hamstrung by the legislation of his own Government. I want the Minister to stand up and tell us where he will use the Indian in the scheme of things in South Africa, in the economic sphere? What part has the Indian to play? Never mind whether we like the Indian or not. Hon. members claim that this is one of our most difficult problems, but the Minister finds no difficulty; he simply says it is not his problem. If it is job reservation, it falls under the Minister of Labour. If it is marketing, it falls under the Minister of Agriculture. If it is residential matters, it falls under the Minister of Community Development. How can he be Minister of Indian Affairs under those circumstances? Surely he must have a goal he is aiming at; he must have an objective. He must not grouse because the Indians pay tribute to him in the Press and say they look upon him as a man with a sympathetic outlook. What he does is to say that the Press is telling lies. The Indians are trying to play along with him, but the Minister repudiates them. Where do they go? I hope the Minister will be brave. He must not run away from his portfolio. Let him stand up and say: I am the champion of the Indian in South Africa and I will do my best for him. But the Minister is bashful. He will slink out of the Chamber in two minutes if we are not careful. I hope he will be bold. Let us have some of this “kragdadigheid” we have heard so much about.

I am sorry that the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has referred to the hon. the Minister as the liaison Minister. I do not think that is the way in which we in South Africa will solve this extremely difficult problem. I do not even want to talk about the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). She referred to the hon. the Minister as the missing link. The trouble with the hon. member is that she is continually travelling through the air in a vacuum in a weightless state and she has no hope of ever again putting her feet onto political soil. I think the hon. member for South Coast, indeed every member from Natal, realizes fully how difficult this problem is. The hon. member and his party also made mistakes in connection with the Indian problem but I am not reproaching them. Even the National Party was wrong when they thought they could repatriate the Indians. [Interjections.] I think the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) should listen to what I am saying. He has never yet tackled the racial problem seriously. As far as the Indian problem is concerned he should rather remain silent and leave it to the Natal members on his side. I say we have all made a mistake in regard to the Indians and this is not the time to reproach one another for mistakes that were made in the past; we should look at the problem as it presents itself and realize that politics is the science of what is possible. It is no good trying to apply anything impossible. Even in a race federation the Indians will continue to be a problem because they differ so widely from the other races in South Africa. The Bantu, the Coloured and the White are indigenous to South Africa. They have an outlook on life which you recognize immediately but the Indian has a totally different outlook on life.

A second aspect which we should always bear in mind is the fact that a large section of the Indian population still regard India as their fatherland. They are still prepared—I do not say all of them but a great many of them —to receive guidance and advice from India. Thirdly, we are faced with this problem that the Indian Prime Minister, Mr. Nehru, not long ago publicly issued instructions to the Indians in South Africa that the only way they could justify their presence in South Africa was to make common cause with the Bantu and many Indians listened to him. I will not be surprised to find that many Indians in South Africa hope that if they make common cause with the Bantu agitators that will lead to their salvation. All these are problems which we have to face up to.

What is our task? Is our task to try to steal a march on each other? That will not get us any further. That will not help us in finding a solution for the Indian problem. In the first place we have to see to it that we follow a course, as far as the Indians are concerned, which will fit into the traditional apartheid policy of South Africa and if we do not do that we are looking for trouble because that race does not fit in with the Whites. The hon. member for South Coast knows that as well as I do. Nor does he fit in with the Bantu and the Bantu will never absorb him, nor does he fit in with the Coloureds. The first thing we have to do is to make sure that we choose a course as far as the Indian is concerned which fits in with our apartheid pattern. Unless we do that we are heading for trouble.

The second task which rests on our shoulders is to ensure that through goodwill on our part—and it will take a long time before the Indian realizes that the White man is well-disposed towards him—we wean the Indian completely from his fatherland. If he wants to be a citizen of this country and enjoy the privileges of citizenship it is essential for the Indian to become weaned from his fatherland. Thirdly, we must get them to realize that the direction indicated to them by Nehru will lead to their own destruction, because we know, and the hon. member for South Coast knows this as well as I do, that if they have to join forces with the Bantu it will only be for the time being and the one to suffer will be the Indian as happened in 1948. That feeling against the Indian is still there. We must get the Indian to realize that the road indicated to them by Nehru will lead to his own destruction. I want to tell the Indians to-night that the sooner they get rid of the idea of making common cause with the Bantu agitators, the better will it be for them. They should rather apply all their mental power and financial ability to the well-being and welfare of the Indian population itself. That is not the task of the National Party alone. That task also rests on the shoulders of the United Party and on every White man in South Africa. It is no good our trying to steal a march on one another and to try to belittle the Minister. I do not envy him his task. The hon. member for South Coast knows it is a difficult task to gain the confidence of the Indian and to place him on the right road. The handling of the Bantu or of the Coloured is child’s play in comparison with the handling of the Indian. I want to appeal to hon. members to give the hon. the Minister a chance and to give the Government a chance. The hon. member for South Coast says I must be brave and indicate a course immediately but you can easily make a mistake which you cannot remedy later on.

But you have already been in power for 15 years.

Yes, but many things have changed during those 15 years and I am not hiding that. We hoped to repatriate them and the money was made available but you cannot load a crowd of people on to a ship and dump them in a country which does not want them. [Interjections.] I am not reproaching hon. members for having made mistakes in the past in connection with the Indians. The hon. member for South Coast, in particular, has made mistakes, but I do not hold that against him because that will get us nowhere. I do think, however, we have the right to appeal to the hon. member not to make belittling remarks about the Minister and the Government and to ask us to adopt a course hastily so that we can make mistakes over which they can gloat later on, because that will not get us anywhere, If the hon. member for South Coast and his party want to be brave there is only one moral thing they can do and that is to say to the Minister and the Government: You have our sympathy where you are honestly trying to solve this problem in a peaceful way.

I should like to say immediately that the hon. member who has just sat down reminds me of Rip van Winkle, but I am glad to see that apparently the Government is beginning to wake up. Hon. members like the hon. member for Vereeniging have referred to the question of repatriation, but they have known for years that it is impossible. This gentlemen’s agreement goes back to 1922, and in 1927 Dr. Malan also indicated that something would be done about the matter, but it does not help us to go back to those days. The previous Government attempted to meet this position, but they got no assistance from hon. members opposite. There was recognition of the fact that the Indian population is permanently in this country, and it is a fact we must face up to. I had hoped that when the Government passed the Citizenship Act nearly 15 years ago and recognized the Indians as South African citizens they had woken up, but I would like to express my disappointment that after the Minister has studied this matter for a year he has come before this House to-night with nothing of any consequence at all. One had hoped that there was going to be an attempt to deal with one of the most difficult problems we have, but quite clearly the Government has been anything but “kragdadig” about it. They do not seem to have made the slightest progress. The Minister’s reply to the hon. member for South Coast is one of the most disappointing replies I have heard in this House. Other hon. members have raised the question of Indian businesses, but I do not know whether it is in order to discuss it, but in passing I want to say that the Government ought to face up to this question, because the air of uncertainty in which the Indians have been left is something which does South Africa no credit at all. I sincerely hope that now that there is a Minister, even though he seems to have very little power, he will see to it that something is done to relieve the state of uncertainty which has existed all too long. This is a matter of very serious importance for this country and I say that the Government is simply not facing up to it in a realistic way, judging by the speech of the hon. the Minister and other hon. members opposite. I say that in the interest of South Africa the Minister ought to take this matter to the Cabinet and ask the Government, in the interest of the good name of South Africa, to face up to this question and to deal with it and to come before this House with a realistic statement of policy. This country is entitled to demand it.

I am surprised, not at the mouthpiece of the Transvaal Indian Congress whom we have here in the person of the hon. member for Houghton, but at the speeches of the hon member for South Coast and the hon. member for Germiston (District). Let me first deal briefly with the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Houghton.

All she did this evening was to give further publicity to the generalities, the vague unproven and propagandistic statements of the Transvaal Indian Congress.

Is it true or not?

I have come across numerous allegations by the Transvaal Indian Congress and I have investigated numerous of them. Every allegation which I have had investigated has proved to be false.

So that it is not necessary for them to move?

The hon. member must not make stupid interjections. Of course a large number will have to be moved. In any case, the future of certain areas in Johannesburg still have to be determined. Final decisions have not yet been come to in connection with a number of these matters. The Transvaal Indian Congress, however, take it that every one of them will have to move. That is a complete misrepresentation.

The same applies in the case of the hon. member’s reference to job reservation. In this regard I want to say that the job reservation determinations made in terms of the relevant Act by the Department of Labour as far as the Indians are concerned have so far only been to the benefit of the Indians. The Indians have not suffered as a result of a single job reservation determination. I challenge the hon. member to mention one instance where an Indian has lost his job as a result of job reservation. At the same time I want to challenge the hon. member to prove that it has not been job reservation which has protected the Indian in Natal in the refreshment trade. I challenge her to prove that throughout they are not protected against being ousted by the Bantu. But in that case she will again plead for the right of the Bantu to enter that trade. She wants her bread buttered on both sides.

What is the position of Indian barmen in Durban?

As I have said not a single Indian has lost his job as a result of job reservation. Let me take the building industry in Natal in this connection. The quota which is reserved in the building industry for the Indians in Natal is so high that not a single Indian need lose his job. We went even further and exempted all proclaimed Indian areas from the provisions in regard to job reservation. In other words, in the developing Indian areas an unlimited number of Indians can be employed in the building industry.

That is why I say that job reservation has not so far caused a single Indian to become unemployed. On the contrary, regulations have been issued in this regard which have been to the advantage of the Indians. I do not think it is necessary for me to react to the stupid remarks of the hon. member for Houghton.

I now want to deal with the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) and the hon. member for Germiston (District). The fact that they wanted the House to believe that I was supposed to have said that I and my Department had done nothing else than to appoint a two-man fact-finding committee was nothing else than a misrepresentation of what I had said earlier. The appointment of the fact-finding committee was one of the things which resulted from a discussion which took place on a certain occasion between the Indians and myself. In the course of my remarks I also drew attention to the gigantic task which had been undertaken on the initiative of my Department, namely, a broad socio-economic survey as far as the Indians were concerned. This is only one of the tasks which we have undertaken. I referred to the fact that the officials of my Department acted as liaison officers between the Department and the various chambers of trade and commerce, municipalities and other bodies with the object of providing employment for Indians. I may add that their work has been very fruitful and has yielded good results. The work that they are doing is also appreciated. As a matter of fact, it seems to me that the Indians are more appreciative of the work we are doing than the hon. member for South Coast. Wherever I have met Indians in Durban, Johannesburg or Pretoria they have expressed their appreciation to me for what the Department has already done for them simply by working in co-operation with other Departments. Hon members must consider this fact that other Departments do not always view the broad problem against the background of the peculiarly difficult position in which the Indians are. That is where the task of my Department lies, namely, to bring the particular problem which faces the Indians, as it fits into the wider set-up of things, to the notice of the various Departments. And that is also what we are doing.

But what did you do?

I say we are acting as a liaison with good results. Let me refer to another sphere. Last year I referred to the fact that Indians, although they had the necessary capital, did not always have the opportunity to invest that capital. As a result of representations which we made in this connection, an inter-departmental committee was appointed to investigate the question of establishing industries for Indians. The Ministers concerned will in due course make announcements in this connection. We have, however, made very good progress in this matter due to the investigations made by the officials of my Department.

Then we have the problem in connection with the development of residential areas for the Indians. There we are likewise faced with problems connected with transport and the obtaining of all kinds of licences, etc. It is the duty of the officials of my Department to see to it that the Indians enjoy those privileges to which they can justly lay claim. This task has been undertaken with very great success.

I now come to the question of Indian education and I want to ask the hon. member for South Coast, who so boldly called me a pseudo Minister of Indian Education this evening, to be equally bold and to answer the following question: He knows as well as I do what a big chunk of the finances of the Province of Natal goes into Indian education. He also knows that it is a heavy burden on the taxpayers of Natal because the number of Indians who have to be educated is very big in relation to the number of taxpayers in the province. Personally I am of the opinion that purely for financial reasons it should be the task of the country as a whole to provide for the education of the Indians. It should not be the task of the taxpayers of Natal alone. I am therefore also prepared to be a full Minister of Education for the Indians. Will the hon. member support me if I ask for it? Will he get his province to support me if I make that request? Or will he again make a political issue of the matter?

If I agree to that will it happen? If I agree to it will you take Indian education over? Will you give me your word of honour that you will do so?

If the hon. member…

No, no. You challenged me; you have to reply to me now. If I agree to it will you take Indian education over?

If the hon. member will support me and assist me in getting the Indians to realize that it is in their own interests that that be done, I give him my word that I shall ask for it to be transferred. But then the hon. member must promise me these two things: Firstly, the support of his party in regard to the transfer and, secondly, to put the matter in the right perspective as far as the Indians themselves are concerned. If he gives me an assurance on these two points, I give him my word of honour that I shall take Indian education over. But he will not do so because he wants to wait for me to decide so that they can exploit it for all sorts of propaganda purposes.

You are now running away.

No, I am not running away. I am prepared to take Indian education over as a whole. I have already been requested by a certain Indian teachers’ association to do so. There has also been a similar request by various Indian groups. I also know that there is a strong feeling amongst certain Whites in Natal for the Central Government to take Indian education over. Do not let us be petty in regard to this matter. I think it is in the interests of both the Whites and the Indians in Natal that more attention be paid to Indian education than is paid by the province to-day with its limited resources. There are this and other conditions to which the hon. member must agree.

We must, however, bear in mind the malicious propaganda which can be made out of it if we were to take such a step. Will the hon. member for South Coast now give me the assurance I have asked for? Can I prepare the necessary legislation during the recess with a view to introducing it next year? I shall do that if the hon. member will promise me his party’s support so as to remove any misrepresentation which may exist.…

Who is the Minister? Am I the Minister?

Have you no sense of responsibility?

The hon. member has provoked me. He said I was only a pseudo-Minister of Education. He wanted to know why I was only taking university and technical education over and not the rest. I am now telling him that I am prepared to take the rest over as well; he must only assist me, not in my own interests or in the interests of the National Party, but in the interests of this important matter and in the interests of the good name of South Africa. It is the duty of every one of us, whether we sit on this or on that side, to establish good relations between White and non-White. He must assist in removing any distrust which may exist. I am even prepared to have discussions with his party as to the manner in which it should be taken over.

Will the hon. member now assist me to do so without it causing a terrific political hullabaloo, because that is the only thing which deters me. I think it is in the interests of everybody that Indian education be taken over but so many incorrect things are said about South Africa that we must go slowly. If he makes me that offer, however, I shall be prepared to take immediate steps to carry out my side of the undertaking.

I hope hon. members realize that during the short time my Department has been in existence it has done a tremendous amount to assist Indian communities in various directions. From the nature of things we are faced with problems which call for thorough investigation before a solution can be offered. For the first time in the history of the Indians in South Africa proper investigations are being conducted. Surely it is necessary first of all to conduct proper investigations before you can come to a proper decision. That is exactly what my Department has been doing and is still doing with a great measure of success. Let me tell the hon. member this that with the few officials at our disposal we have created such a measure of goodwill amongst the Indian communities that it is to the great credit of that small group of men. If I personally have not done anything, as alleged by the hon. member, my officials at least have done a tremendous amount to assist Indians with the practical problems which face them. To try to belittle their work by attacking me is unfair towards those officials. These officials work much longer hours than they are expected to work. Their heart and soul are in this work and they have made it their life’s task. In this respect I wish to pay tribute to the Secretary of the Department of Indian Affairs. As a result of his work his health has suffered to such an extent that he has to spend a number of months in hospital. We wish him a speedy recovery. He and his officials do a tremendous amount of work and it is unfair towards them to belittle their work by attacking me.

The Minister seems to have been upset because he says this side of the House has belittled his Department and himself. But this is not what we did. On the contrary. Throughout this debate we have tried to find out from the Minister what the functions of his Department are. But we have not yet had a clear answer, despite the fact that the Minister has participated in the debate at least three times. All that we have had so far from the Minister is that his Department forms a link with the other Departments, or, as he put it himself on another occasion, that it forms a mouthpiece for the Indians. Now, if this is to be the only function of the Department of Indian Affairs then I submit there can be no justification for the large expenditure by his Department in this connection. The Indian community can just as well go to the other Departments direct. They can just as well approach the other Departments themselves— for instance, the Department of Community Development, the Department of Labour, the Department of Housing and others. There is absolutely no justification for a separate Department if that is to be its sole function.

Moreover, I find the hon. the Minister’s statements in this matter most extraordinary in the light of the statements he made last year in the Other Place as well as in this House. I want to read from the statement the hon. the Minister made in the Other Place and I do so because when he spoke on his Vote in this House he said specifically that he was not going into detail again in view of the full statement he had made in the Other Place. In regard to the functions of the Department of Indian Affairs he said the following on that occasion—

He proceeded to say how impressed he had been by the particular problems and requirements of the Indian community. He then dealt at length with the problems of the Indian community—problems arising out of the implementation of the Group Areas Act, the problem of unemployment, of housing, etc. With these matters he dealt at length. Now, what object was there in dealing with these matters at all or of dealing with them at such length if his Department was not responsible for them?

Again in this House, on 17 May 1962, the hon. the Minister, according to col. 5815 of his Hansard speech, said—

In col. 5818 he said—

He then said that a socio-economic survey was being conducted by the University College for Indians in co-operation with the Department of Labour and at top of col. 5819 he gave us the reason for that, namely—

Now, if these are the tasks of the Department of Indian Affairs then surely they are also the responsibility of that Department even though the responsibility may be shared with other Government Departments, otherwise I fail to see what the objects of this Department are.

I wish to deal particularly with the problem of unemployment amongst the Indian community in Durban. Last year the Minister said that he appreciated that there was serious unemployment amongst Indians in Durban. He went so far as to say that according to some estimates the number of unemployed Indians was as high as 25,000. He added that the matter was being investigated by his Department. Since then the survey to which the hon. member for Pinetown referred has been published. This survey, which is both extensive and reliable, will, I hope, contribute to a better appreciation of the problem and will help to solve it. At any rate, according to this survey there are at present 15,000 unemployed workseekers amongst the Indians in Durban. This is an appalling waste of human resources. Part of the responsibility of finding work for these people rests on the Government, and here we would like to know what particular Department is responsible in this matter. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat is a very courteous member and therefore I would very much have liked to reply to what he said. This, however, I am unable to do as I do not realize exactly what it was he wanted to say.

I want to refer to what was said by the hon. member for Germiston (District). He appears to think it was scandalous that the National Party decided that repatriation would be an impossible task. But the fact is that the National Party came to this conclusion more or less at the same time that his party did! I remember that in the days when I was still a member of the United Party repatriation was our policy. Hon. members will find that up to 1946 General Smuts’s laws still made provision of R100 or more to be given to any Indian who wanted to leave the country, as well as a free passage. Eventually that party also realized that repatriation was an impossible task.

The hon. member for Natal South Coast tried to be facetious in this regard. He referred to the Department of Indian Affairs as a liaison Ministry, and as a Department which does not know what its duties entail, and so forth. The fact, however, is that every Government in this country has been reluctant to tackle the Indian problem. The hon. member was for quite a while the Administrator of Natal. During that time, what did he do in connection with the Indian problem?

Nothing.

What did he do for the Indians when he was the Administrator of Natal? Nothing, except to try to remove them from the municipal voters’ roll. But as far as the United Party itself is concerned: What did they do in regard to the Indians? The first step they took in this regard was, in 1946, in connection with the so-called “Pegging Act”. When that Act was passed by this House in 1946, all the members for Natal walked out because they would not vote for it. The hon. member for Natal South Coast was not here yet. At that time he was still the Administrator. It was only later that he became a member, in the fond hope of becoming a Minister. But he was mistaken! But the Natal members on that occasion walked out because they felt that too much was being done for the Indians. In terms of that legislation, General Smuts limited Indians to certain areas and offered them two Senators, three members in the Assembly and two members in the Provincial Council of Natal. What happened to that overture? Why did the Indians not get that representation? Because they refused to accept it. General Smuts was unable even to succeed in getting a voters’ roll drawn up for them. The Indians simply refused to co-operate. The hon. member for South Coasts knows how they marched through the streets of Pietermaritzburg, Johannesburg and Durban with placards saying: “Reject this Ghetto Act!”

And to-day the hon. member for South Coast is still marching.

Therefore we are concerned here with a problem in regard to which no Government has as yet been able to achieve anything, simply because the Indians have refused to co-operate. They would not co-operate with the hon. member when he was the Administrator, and he knows it.

The question is what your policy is.

I am coming to that. I am still just outlining the historical background.

General Smuts is no longer here.

Yes, but the hon. member for South Cost is here! I say that the Indians would just not co-operate, simply because they maintained that this was not their country. They have always regarded India as their homeland.

The hon. member now asks what our policy is. I will now enlighten him in that regard. The establishment by this Government of a Department of Indian Affairs is the first constructive attempt that has been made to cope with the problem. It is the first serious attempt that has been made in this connection. The Opposition, on the other hand, has not the faintest idea as to how they would handle the matter. The furthest they are now prepared to go is to say that if they get into power they will consult with the Indians to see what they will be able to do.

A state within a state.

I am not ashamed of that concept. It is the only way in which this problem can be solved. The establishment of this Department is on the same basis as the establishment of the Department of Coloured Affairs. This Department has just as little to do with work reservation and group areas as the Department of Indian Affairs, but is there to-day a single member opposite who is prepared to say that the Department of Coloured Affairs is not becoming a great success? Is any one of them prepared to say that they would like to do away with the Department of Coloured Affairs? The fact is that the Minister of Coloured Affairs has within a very short period succeeded in extending this Department into one which enjoys the enthusiastic regard of not only the Whites, but the Coloureds as well, because here one is dealing with an indigenous population group. That is why that Department is becoming the pride of the Coloureds. The Coloured Advisory Council is in the same way busy developing into a full-fledged legislative body.