When business was suspended last night I was saying that no scientific grounds existed for our well-known proposition in South Africa that the mother tongue, or the home language, should be used as the only medium of instruction. As in South Africa, there are other examples in the world, too, where the home language is used as the medium of instruction. But then we have the example of Canada where they have a different method. We find that in Quebec, e.g., the language of the religious convictions or church of the community is the medium of instruction. In Quebec the medium of instruction in the schools is French, although there are thousands of children from English-speaking homes. In Switzerland again we find a different system. There the language of the city council is used as the medium of instruction in the schools—the language of the canton—where it is German or Italian or French. It does not matter what the home language is. I think America is the best example we have. In America there are dozens of racial groups, but in spite of that the medium of instruction is the language of the State, the language of the country, viz. English. It does not matter whether one is German-speaking or Italian-speaking in one’s home, but the medium of instruction in the schools is English.

A knowledge of this fact may make us less critical of those who do not really believe in the principle of the home language being the only medium of instruction under all circumstances, and may also make us feel more sympathetic towards bilingual- or dual-medium schools.

The United Party also firmly believes that our children should be placed in the most favourable position in order to fulfil their obligations in terms of Section 108 of our Republican Constitution, i.e. the principle of bilingualism, so that they will not only be able to have a knowledge of the second language but will also be able to speak the second language fluently. Therefore, in terms of our approach, the second language will be introduced at a very early stage as a subject in their education, and the schools will be encouraged to introduce the second language as an additional medium of instruction early, gradually and in a natural way in to the school life of the child.

At what stage?

I have no time now to go into details; I am merely stating the broad principles. We are, of course, aware that various degrees of bilingualism exist in South Africa. We are prepared to accept any degree of bilingualism, particularly in this House, but the object of the United Party will be to approach as nearly as possible to full bilingualism, i.e. bilingualism on a fifty-fifty or hundred-hundred basis; equality of languages as far as possible.

Here we shall have to be careful not to lose sight of the fact that a large number of our children already leave school before reaching the secondary education stage. We shall consequently have to ensure that this attempt of ours to make them bilingual should be tackled as early as possible in our schools.

In order to implement what I have said thus far in regard to our approach to the education of our future citizens in our educational institutions, and to maintain the principle of the parental choice in regard to educational matters, particularly as laid down—and I say this with emphasis—in the Calvanistic dogma of our Nederduits Gereformeerde Kerk, the United Party policy comprises the establishment of three classes of schools. Firstly, there is the parallel-medium school where the children of both language groups will receive their education through the medium of their own language, in separate classrooms, but under one roof, so that they can live together there and learn to understand one another better. There we want to educate South Africans. There we want to educate them together as one group, and not treat them as strangers to one another. Therefore the schools will be encouraged to introduce the second language, not only as a subject but also as the medium of instruction, as soon as it is practicable. Then when they reach the secondary school they will also have a sound knowledge of the other language, irrespective of the language used as the medium of instruction in the secondary classes.

Secondly, the United Party favours dual-medium schools in areas where the number of school-going children is too small for a parallel-medium school, or having the dual-medium school in the high schools where the principle of bilingualism can be implemented to the full. But, Mr. Speaker, I have told you that we believe in the parental choice. Therefore we also make provision for single-medium schools, which will be established for those who are so unwise, if there are parallel- or dual-medium schools, as to send their children to a single-medium school. We shall, of course, encourage the parents rather to send their children to the parallel- or dual-medium school if it is in any way practically possible, but single-medium schools must be established in areas where either the English-speaking or the Afrikaans-speaking children are overwhelmingly in the majority. Here also the second language as the medium of instruction will be introduced gradually and in a natural manner without compulsion, so that this class of school will also eventually be converted into a dual-medium school if the secondary stage is reached and if the parents desire it. If the school-going youth are given the opportunity to be educated in the spirit of genuine South Africanism, it will not take long before these single-medium schools, after the primary stage, disappear completely.

Of course, the United Party realizes that what it stands for makes certain demands of it as far as the successful implementation of this policy is concerned. Therefore it will have to ensure, firstly, that there is regular consultation between the State and the province; secondly, the necessary schools and other educational institutions; thirdly, the necessary funds, not only to implement its education policy, but also to enable the schools and other educational institutions to keep pace with the demands of modern times. Here, however, I wish to issue a word of warning. We are so accustomed to-day just to talk about the sciences. We could easily devote too much attention to the sciences, to the detriment of the humanities. I am not saying that we should not devote attention to the sciences, nor that we should not devote even more attention to them than we have done hitherto, but we would be committing a crime against the “whole man” if we merely concentrated on the sciences and neglected the humanities.

For the rest, we shall need well-trained, well-paid and highly qualified staff for our school and educational institutions. We want more modern methods to be applied, such as, e.g., television or closed circuit television, and the antiquated examination system should be abolished; sufficient loans and bursaries should be made available; there must be greater and more scientific diversity in our education, penal measures should be taken against teachers who make themselves guilty of party-political propaganda in the classroom. Finally, we will provide greater contributions to our universities in order to enable them to fulfill their functions in the interest of South Africa.

I wish to conclude by saying that the crucial question asked by the United Party is: What is good for the child? How should the child be approached in order to get the best out of that child in school? What should the child be taught to prepare him for life or for the conditions in which he will find himself when he leaves school? What sort of training is necessary to make the child a true, full honourable, unselfish and unprejudiced person in a multiracial country, with two official languages and two White groups which can and must be fused into one? How must the child be adapted to the ever-shrinking world societies? In other words, it is just the opposite of the policy of that side of the House. That side of the House puts the State first. The United Party says that the child comes first, that the child is the prime consideration. The State is there for the child, and not as the Nationalist Party professes, that the child should be there for the State. They want the schools to educate the children of South Africa so that they can adapt themselves to the demands of the State. We say that the State is there to ensure the child being educated as an independent and free being, otherwise he is turned into a slave. That, in brief, is the policy of the United Party; it is our guiding principle, and that is the policy we put before the people of South Africa.

It is a long time since I heard anybody using arguments whereby he proved that he himself was not convinced of what he was saying, as was the case yesterday and today with the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp). One gained the impression throughout that the hon. member was speaking against his better judgement.

The hon. member said yesterday that there were no scientific grounds for saying that the mother tongue was the best medium of education, and this morning he touched on a few general matters and spoke in general, but the hon. member advanced no definite, scientific facts to support his arguments. The opposite may just as well be alleged. Sir, education must be tested by the product, by the results, and mother tongue education definitely produces the best results. The mother tongue as the medium of education is the incontrovertible and generally accepted principle in education. Eminent educationists and educational bodies have accepted this rule. I just want to give three examples. In the first place I refer to a pamphlet issued by the Ministry of Education in Great Britain, Pamphlet No. 26, which was published in 1954 under the heading: “Some Suggestions for Teachers of English and Others in Primary and Secondary Schools and in Further Education.” Now I just want to give the background. In Wales the matter of bilingualism also receives great attention, and this pamphlet particularly deals with it. The pamphlet says—

It is said here that it applies to the primary school in particular, but it refers also to the other schools. Let us hear in the second place what a South African educationist says in this regard. I refer here to Dr. P. A. Duminy, of the Faculty of Education of the Fort Hare University College. In a memorandum he put it as follows—

The hon. member for Hillbrow spoke about a scientific basis, and yesterday he said in reply to an interjection that he would come to the so-called basis, but he never came to it. But Dr. Duminy continues:

That means the accumulation of knowledge:

And now I come to a third educationist, and I want to read only two paragraphs from the book of this educationalist (translation.)

I read a further paragraph from the book of this educationist:

Who said that?

I forgot to tell the House who this authority is. This authority obtained his doctor’s degree on “Onderwys vir Blankes in Natal, 1824 tot 1940, ’n populêr wetenskaplike yerhandeling”. He is Louis S. Steenkamp, B.A., D.Educ.

Anyone who listened attentively to the speech of the hon. member will see that these two paragraphs repudiate everything he has said here.

I said that that was our recognised policy.

No, that now is the Shadow Minister of Education of the Opposition! We now want to ask the hon. member whether he still stands by that standpoint as an educationist, or does he now adopt a different standpoint as a politician?

I still stand by it. It is recognised United Party policy.

I call the whole House as witnesses in this regard. We on this side regard the highest educational principle to be that education should be child-centric, and directed towards the child.

That is not your policy. Christian National.

It is the policy of the National Party, inter alia, that education should not so much be dericted towards the subject or the language, but that the man should be educated as a whole, and that can only be done if the mother tongue is used as the medium of instruction, because the mother tongue is part of the behaviour—it is more than a language; it is part of his essence, part of his soul; it is the expression of his personality. It is the language in which he thinks. Sir, to educate a child in a strange medium is to commit a crime against the soul of that child. His capacity to think is disturbed and his personality is disrupted.

Is that also the case in America?

It seems to me that the United Party does not mind committing a crime against both the English-speaking and the Afrikaans-speaking child, as long as they can just derive political gain from their standpoint.

It has now become the custom in this House for the Opposition, through the mouth of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or of other speakers, to try to attack the education policy of this Government. As usual, we have of course had this criticism again this year, hackneyed on the one hand, but on the other hand, generally vague and mostly misleading criticism because it was not supported by the hard facts of statistics.

The hon. member for Hillbrow and also others made the allegation yesterday and to-day that the Government, and of course, in this regard also the Provincial Council of the Transvaal, are the cause of English and Afrikaans-speaking children being kept apart from one another in the schools. The hon. member referred to “kraaling off”. The English Press also speaks about “kraaling off”. I predict that we will yet hear a lot about that. In fact, the hon. member also mentioned the coming provincial elections, and I want to predict that this alleged “kraaling off” of school children will be dragged through the political arena ad nauseum, and it will also form part of the intimidation campaign against the English-speaking people to put them up in arms against the Government.

Sir, it is a lie that the policy of the Nationalist Party is the cause of English and Afrikaans-speaking children being kept apart in separate schools, and I shall prove it. We know the old saying that a person who tells a lie, knowing it to be a lie, will later believe it himself if he tells that lie long enough; and the further effect is that other people later perhaps also begin thinking that it is not such a big lie. Sir, it is the policy of the United Party to tell this lie as often as possible, and the United Party and the hon. member for Hillbrow thereby insinuate that there are large numbers of parents who want to send their children to schools with other language mediums, but that it is the policy of the Government and of the province not to allow it. Sir, the hon. member and other United Party spokesmen thereby want to intimate that this is in conflict with the spirit of patriotism. They pretend that the spirit of a single South African patriotism cannot be instilled as well in a single medium school as in a dual medium or a parallel medium school. Of course, I do not agree with that, because I believe it can be done equally well in a single medium school. The United Party in the Transvaal to-day frankly admits that they made the greatest mistake in 1945 in the Transvaal when the United Party came along with its language ordinance in an attempt to enforce bilingualism in all high schools within the short period of five years, an enforced bilingualism in terms of which certain subjects had to be taught in the other medium. No less a person than a very prominent member of the United Party made this admission, viz. Mr. Tracey Bielski, who for 27 years was a member of the Provincial Council in the Transvaal and a member of the Executive Committee, and who was also the ex-leader of the United Party in the Provincial Council. He recently said in an interview (translation)—

It means that it was knocked down as the result of the general election. What a wonderful admission! Actually Mr. Bielski should have added that this attempt failed because it came into conflict with the educational principle of mother tongue instruction.

What are you quoting from?

I want to come back to the insinuation of the hon. member and of speakers opposite who allege that there are parents who want to send their children to schools where the medium of instruction is different but are not allowed to do so. I say that this allegation is false and has just been taken out of the air. I shall quote the statistics. I do not want to do what the hon. member has done, namely to make allegations not supported by hard facts. I shall give you the statistics in respect of the attendance figures in parallel medium schools to which a parent has the opportunity of sending his child, whether he be Afrikaans or English-speaking. In the Transvaal last year there were still 48 parallel medium high schools which were attended by 18,231 Afrikaans-speaking children and by only 1,578 English-speaking students.

How many English-speaking children attend private schools?

Of these 48 schools, 27 are already without a single English-speaking student. And now I want to say that among those parallel medium high schools are some of the best high schools in the Transvaal. The parents cannot argue that they do not want to send their children there because those schools do not show good results. And let me still add that parents pass the parallel medium high schools by in favour of the English medium high school in Pretoria and on the Rand.

And what is the position in the primary schools? Evidently the United Party also accepts it as its policy that in the primary schools (I do not know up to what stage, according to them) the mother language should be used, but I want to give the following picture in regard to the primary schools. In the Transvaal last year there were 369 parallel medium primary schools, with a total number of students amounting to 62,460 Afrikaans-speaking students and only 6,601 English-speaking students. In 219 of those parallel medium schools there was no longer a single English-speaking child.

If we now paint the picture as a whole we find that in the Transvaal there are 429 primary, high and Class 2 schools with 92,152 Afrikaans-speaking students and only 8,466 English-speaking students. Again I want to emphasize that there is nothing to prevent English-speaking parents from sending their children to the parallel medium schools.

In the meantime, some of the parallel medium schools have been converted into single medium schools, some into Afrikaans single medium schools, but also into English single medium schools. In other words, the parents concerned directed such a request to the authorities and it was granted. We have examples of it.

Vanderbijlpark?

But now I ask: What about the private English medium schools? The private English medium schools remain English medium schools; they are not converted into parallel medium schools. If an Afrikaans-speaking child wants to go there, he is instructed through the medium of English. There is still one last fact in this regard: It is true that when the language ordinance was passed by the National Party an opportunity was granted for appeals. If a parent wishes to send his child to a school with a different medium, the child is subjected to a language test by the head of the school or by the inspector, and now it so happens that in fact there were very few appeals. The appeals which were in fact received by the Administrator (because the appeals go to the Administrator) were mainly from Afrikaans-speaking parents who wanted to send their children to English medium schools, but there were practically no cases of English-speaking parents who wanted to send their children to Afrikaans medium schools.

The other point raised here was in regard to the shortage of teachers, and much was also said about the inefficiency of teachers. This matter crops up every year, but no consideration is taken of the fact that this shortage of teachers is actually a phenomenon right throughout the world and also in the Western European Countries. It is a fact that the most able young men and women no longer feel attracted to the teaching profession, because there are now so many different openings. Two or three decades ago more able persons out of the potential which existed entered education. Now many of them enter into commerce and go in technical directions or into industry, and of course larger salaries are paid there, and therefore the attraction is greater. On the other hand, the status of the profession has unfortunately and wrongly decreased in the eyes of a large section of the public. I emphasize “wrongly” because the teaching profession (and there the hon. member must agree with me) still remains one of the most noble and exalted and important professions in our country and in the world, and it is time to make a new evaluation of the status of teachers in the community, and for the public to realize that teachers are dedicated people. Mr. Speaker, how much praise has that side of the House ever expressed for the teachers, not only from political platforms but also in other speeches or at their congresses by means of resolutions? No, the teaching profession is continually being belittled and teachers are accused and insulted at their congresses by delegates from that side of the House; teachers are accused of indoctrinating the children. The hon. member for Hillbrow has said that party politics should not be propagated in schools, but we know how far the Opposition’s concept of party politics goes. If the teacher inspires the children with pride and love for their own country, for their own people, for their own heritage, for their own culture and traditions and history, their own pattern of behaviour and characteristic, then that teacher receives no thanks or appreciation but is accused of dragging in party politics. We continually find examples of such ingratitude on the part of hon. members opposite. Sir, why does that party not encourage the English-speaking parents in turn to encourage their children to choose education as a profession? Last year I quoted the statistics, which I do not wish to repeat now, to prove that a very small percentage of English-speaking people, particularly in the Transvaal, choose the teaching profession. The percentage of English-speaking teachers is very low, when compared to the percentage of English-speaking people in our White population. It is obvious that more English-speaking people should become interested in the teaching profession. But let the United Party now put its hand into its own bosom and see what is has done. Sir, when it withdraws that hand the United Party itself will be astonished to see the state it is in.

Year after year we have the accusation that the Government does nothing about remedying the shortage of teachers. I again want to point out that it is a world-wide phenomenon. I wish to point out, further, that in a province like the Transvaal this shortage is fast disappearing as a result of timeous planning by the Department of Education and the provincial authority there. They have had encouraging results in their attempts. On 19 January this year the Deputy Director of Education in the Transvaal stated that all the posts in Transvaal schools had been effectively filled.

Oh no.

Well, that is what the Deputy Director stated and I am referring now to the beginning of this year. I believe these data are correct. Under this Department of Education last year (the end of 1964) there were 12,988 teaching posts, and of these posts 73 per cent were filled permanently. And we find that as the result of the improvement in salaries and better conditions of work and also more opportunities for promotion, more matriculants are becoming interested in the education profession, and that in turn has resulted in better candidates being attracted to education. We are very glad that this is the case.

I should like to refer very briefly to another point which was mentioned here, viz. in connection with the fact that the Government is being accused of not making enough funds available for education, and even primary and high school education are included in that accusation it made. I just want to remind the hon. members who said this that primary and high school education in all the provinces is gratis, and that particularly in so far as the Transvaal is concerned, the best possible facilities are made available for education’ facilities which compare very favourably with education facilities in any part of the world. Nor is there a shortage of funds for education, and no reason exists why any student entering high school cannot at least pass matric. Statistics show that in this respect we have made great progress, but I do not wish to weary the House with details. I merely wish to refer to a few statistics; By the end of 1930 only 15.8 per cent of students who were in Std. 7 four years before reached matric; in 1940 it was 17.3 per cent; in 1950 it was 21.2 per cent; in 1956 it had risen to 30.5 per cent, and in 1960 to 39.6 per cent. We are very gratified at the tremendous progress made in regard to higher education, and that less erosion has taken place, although I agree that the erosion is still too great.

I come to my final point, and that is in regard to erosion at the universities, our highest educational institutions. I am sure we are all very concerned about the great erosion which takes place there, particularly in so far as the failures in the first year at the universities are concerned. It has already been mentioned before that these failures by first-year students cause a loss of approximately R1,000,000 to the State, and to parents and to other bodies which provide bursaries they cause a loss of approximately R750,000,000 per annum. I hope that this matter, in regard to the large number of failures in the first year, will be investigated.

I agree with the Rector of the University of Pretoria in this regard, namely, that at least for the first year a longer academic year should be instituted. At the moment the academic year at the universities is only 28 weeks, and that is too short. I am not advocating a longer syllabus. This matter deserves attention and we should all like to see this erosion on the high intellectual plane reduced. We on this side wish to thank the Government heartily for realizing that economizing on education is practically tantamount to national suicide, and because the Government always makes available sufficient funds for education, and because it realizes that the investment in education yields the greatest dividends for our people and for the future of our nation.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the debate and I should like to make one or two comments on behalf of the 1,500,000 people in this country, the Coloured people, about whom so little is said and for whom so little is done.

We sit to-day in 1965 in the position, where the Minister of Economic Affairs can say that we have an unprecedented boom, and he jeers at the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for describing it as a “so-called boom”. I am sorry the hon. the Minister is not here, but I should like him to accompany me to any young married man or woman, in the category of R250 a month and under, and I will ask the Minister why it is, if we have this boom, and everybody is benefiting, that all wives must work to make ends meet, and why the pay-packet does not cover the month’s accounts? When one gets among the Coloured people, one finds that the position is very much worse. I would say that without a shadow of doubt, as the Minister of Finance will disclose later with his enormous surpluses, there is a lot of money changing hands and huge profits are being made. The daily Press is crowded with reports of companies showing their profits. But I say with the firmest conviction that the Coloured community, the white-collar worker, the person with a fixed income, the man who paid into a pension fund in the old days in pounds, and is now getting a rand worth about one-third of the ten shilling note of 20 years ago—they are definitely not sharing in this boom. The Minister of Finance is asking us for a lot of money. The Minister of Defence warned us yesterday of the dire consequences that might await us as the result of attacks from outside, but I think the time is long overdue when the Government should forget all the nonsense we have heard about Blacks and Whites and Browns and Yellows. They are all people who reside in this country. They are South African like us. Their standards of living, their religions and their languages are the same as ours. I cannot see for a moment why a Coloured man should always be regarded as being a little different.

This report, which the Government has accepted in regard to the economic development programme gives a clear indication that the Government has accepted the position that the Coloured man, the Bantu and the Indian, both men and women, belong to, and are part of our economy; that integration, which they always throw at us on this side, as being such a fearsome thing, is not only a fact but has been in existence for donkey’s years and that it will continue. The report says that by 1969 there will be 42,000 vacancies for White workers and concurrently with that, there will be 240,000 non-Whites unemployed. Surely the time has arrived for the Minister to realize this, and to use his influence to direct his funds into those channels, which will make certain, that these 240,000 non-Whites will have decent jobs and that they be given some training, and that Recommendation No. 1 of the report is carried out.

This country is trying to run the lives, the desires, the hopes, the fears and the loves of 14,000,000 people on the skills and crafts of 3,000,000. We seem to forget that walking down our streets every day, are people of many shades of colour. They are with us, and they cannot be moved. This report says that we must maintain immigration at a high level. With that I heartily agree, and so does every man whom I represent, because immigrants not only fill jobs but create many more jobs. Therefore it is interesting to see that at long last we get an official report which the Government has accepted, which says that immigration must be stepped up. One recommendation is that better utilization be made of our White manpower resources. Other speakers have indicated how that should be done. It refers to the training of Asiatics and Coloured and encouraging them to undertake more advanced work. That is very laudable, but here is the sting in the tail—“in specific areas”. Do I understand from that, that a Coloured man, an artisan, is going to be restricted to offering his services in specific areas only? Because if so, that is an injustice, and it is unfair, and the same applies to the Asiatics. If these people have crafts and skills, surely they should be entitled to sell their labour in the best market. Then there is reference to the more extensive utilization of Bantu labour, something which we have always advocated. Here it is now contained in an official report and accepted by the Government.

The report states further, this report prepared by competent persons who made a thorough investigation, that private consumption and expenditure have increased at a slower rate than the gross national income. That is the answer to the long address of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. It means that all those people in the lower income brackets have not enjoyed the boom to which I have referred. The Minister quoted a whole string of figures, percentages of this and that. What are they percentages of? These figures are old and I put it to you, Sir; ask any man or woman in the street what their opinion is, whether the cost of living has gone up or down, and they will give the answer, and they will not have to refer to the figures of the Bureau of Statistics to prove their contentions.

Among the Coloured community there is a complete lack of opportunity for apprenticeships. Coloured men have great difficulty in getting their children apprenticed to follow trades. I think this is a line which might be investigated. I have had correspondence with various Ministers in regard to the introduction of Coloured workers at various levels in the Government service. I have spoken on this subject many times. It is rather interesting to note that the Minister of Transport had to concede and take Coloured persons into his service, and they did not harm anybody by taking these jobs. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had to do the same thing. Here we find ourselves in the position where even a strike is threatening. I took this matter up with the trade union concerned and put it to them that if they were to adopt the policy of the United Party, that they should be paid the rate for the job, there can be no competition and there can be nothing which can in any way depreciate the position of the White worker. So it is right throughout the Public Service. I can quote cases, in this so-called era of prosperity, where Coloured men with 25 years’ service in various Government Departments are still only earning pittances. We heard the other day that R52 was the ceiling. I can quote the case of a man with 25 years’ service in the Department of Water Affairs who is still regarded as a casual labourer. I asked the Minister of Transport if he would consider a pension fund for Coloured servants, but he said it would cost too much. We are not discussing his Vote now, but I want to anchor his thought in the mind of the Minister of Finance and ask him whether or not R800,000 to make the non-White workers on the Railways happy and satisfied is fair and reasonable, and I ask him further to consider making money available so that pensions will be paid to all Coloured men and women in the Government service in all branches of all departments, and that an establishment where they are permanently employed and not temporarily should be established. I want to say further that there is a feeling of resentment and frustration growing up among Coloured people. They feel that they are being discriminated against and that all the legislation of the Government is being directed at them. They are the people who have to move in every group area scheme. Occasionally one finds a smaller number of Whites being moved, but in the vast majority of cases, it is the Coloured man who has to move. They are unhappy. They bought their properties with good, hard cash, and in many cases they are advanced in years and now they are told to move. Their businesses are taken away from them and they are confined to trading in their own areas.

You are exaggerating now.

I am not. The position is quite simple. I could quote many cases to the hon. member, if he cares to come to my office and look at my correspondence, where traders of many years’ standing, who have conducted legitimate businesses and who have no blemish on their record, are arbitrarily told to move because they are now affected persons. The result is that we are finding ourselves to-day with a number of people, a great body of people, who are becoming sullen, frustrated and disappointed. I appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance to realize that he should now use his influence in allocating his funds to sec that these harsh measures which result from the application of the Government’s laws are doing us more harm, than good, financially, if not in any other sense. And, it can be done, because I noticed the other day that the unpleasant side of the Department of Community Development has been taken over by the Minister of Planning—i.e. the planning of group areas. Right throughout the Cape Province I have stilt to find one Coloured community which is pleased with any area allocated to it. It is true that they had opportunities to make representations, but no notice was taken of their representations and in every case the Coloured communities are moved to the outer perimeter of the towns, into new townships, usually on the “kliprandjies”. I can take hon. members of this House to these places and show them, and ask them whether they would be happy and contented if that were the treatment meted out to them.

Furthermore, there is this question of job reservation. Nobody wants to undercut anybody else. I believe that the educated, intelligent and skilled Coloured man or woman cannot be held back from the expression of his own ability by any legislation which discriminates against him purely on the grounds of the colour of his skin. There are groups of Whites who are unable, by virtue of circumstances beyond their control and which the Government could remedy, because they could train them, who probably need a reserved occupation. If the reserved occupation was approached on that basis, I think the Coloured people could be persuaded that there is some merit in it. But on the present basis it is not so. The Coloured man says: I am as skilled as you are, but my skin is a little darker; I maintain your civilized standards; I behave myself—and they have behaved themselves; the Coloured people are the most law-abiding community we have. They are respectable people, but they have very little to hope for. They want to make a contribution to this country. They are human beings and South Africans and I believe that they should be treated as such, and that the Minister should see that something is done about it.

I should like to go further and ask how long it is since the minimum wage was fixed. I think that still dates back to an old war measure. I believe, and I direct the Minister’s attention to it, that the proper way to deal with this manpower shortage—because there is one—is to advance the Whites by training and education, as indicated by other speakers and to give the Coloureds an opportunity to fill the gaps, provided, of course, that when they do come into competition with the Whites, they get exactly the same pay; and that is all the Coloured man asks. He does not want to put any man out of his job. According to the Minister of Labour, there are no unemployed, but I could show him thousands of Coloured men who do not even bother to register. These men are on the platteland with their families and they have no hope nor prospects. All that happens is that the local authority, under the directions of the Government, carries out its policy; takes them by the scruff of the neck and tells them to move. Those who wish to trade, can only trade in their own area, with the result that the small trader cannot exist because of the competition from the big departmental stores and the bazaars whose customers are mainly Coloureds and Africans. Go into any bazaar on a busy day and see who the people are, who are there. How can these men compete in small one-man businesses in the Coloured and Indian areas against those big stores? It is impossible, so what happens? They steadily die.

Now, Sir, the Prime Minister said we must save for prosperity. I put it to him with the deepest respect that no married couple in the lower income brackets—and there are thousands of them—can save a tickey out of the wages many of them earn to-day. I do not want to say that the Prime Minister had the “effrontery” to say it, because that is an inelegant word, but he was misguided when he said that the “public servants do not need more”, they demand more. Can you believe that, Sir? In this modern age, with modern techniques and modern science, can you believe that the average man or woman in the service of the State or in the service of commerce and industry, does not “need” more? Surely we expect to be better off than our forefathers. Our original forbears went around in skins, but we do not do that any more; we have different standards, civilized standards. We on this side say that if a man maintains civilized standards, then he is entitled to enjoy the benefits of the civilization of which he is a member. I hope that the Minister of Finance, in framing his Budget, will take due cognizance of the fact that I speak with sincerity. I speak with knowledge of the facts when I say, that there is no boom in this country for the lower income groups in any walk of life and of any caste or creed.

Mr. Speaker, please grant me the opportunity of recalling to mind with the greatest appreciation Mr. Gert van Wyk, who in this House and in his constituency rendered yeoman service in his humble way to his country and his people. I should like to continue building on that foundation.

It is with humility and with fitting modesty that I want to discuss a very simple proposition, viz. “land does not increase”. Now I am aware of the fact that for more than 900 years land has been reclaimed from the sea in Holland, and the fact that not far from this honourable House, at the bottom of Adderley Street, land has been reclaimed from the sea. Nor is one unaware of the fact that it takes nature almost 300 years to form one inch of topsoil. But what I have just mentioned hardly derogates from this proposition: Land does not increase. When I was younger a noble gentleman, a wise farmer such as we still find in this country, taught me a very valuable lesson. A fault in an argument which I was advancing worried him and he wanted to correct it. I could not grasp it immediately, and then he told me: How many legs has an ox? Somewhat surprised, I immediately replied: Four, of course. Then he said to me: Now let us call the ox’s tail a leg; how many legs has it got now? I replied: Five. Then he said: You see, that is just where you make the mistake. Calling an ox’s tail a leg does not make that tail a leg; an ox has got only four legs. Probably many things may be deduced from this simple little story. I just want to mention that, just as that ox has only four legs, so this fact that land does not increase remains irrefutable, not only in South Africa but all over the world. Furthermore, just as an ox has only four legs, so true is it that land does not increase; and this fact has many important implications to the world and also for us in South Africa.

Let me just say this first. It is true that a nation does not become great according to the amount of fertile soil it has, but because of the people who cultivate that soil. It is true that a nation does not become great through its gold and its diamonds, but through the people who develop them; not because of the railway lines crossing the wide plains, but because of the people who build and control them. When this country was discovered it was a large country but it is the South Africans, English and Afrikaans-speaking, who are making this nation a great nation, even though our numbers are small. I am discussing this subject from the angle of the city dweller, and that of a young man. The modern philosophy in regard to land may perhaps best be defined as follows—

That is a proposition, Mr. Speaker, which, you will all agree, is almost as difficult to put into practical effect as it is to carry out the wonderful and rich traditions of this honourable House. The problem which flows from the proposition that “land does not increase” can be stated very simply as follows. It is estimated demographically that by the year 2000 the world population will be 6,000,000,000 at a conservative estimate. Such a population, in order to live, will require 15,000,000,000 acres of productive land. To-day there are available in the world 4,000,000,000 acres of productive land. Therefore I say that this problem, flowing from the proposition that land does not increase, is of the greatest interest on the international level. Scientists of repute increasingly agree that in the next 45 years this will become a cardinal problem, because during the next 45 years we are developing towards a shortage of approximately 11,000,000 acres of productive land; because every human being, in order to live, it is calculated, needs about 2½ acres of productive land.

Now the position is that as far as South Africa is concerned, the problem may be stated thus: It is estimated that in South Africa approximately 400,000,000 tons of soil is washed into the sea every year. It is further estimated that in South Africa approximately 25 per cent of the productive agricultural soil has already been destroyed by erosion. It is said further that in South Africa, in some areas, creeping desert conditions are developing. It is said that soil erosion and the consequent loss of soil is like a thief in the night. In addition to this, we still have the carving up of good soil into smallholdings particularly around our cities, of which 71 per cent is unused in the Pretoria-Witwatersrand-Vereeniging complex. There are already 87,000 such smallholdings. It is said that some people dream about a farm at 5 p.m. but never at 5 a.m. It is also said that many people dream about having a farm until they actually have one. The point I just want to make is that we are dealing here with a real problem. But now one lands in the temptation—and that is what normally happens in this sort of matter—to over-state one’s case, and I am guarding against that danger. I want to read a very interesting quotation. I am told that the older members of this House know more or less everything, and I believe it, but I think this quotation will be interesting. It is this—

That was written in the year 427-347 B.C. by Plato. That shows that this is an old problem. It shows further that if a newcomer like myself were to-day with the best intentions to exaggerate this matter, I would at least find myself in good company because it was also done thousands of years before me by a great man, also with the best intentions. Now it is a fact that the pressure of numbers on limited areas due to lack of planning in the past and avarice and worship of the profit motive, the belief that speed, machines and mass-production are good things in themselves rather than that they are there to serve humanity—all those defects of our civilization result in these scars inflicted on our soil, this soil which is not increasing. What we should realize is that in a country like America with its tremendous industrialization—and the conditions prevailing in America are also facing us to-day in regard to this matter, because to-day already more than 80 per cent of our White population in South Africa live in the cities, more than one-third of the Bantu population live in the cities, and also the biggest proportion of the Coloureds and Indians. What we must realize in this regard, it seems to me, is that in New York, for example, one has to go and see a cow in the zoo because there are many urban children who have never seen a cow in their lives. The relationship between the city and the rural areas has already undergone a very definite change in America, and also here the link between the city and the country will become increasingly more tenuous. Many children will no longer have a grandfather or grandmother, an uncle or aunt on the farm. The so-called “girls we love for what they are, boys for what they promise to become” from the farms—the boys, bundles of noise, with mud on their little legs with dirty faces, those children who still know the smell of moist newly-ploughed soil, the lowing of cattle and the bleating of sheep and the noise on Sundays from the labourers’ quarters, will become increasingly fewer. Important implications for the nations of the world flow from this—as America, e.g., knows only too well, and from which we can learn much so as to see pitfalls in time and to avoid them because, Sir, American conditions are on our threshold. And surely we must remain ourselves—free of the whole world—and therefore also of America. There they have a slogan in this regard, not only in the rural areas but particularly in the urban areas “Soil conservation is everybody’s business.”

The State is doing its share in respect of soil utilization, soil conservation and soil fertility. I could spend much time enumerating the laudable measures taken by the Government particularly since 1923 when we had the Commission of Inquiry into droughts, the Soil Conservation Act of 1946, etc. But that is not really the point; to me as a city dweller the point is something quite different. The important matter is to create a mass consciousness among our people in order that they may realize this simple fact that land does not increase. In my own constituency there are areas where hardly a bit of ground can be acquired any more, and there are many other parts in our country where the experience daily is that land does not increase, and that makes one realize how posterity will demand our rendering an account of our custody. The reply to this matter is quite simple. The answer is soil conservation, and physical planning, but that is not the whole answer; in addition, we must have the creation of mass consciousness on the part of the more than 80 per cent of our population, who do not come into contact actively and practically every day with this fact that land does not increase, as does the farmer, whose share in it I laud, and the agricultural expert whose share in it I can extol, but I am concerned about the city dwellers who should be made more aware of this fact. In that regard we have an urgent and important task. I believe that the city dwellers should in the first place be made more specifically aware of the importance of this problem of land which is not increasing. Secondly, through his knowledge and attitude towards the matter, he must help to create an atmosphere in which the State will really feel at liberty to devote the maximum available funds to soil conservation, so that the State will never feel that it is dealing here with 80 per cent of the population who probably do not understand the matter. I do not want to ask for that this morning, Sir, but I wonder whether I shall be permitted to pose the question whether the State cannot possibly double its subsidies to private undertakings which sacrifice everything in the interest of soil conservation. I am just suggesting that for what it might be worth. I feel that the city dweller can make a very important contribution in respect of the creation of this climate. It is not necessary for me to enter into the question of how it will have this by-product, in view of the fact that the links between the city-dwellers and the urban population will become increasingly fewer due to the lack of contact between children living in the cities and those living in the rural areas, and I hope that in that way the good relations which are so essential will be maintained.

Mr. Speaker, I make bold to say that mining houses, commercial men and industrialists, as in other countries of the world, should make their contributions by making available funds for research in this regard and for the training of technicians. They should realize that for them this is a form of national investment. I am told that in this country those people and bodies are still doing very little or nothing to promote research in regard to this matter or for the training of technicians. I could have said more in this regard but time does not permit me. I just want to make the point that those bodies can do much in this regard.

Just permit me also to mention that the C.S.I.R., for example, has evolved a machine which makes it possible to turn city refuse into compost. At present it is still an expensive process. An appeal can, however, be directed to the municipalities to become acquainted with the possibilities of this machine and to assist in the mass of organic refuse in our cities being ploughed back into the soil as compost.

Mr. Speaker, the woman in the city has an important role to play in this matter, the woman who kept this country clean under circumstances in which, as Langenhoven said, every other nation’s country became dirty; the woman in the city who, as a teacher of mine expressed it, can see to it that all her children will attend at least one land service camp. Through her agricultural and other women’s organizations she can make an important contribution to the creation of a greater mass consciousness of this simple fact that land is not increasing. The urban child can make an important contribution through attending the land service camps. Cannot the Voortrekkers make it their task to instill love for the land into our children? I understand that the Voortrekkers here in the Cape Province do much in this regard. President Eisenhower asked the Boy Scouts in America to make this their main task, and they do so in an exemplary manner. Cannot the Girl Guides and the Boy Scouts and the other youth organizations in our country do it here? It is a matter which must capture the imagination of our youth: “Our soil; it is all we have and it is not increasing.” May I plead that geography and nature study in our schools to-day should be arranged in such a way that soil conservation and soil utilization and soil fertility should form part of it. I think that a start should be made with this. I want to express the hope that the State will see its way clear to granting the request of S.A.R.C.C.U.S. (South African Regional Council for the Conservation and Utilization of the Soil), that the State should arrange a symposium on “Conservation and Education”, because as our old people always said, an early start is half the battle, and in this important matter it seems to me that South Africa, seeing that it can learn from the other industrialized countries of the world, is in a position where it can lead the world, and I believe we can do so by taking the initiative in respect of this matter also from the urban angle, as I have been advocating. Sir, the world pays the greatest homage to one characteristic, and what is that? Initiative. If we show initiative in regard to this matter, we can create something very wonderful for our civilization and our father-land.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say something in respect of the immigrants who can assist in this matter. I wanted to say something about the Bantu, about a love for their own, seeing that we are developing the Bantu homelands. I would have been able to tell you what is being done in regard to this matter. I want to mention that in respect of rudimentary Bantu townships it would perhaps be a very good thing if it were made possible for the urban Bantu to acquire sites cheaply in those rudimentary townships in order that they may also learn to love the soil, but time does not permit me to go into that. Allow me to conclude by saying: Much of the development of South Africa in the next 25 years will depend on the extent to which consciousness of the soil is created particularly in our cities. Therefore I wonder whether Van Riebeeck Day, which is generally a nice day to be outdoors, cannot become the day in the year on which we as a nation can joyfully and festively concentrate on soil conservation, soil fertility and soil utilization. This is just a suggestion I am making.

Lastly, can it not be considered that next year, when we celebrate the fifth year of our Republic, an appeal be made by the Government in regard to a national campaign of conservation of our soil—which will not increase—with its indigenous plant growth and animal life—everything which contributes to the incomparable beauty of our landscape, as well as the food it provides for us, clothing and riches and also luxuries, an appeal with the theme, “Love for that which is our own”, which includes love for the soil. Sir, is this not perhaps an occasion where the imagination of English- and Afrikaans-speaking people, particularly the English- and Afrikaans-speaking youth, will be stirred in regard to the one bond which inextricably binds us all, the bond of love for our fatherland, South Africa, that country in regard to which we know—but just because we know it therefore we are not afraid—that the soil is not increasing. At least the youth will accept this matter as a national necessity. I am convinced of that.

It is my pleasant duty to congratulate the hon. member for Edenvale (Dr. Koornhof) on his maiden speech. I want to assure him from this side of the House—that the matter which he took as his text has fallen on fertile ground on this side. Let me assure him that if his own side carries out what he has preached to them this morning, South Africa will be a better country. His remarks are most appropriate at this stage, “grond word nie meer nie”, and the Government is making it considerably less for the producers of this country by handing it over to the destroyers of land. [Interjections.] Sir, I hear some mumbling from that side, but that is nevertheless the truth. We know that Kaizer Mantanzima said that the land between the Kei and the Fish belongs to the Natives; he was supported at a later stage by Nelson Marambana, who said that they were now working for a territorial link-up between the Ciskei and the Transkei, and it would appear from what has been done that that is the object of the Government. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is not here himself because it is with him that we will have to deal for a lengthy period of time on the subject, because it has brought about a great deal of anxiety and uneasiness amongst the Europeans of that territory. Sir, he himself is responsible for the bombshell that now faces him. Notwithstanding all his warnings to those people not to panic he has caused complete revolt and there are those who are anxious to sell who have almost got those people to stampede in that part of the country.

However, Sir, I want to give the House a complete picture of what is taking place in that part of the country so that the House will know exactly what the position is. I want to tell the House firstly that that corridor has surrendered completely the whole of the land that was scheduled in the 1936 Act; there is nothing left, the schedule has taken the lot but it has done something else; it has taken something approaching another 100,000 acres of that corridor which was never scheduled or released in the 1936 Schedule. The Minister now tells us that he wants to consolidate the Ciskeian reserve and possibly establish another Bantustan. I want to illustrate the position by telling this House that the land that has been earmarked is land that will close the corridor completely up to the railway line. The position is as follows: He now requires all land between Berlin and King William’s Town on the western side of the line, which represents the last of the lower catchments of the Buffalo River. He wants all land from Kings Cross to Peelton, which runs through Native territory to Kei Road and Amabele, and all land to the west as far as Pirie. This means that he wants to eliminate completely the whole of remaining German settlements which have been there for 130 to 140 years and which have never at any time been a drag upon any Government in this country. I refer to the Frankfort and Braunschweig settlements. He wants all the larger farms between Kei Road and Frankfort. Sir, he wants to go further and I suppose he wants to take from 30 to 40 farms which are to be found in the Peddie area, to link up from Bell & Bodium up to the national road and maybe further to link up with Alice. Sir, I wonder if the hon. the Minister realizes the services which have been rendered by these people in the interests of this country over the 130 years that they have lived here? But what is serious is the fact that he wants to uproot no less than 200 farmers there from land which was established by their forebears and on which they are farming to-day. They now have to get out. Sir, what provision is this Government making for those 200 farmers? Is it doing anything whatsoever to find land for them or to re-establish them in any other area of South Africa, with markets similar to the ones of which they have been deprived? Sir. this Government is acting irresponsibly towards these 200 farmers whom it hopes to displace.

Sir, I want to tell you something else that is equally important in this whole issue and that is that the land from Kei Road up to Pirie represents the whole of the catchment area of the Buffalo River, all the forest land owned by the Forestry Department, all the springs and sponges. As a matter of fact, that area is the source of the Buffalo River on which you have three huge establishments in the form of water conservation works, on which King William’s Town and East London plus Swelitsha, the Good Hope textile factory, are entirely dependent for their water supply. Sir, these conservation works cost millions. Added to that there is the establishment of so-called border industries which at this stage are entirely dependent on those water supplies. Sir, in the process King William’s Town will become a White spot completely surrounded by a Black area; that land completely encircles King William’s Town; to a depth of from 10 to 30 miles there is no White access to or egress from King William’s Town.

That is nonsense.

The hon. member should go and learn his geography.

That is pure scaremongering with an eye on the provincial election.

Sir, listen to those members who are ignorant of the circumstances in this area. I want to tell those hon. members that the Minister made a firm declaration. He came down there and said: “I want that land and if you refuse to sell it to me then it is up to you farmers to find compensating land”. Sir, what a technique! I will tell you, Sir, what we object to. We are not the type of people where a Minister comes to us with that story to say, “Don’t buy Mr. Froneman’s farm; you can buy Mr. Vosloo’s farm”. We do not do that sort of thing. We would like to help him to solve his problems, but I want to assure the hon. the Minister that we have given more than our share in that we have conceded the whole of the land which was scheduled in the original Act; we have given him the better part of 100,000 acres of land that was neither scheduled nor released, and I think we must stand by that.

Then I come to what hon. members over there will probably call another spook story. The railway line is to be the boundary on the one side, the national road is to be the boundary from King William’s Town to East London, so the position there is this: The national road from East London to King William’s Town will be the border, running parallel with the railway line to King William’s Town; from there it runs only through native territory. The railway line from East London, as I have indicated, runs parallel to the national road. From Kings Cross to Amabele the railway line runs as the boundary to the new Banustan. Sir, I wonder if the hon. the Minister has considered this whole matter from the point of view of security. Does he realize what can happen when all access to the White areas, all egress from the White areas and all rail and road communications run through native territories or adjacent to native territories?

That is nonsense.

I hope the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) will get up and say that this plan is not to be carried out; then it will be nonsense. The hon. member is one of the people who worked out this plan.

Spook stories.

Sir, hon. members know that this is the truth. I want to tell these hon. gentlemen just what the position is we are authorized to tell the hon. the Minister that these Europeans are not prepared to sell their farms. I think in the interests of all parties concerned it is my duty to give the Minister the figures to show how the people voted at those various meetings. At the meeting at Peddie 131 were against the sale of land, none in favour and one refrained from voting. At Frankfort 78 out of 84 owners were present at the meeting; 78 voted against and two came in at a later stage and refrained from voting. At Braunschweig 30 voted against and two in favour. At Kei Road, at a meeting organized by the hon. member for Albany who was then the chairman of the Eastern Agricultural Union, the farmers were completely opposed to the sale of their land. We want to put it to the Minister that if he continues with this plan he is creating the greatest danger that he possibly can for this country because through that black territory runs the whole of our communications, including power and telegraphic lines. The hon. the Minister knows that there has been sabotage already. The railway line will be so exposed to sabotage that it will be a complete cut-off, leaving that corridor without any entry or exit. [Interjections.] The hon. member knows that. Sir, what is the reason for this? The Minister wants to accommodate literally thousands of illegal Transkeian squatters who have left their families and have gone out as migrant labourers. I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will not try to deny these facts. I happen to know that the hon. member for Heilbron has been advised of the position; it is undeniable. A government investigating committee was set up some years ago and they found that there were over 2,000 illegal squatters sitting on the banks of the Kei, all from the Transkei. The hon. member knows full well that that investigating committee found that there were some 300 huts on the farms Bulls Run and Cows Mead. Can he deny it? Then, Sir, there are the other places. Mooiplaas has become completely overrun; Macleantown has 32 squatters and it is a European settlement. Newlands is equally bad. At Qacu there must be a 100 or two; at Newlands mission is another one. At Kei Road I believe there are 110. Every piece of mission land that is to be found in that part of the country is cluttered up with illegal squatters who are the wives and families of migrant labourers.

In a recent letter I got from the hon. the Minister’s Department, where there had been a complaint against squatters on mission ground adjacent to one of the farms there, it was stated there were six uncontrolled squatters on a piece of land of not more than 20 acres, six illegal squatters with 36 schoolgoing children. Sir, that is what is going on and the Minister knows it and I want to assure him that nothing is being done about it. He wants this land for the accommodation of, in the main, the Transkei families of migrant labourers who are parked on farms, European and otherwise. Sir, the hon. the Minister has a duty there. With migrant labour as the policy of the Government the Minister has a duty and I sincerely hope he is going to carry it out, and that duty is to arrange for the accommodation of the families of all migrant labourers. The hon. the Minister took the power to do just that in the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill last year. Sir, this cancer can no longer remain. It is one of the greatest menaces, one of the most disrupting factors that we have in the whole of the Eastern area. It is a curse to us. What is the hon. Minister going to do about it? We feel that we have given more than our fair share. I want to put it to the Minister that he should appoint a commission to investigate the whole of this matter, and I want to ask him seriously to consider this matter because it is serious to all parties concerned. Before any land whatsoever is purchased in that area, except already released land, we ask that a commission should be appointed to investigate the following matters: (a) the extent to which there is squatting on European and Native-owned farms in the urban and rural areas of the corridor; (b) State-owned and mission lands in the corridor; (c) scheduled black spots and Forestry and railway property in the Cape Eastern border; (d) the best means of accommodating the families of migrant labourers.

Finally I want to tell the hon. Minister that it is envisaged in the economic planning programme that 120,000 additional labourers are going to be required in the European areas annually. Sir, where are you going to park their wives and families? I think this is a matter to which the Minister should give urgent consideration at the earliest possible date. The hon. the Minister has a duty to the Europeans there as well as to the Blacks and I sincerely hope that he will take the advice of the hon. member for Edenvale.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30 (2) and debate adjourned.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I consider it a particular honour and privilege to be able to stand up here to-day as the advocate for what we can describe as the least privileged of all in our society, namely, the mentally deficient children; that I have the privilege to ask that we should herald the dawn of a new day for this child and his care. That is why I have the honour to move this motion in this House—

In order to appreciate its contents we must first be acquainted with the subject of the motion, namely, the mentally deficient child. We must know what type of child this is; we must know why these children are typed as mentally deficient; we must know what the scope of this problem is, whether it is limited or appreciable, before we can ask for the expansion of existing institutional facilities. If I have to describe the type of child with whom we have to deal here, I must in the first place say that we can divide up the mentally retarded children into two groups. We can describe the first group as children who are educable and the second group as children who are regarded as being scholastically uneducable. The first group consists of children falling in the group with an I.Q. of between 50 and 80. When we ask what the size of this group of children is, I can say that in 1957 there were 9,783 children in the special classes in the schools in the four provinces falling under the various Provincial Administrations. In the special intermediate schools of the provinces there were 3,199. Altogether, therefore, there were 12,902 children in those schools. This was in 1957.

If we look at what is being done for those children, that is to say the children who are educable, we will see that the curriculum includes academic subjects but that the emphasis is placed particularly upon vocational education. We can say therefore that this type of child is looked after reasonably well. Facilities are made available for him and he is given the opportunity to become something in life.

The second group is described as the group which is scholastically uneducable. Here again we have to deal with two types. I just want to add that all the children in this group have an I.Q. of below 50 and that is why they are excluded from scholastic education. They are regarded as being uneducable because they receive no benefit from even the simplest type of curriculum. They can be divided into two groups. The first are those with on I.Q. of less than 20. Normally they are described as idiots. All they virtually require is physical care. That is why one finds that the parents of these children are willing to place them in the care of institutions which the State has made available for that purpose. The second group consists of the children with an I.Q. of between 20 and 50. That group of idiots, to describe them in this way—these terms have now been given a wrong connotation in our everyday life—are cared for in various institutions. We need not worry much about them. The second section of this group, that is to say, those with an I.Q. of between 20 and 50 are described as imbeciles and are also regarded as being uneducable. But it is said that although they are uneducable they are not untrainable; something can be done with them. They can still learn certain things so that they will later be able to look after themselves to a certain extent; so that they will be able to develop a certain measure of independence. They can learn to dress themselves; they can perform useful little functions; they can associate in a simple way with people where the social relationships are not too involved and they can learn simple behaviour patterns. It is contended that in many cases and with the right training, they can achieve up to 60 per cent of normal labour productivity. It is particularly for this type of child that we feel that far too little is still being done and that very much more ought to be done.

Let us first ask ourselves what the scope of this problem is. I want to say immediately that it appears to be very difficult to assess the precise scope of that problem. It is said that other countries have found that these children number about 4 out of every 1,000 of the normal child population. If we take this as an indicator we will have between 2,000 and 3,000 of those children in our country. But it is very difficult to ascertain to any degree of accuracy the number in our country because in the first place we do not have very comprehensive statistics which determine these figures accurately for us. Inspectors and psychologists who deal with the exclusion of these children from schools hold the view that the incidence is less than 4 per 1,000 in our country. A number of years ago a survey was made of the school-going population of Port Elizabeth and in terms of that survey it was contended that these children could number about 1 per 1,000. In 1957, 84 out of a total of 31,554 pupils were excluded in the Transvaal as being uneducable. If we take this as an indicator it amounts to about 2.5 per 1,000. Now we must remember that it is obviously not an indication of the total scope of the problem because in the case of many of those children the parents do not even dare to bring their children to school because they themselves realize that the children will never be passed. The children who are excluded are therefore not a clear indication of the precise number of children falling into this category. But it appears to us that the number will be between 2,000 and 3,000, approximately, if we take the child population from 6 to 16 years of age, that is to say, between 2,000 and 3,000 children who fall into these mentally deficient groups.

In other countries the proportion between idiots and imbeciles is 1 to 3. There are therefore many more imbeciles and these are the children about whom we are concerned. When we ask what is being done for the care of these children we can point out that there are already three State institutions mostly for the care of idiots. These are at Alexandria, Umgeni in Natal and Witrand in the Transvaal. These children are cared for there. Furthermore, there are 18 registered private institutions accommodating 350 children. The other children are cared for mainly at the so-called day centres. These day centres are the fruits of the new approach and train of thought in this connection. These day centres were established because many parents felt that their children could not be absorbed into the institutions set up by the State because, perhaps, of long waiting lists, and furthermore, because the parents themselves felt that did not want their child to be placed among mentally low grade and backward children. The parents felt that there was still a spark of something left in the child and they wanted to place him in a better environment. For that reason parents cooperated. Voluntary welfare organizations took the initiative and day centres were established in various parts of the country. I feel that we should pay tribute to the persons who have taken the lead in respect of this matter. The persons who work in these day centres often receive very small salaries but they continue with the work of caring for these mentally deficient children as a labour of love. One feels that one would also like to pay tribute to and express appreciation for the work done by the South African National Council for Mental Hygiene which has worked very hard in this direction. There are 10 of these day centres throughout the country, 8 of which operate under the protection of the National Council for Mental Hygiene. There are a further six residential centres which are controlled by various private organizations. We all know about the well-known Rudolph Steiner Schools and the work that is being done there. It is private organizations of this nature which care for a very large number of these mentally deficient children.

The existing institutions I have mentioned cost the State an amount of R1,956.723 annually. This was the figure for the year 1963-64. Then there are 30 licensed institutions where 768 White, 119 Coloured and 221 Bantu, a total of 1,128 mental defectives, are accommodated and these institutions cost the State R77,626 in 1963/4. There are 11 daily work centres accommodating 450 children and these centres receive a grant of 25c per child per day, providing that the total expenditure in this regard does not exceed R20,000. That is why we can say that for all these services together the State made an amount of more than R2,000,000 available for the care of mentally deficient children during 1963/4. The first part of this motion seeks to express and emphasize appreciation for what is already being done in respect of this type of child. We have not ignored these children; we have not, as has been the case in other countries in Africa and in the world neglected those children. Something has been done, no matter how little it may be; something has been done by the authorities to care for these children.

One of the most important stumbling-blocks in the past was the attitude adopted by the parents of these children. This is quite understandable but that attitude has stood in the path of the rehabilitation of those children. The old attitude was one of shame. Parents felt that the world regarded it as a reflection upon them as parents. Parents often felt that it was perhaps some or other visitation upon them for their sins or failings. That child was often a source of humiliation to them and to their other children. Reference was made to the mentally deficient brother or sister on the playing fields in such a way as to harm that family’s honour. The attitude of the community has often been cold and unsympathetic; people have said that it was a waste of money to spend anything on the rehabilitation of those children. But we can say that there has been a new approach recently to the question of this type of child and his care. There is a far more scientific approach to this mater now and the world realizes that there may be any number of reasons why a child is mentally deficient.

As far as this new approach is concerned, we discover further that people realize that it is often in leading and respected families with brilliant children where a child of this nature is born. Because of what he sees in other families, the parent has the advantage of realizing that he must not be ashamed of that child which has been entrusted to him. People’s minds have become enlightened and they have begun to talk and think in a more adult way about these children. The parent is no longer ashamed to discuss his child. He does not try to hide the child away. He does not try to keep the child away from the outside world. He consults a psychologist and discusses the child with him in a way which shows that the parent accepts the child and wants to do his very best for that child. This results not only in the parent being open-hearted in respect of the child but in his becoming the protector of the cause and the rights of that child. The parents are now taking the lead. Parents are now starting to ask the authorities and other bodies: “What about the child’s mind? Give me the facilities and I shall see to it that my child comes into his own.” The parents are now coming to the fore; the parents are seeking assistance and advice. They are starting to champion this cause. The parents are supported in this. It is not only the attitude of the parents that has changed but the whole attitude of society in this world in which we live. The parents are supported by an enlightened society which realizes the fairness of the cause of the parent. Society supports the parent in his efforts.

Mr. Speaker, the result of this new approach is that there is a far greater insistence on the part of the parent that more facilities be established for the care of these children. We see it in the growing waiting lists at each of those institutions. When we discuss these matters with the institutions which are known to us—the one at Bellville in Cape Town, the one in Bloemfontein, the one at Kimberley—and we look at the waiting lists of parents who want their children to be cared for in these places, and we see how the waiting lists continue to grow, then we realize that this is one of the first fruits of this new approach. We also feel that those waiting lists not only indicate a new approach in this regard but also contain a serious warning for us. They tell us that if we do not hasten with this matter we will probably build up such a backlog that we will find it very difficult at a later stage to make up that backlog and that in the process of catching up with that backlog, these children may suffer much harm.

That is why we take the liberty of pleading this cause before the House this morning and asking that existing facilities be extended. I have mentioned the existing institutions, those institutions to which the uneducable child, the child who must simply be cared for physically, can be admitted and cared for, such as Alexandra, Umgeni and Witrand. We even find long waiting lists at those institutions because the facilities there are also inadequate. That is why we ask that those facilities be extended. But at the same time we ask that if new institutions are established, they should not be large and unwieldy. We must not extend existing institutions; we must try to make those institutions smaller and easier to administer because no matter how underdeveloped these children may be, they are still human beings and need care, attention and affection. We cannot give them these things if we make these institutions too large.

The daily work centres are of vital importance because they have a special value. They have a great value to the State. They alleviate the problem of the higher grade mental defectives by taking those more serious mental defectives off the hands of the State so that the State does not have so much to do in this regard. But furthermore, those day centres render a tremendous service to parents. Mr. Speaker, can you imagine what this means to a family in which there is a child of this nature? Domestic life is restricted to a large extent; it is disrupted. By the establishment of these day centres that burden is to a very large extent removed from the shoulders of the parents, not only because the child leaves the home from time to time but because the child is taught to look after himself to a large extent. A new day dawns for that family and for the child itself. The child is now in the hands of people who understand him, who care for him and pamper him. He mixes with other children who are his equals; he learns to do things and he develops. Above all, that child is happy. I am told that this is one type of child who becomes bitterly disappointed when holidays come around. He wants to stay at that school because that is the place where he feels supremely happy. The shortcoming in regard to these day centres is, of course, that as a result of funds they cannot develop the way they should. Furthermore, the people who work there are poorly paid; the children have often to be cared for in church halls and other buildings which are not adequate for the purpose. That is why we ask for more facilities—that accommodation facilities be made available so that the children who live in distant parts in those particular regions can be sent to those day centres. We ask for more of these day centres so that more children can be admitted to them. We also feel that there should be some form of aftercare for the child who can be trained; that the child should not only be educated by that through the medium of sheltered employment or whatever the case may be he be given a future. He must not be pushed on to the open market and thrown to the wolves. We also feel that for as long as he lives he should be able to look after himself when those who are looking after him now fall away.

Mr. Speaker, I say that if we do this we shall be rendering a very great service to the State. We do care for that type of child; we are making something of that type of child who hitherto has been unproductive. Above all, we are fulfilling our duty in regard to human beings. We understand that things are going well in many spheres. That is why we ask whether this is not a challenge which has been set us as a Christian Western civilization to prove our faith in spiritual values, not only by always assessing our progress in a material way, but by seeing what we can do in respect of this type of child and his care. South Africa already leads the whole of Africa in this matter. Let us make it our aim, not only to be the leaders in Africa, but leaders in the world in respect of the care of mentally deficient children.

It is with pleasure that I support the hon. member’s motion, on behalf of this side of the House. We support it, Sir, because the motives behind it and the nature of his speech this morning are constructive and because the motion lacks that usual formula of thanking a Minister.

When we look at the work the hon. the Minister has done during the years he has been Minister of Health we ask ourselves what progress he has made. What has he done to help these poor sufferers and the families associated with them? He has given them shelter; he has given them food and he has even arranged with one of his colleagues to give them sheltered employment. All those are things which one would expect from a civilized nation. But the hon. member’s speech itself points out the weakness of the Minister’s policy. He, the Minister, no doubt, knows what the policy should be, much as the hon. member who has just sat down has demonstrated. He has skilled advisers. But to what extent has the hon. the Minister implemented that policy? What has he done to give the happiness which we would like to see among these unfortunates?

The hon. the Minister has one great advantage over his predecessors in office and that is that when he appointed the Commissioner for Mental Hygiene he was in the position to appoint a fairly young man compared with the previous commissioners. All his predecessors had to contend with the legacy of the pre-Union days in the mental health services. But this hon. Minister had that great advantage and what has he done with it? I think he has done something. I know from the agonized public speeches of the Commissioner for Mental Hygiene that he is most distressed about the state of the service of which he is the head. Who can redress this state but the Minister? So I feel there is little enough for which to “bedank die Minister”. He has done one thing. He has appointed a series of commissions. He has appointed one fortunately in the matter of nursing services and others which are long-term, and can only be long-term projects if they are the result of commissions. But what has he done about the problems which are before him to-day? The problem that will not arise to-morrow; they are here. The children are there. He should put himself in the position of a family into which is born a child which is mentally below normal. That is what he should do. What is being done for that family? What can the family doctor do? He is faced with this problem: The family is suddenly faced with an emotional and an economic upset; the whole world is changing around them in their little environment. From being a happy contented family—which is what this country wants and what we all need and wish for—they are suddenly faced with a problem which, to them, is insuperable. To whom can they turn? They often turn to the family doctor, perhaps to their “dominee”. What does the doctor find? That is the problem before the Minister. He should be able to say to the doctor: “This is what we will do for this child”. What does the Minister offer? He offers a roof and food and the simple cares of daily life and the prospect of not leaving the institution. As my honourable friend has just said, the mother is distressed; she hates to give up her child to this institution. Does this institution offer more than I have said? No Sir. It offers very little hope of turning this child into a useful citizen. That is the position because the Minister has not succeeded in providing short-term service which is needed now.

The hon. member who has just sat down, quoted considerably in regard to the intelligence quotient, but the I.Q. standard is not really something from which a great deal of guidance can be gained. It can help, it is one factor in the judgment of this particular infant and this particular family. Here is a child which must be rejected—the hon. member used an unfortunate word “idiot”—a child must be rejected, but it must be rejected once and for all, or can it in some way or other be educated into a useful citizen? Even if not useful can it be fitted in the community life of the country? Can it be fitted into the family to which it belongs, or must it be rejected, left solitary deserted? The hon. member said that they are not left to rot. They are not left to rot if you treat them as animals, if you regard them as animals, but from the point of view of a human being that is “rotting”. These unfortunates must be educated. We are a civilized people and they must be given every opportunity to turn themselves with the help of expert advice into useful people. It is all very well for the hon. member to quote millions of Rand. I don’t know whether those millions of Rand are enough or not, but what I do say is that the staff is not there. It is not only buildings that we want, it is not great custodial places for these children to run about in the sun, or to be fed when they are not fit to feed themselves. What we want is the skilled staff, and that is where the hon. Minister has fallen down. I know as well as he does, perhaps better than he does that staff does not grow on trees. The hon. the Minister has done little to find that staff. He has had years in which to search. No money should be spared to find the staff. There is a shortage of this type of staff in the world, but they can be found and they can be bought. These people must be found. Last year, I spoke on the Education Vote and on the Health Vote about one of the key figures, the health visitor. I pointed out to the hon. the Minister that there was a grave shortage of health visitors. Not only is there a grave shortage but there is growing evidence that no more are being trained. Why? Because in the switch from the Union to the Republic, we have allowed our link with the Royal Sanitary Institution to disappear. Be that as it may the point was that the hon. the Minister made no real effort to hasten the establishment of a training establishment under our own name. A training establishment was there before; the only thing was that the examinations were carried out in the name of the Royal Sanitary Institution. But they were suspended. It is only during the last recess that I was able to receive from the Department of Education the syllabus which is now considered necessary for the health visitors. I also pointed out to the hon. Minister that in his subsidization of nurses for local authorities, he was making no effort to support the most important figure, the health visitor. The result was that because of the lower subsidy in respect of the health visitor, who is the key member, the most important nurse in the country, the one upon whom all our changing modern ideas of treatment of patients, both mental and physical, depend, there was no encouragement for nurses to specialize in this direction. On them depends our hope of shortening hospitalization. The hon. Minister was giving them a lower subsidy than the less qualified and less fitted clinic nurses. Only now, it is not definite, but I see the possibility in the new Public Health Act, which the hon. Minister has tabled, perhaps this subsidy may be equalled to the other. It should be greater, it should be such that it is an attraction for the best nurses we have in the country, the most accomplished and intelligent, willing, dedicated nurses in the country, to switch from the ordinary general nursing in hospitals and become these key-figures in the care of the people.

And what is the position of the doctors in these hospitals? From the day the hon. Minister took office there has been a shortage, a shocking shortage. Not only was the shortage shocking but the quality was shocking. By that I do not say that he has not got many first-class men in his mental service, but he also has men who are retired general practitioners, retired officials, retired medical officers of health—good doctors, kind doctors, experienced doctors, but not experienced in this special service. What has he done? He has created a few registrarships by which he will be able to train, in association with the medical schools, a few more psychiatrists. Has he made any use of the psychiatrist in private practice? No, Sir. He could get some of these men to-day. Perhaps it will cost money, but what is it now costing in the happiness of these mothers and these children? He has made no real effort to find these people. And what about the trainers of these children, and what is to happen to them? Some three years ago I found as a result of a question to his department that there is a number of vacancies as far as occupational therapists in his department were concerned. So much so, that there are few to-day who would take the trouble to learn occupational therapy. The number of vacancies is not big, and on the other hand there are not many girls available. The Minister has not encouraged them because he did not give them employment, the main source of employment for these occupational therapists is the mental services. It is true that from the point of view of the treatment of the retarded child they are now being replaced by a further development, and I am certain that the hon. Minister’s department has not been able to enlist one, and that is the industrial therapist, the offspring of the occupational therapist. What is industrial therapy? It is a movement away from the old occupational therapist who taught these ill people to make baskets, to make mats—mats was the great thing; in other words they were given some form of occupation, to keep them occupied, people who could not read, who were perhaps tired of reading; all these people could be taught by the occupational therapist, and at the end of six months or so, there was a kindly group of workers who opened a store somewhere and there sold the products of their work. That is the occupational therapist. He keeps the children occupied, teaches them certain skills with their fingers, and charitable people sell the ultimate product. The money produced from the sale certainly was a pittance. It was something perhaps with which the occupational therapist could buy a gramophone set or a wireless set for the patients to listen to. But the industrial therapist is not satisfied with that. He says: I must take this patient and I must teach him useful work. Not only must I teach him useful work, but the work that he does must earn something for him. That is what the industrial therapist does. He teaches them work which is useful and with a good psychiatrist, with good health visitors, with good industrial therapists and very often with the help of a technician from a neighbouring works who can come in and demonstrate techniques and break it down into its components to help them, the industrial therapist successfully obtains a number of these imbeciles …

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

Afternoon Sitting

When the business of the House was suspended for lunch, I was attempting to show to the hon. the Minister the new outlook that should be used and is not, I believe, found in his Department, namely, the work of the industrial therapists. It has been found, and it is being done, that quite a number of these medium and high-grade imbeciles are able to be taught lucrative work, they are able to be used in industry, either through the medium of a disability office or workshop, or even direct in industry. The point about it is that they must be suitably trained, for example it has been found that a group of girls, by slowing down the electric sewing machines have been able to take part in the manufacture of clothing by actually using machines. There is a factory in Holland which produces 500 sand-shoes a day using this type of person, and it is reported that the majority, or quite a large proportion of the bicycles in Holland are assembled by these people; the assembling of things like bicycle pumps or motor-car pumps fall within their range. All these are things which, if you give these people the right job and the right tools and allow them the right speed to work, can be manufactured, articles which can be sold in their town and earn money for them. The effect of being able themselves to earn something, to have money that they themselves have earned in their own right has a great effect on their self respect and moves them nearer towards the community in which they live. This is the last group of mentally-disabled people to receive the study of the psychiatrist associated with the industrialist, and these therapeutic workshops are not run with the idea of charity. The contractor who contracts to use the product has to meet competition and standards in the open market and he must not deal in a spirit of altruism, nor must the negotiator for the school or the workshop think that they can receive charity. It must be a business transaction and the money they earn must be genuinely earned. It must not be charity, and they must know that it is not charity. Then their standards will continue to rise. It is one of the greatest successes that has come out of the treatment of those unfortunate people whose mental standard is not equal to that of the normal human being and is often extremely low.

That is fitting the patient, the child, into the community. He must also be fitted into his home. We must not allow these children who are looked after during the day in these workshops or in those centres, to return home to become a burden in their homes. They also need treatment there. If the mother or the parents come home every night to a state of disorder or difficult conduct from a child of this nature is a terrible thing. The mother looks to the psychiatric service of the state to help these people, to show them what they can do and what they as a family must do—because they also must be taught; they must be taught how to fit this child into its environment. In many instances these children can hardly communicate except perhaps with one individual in the family. In some way or other the child will find a way of communicating with its brother or its mother and nobody else can understand what the child tries to express. In similar ways the whole family must be protected from its own weak link, and this must be done by the Minister’s Department. The ordinary family doctor who draws the attention of the department to this child and this family does his best and will go on doing his best, but he has no training to make the parents understand and make the brothers and sisters understand and the neighbours understand that here is an unfortunate who can fit in, for whom there is a niche, a place where he can go and live a life, not separated and segregated from his fellows and his relations. Because, Sir, the hospitalization of these people is demoralizing. It is demoralizing for anybody to be left in an institution, to vegetate there without any prospect of coming out. And in most cases the parents are willing, in most cases these children are most amenable, but the training and those words of help must be supplied by the Minister’s Department, both by way of health visitors and welfare visitors and specialized doctors. There is no need to waste time teaching these people to read and write. What they read they would not understand. Few of them can count. But they can carry out work and they can be fitted into the household. By so doing these people will form a group who are citizens of the State and are not a burden to the State. No matter what it may cost the country to provide this specialized education to provide these schools, to provide this specialized advice, it is cheaper than building large custodial institutions where these unfortunates are put away and forgotten. If it is not done soon, the Minister who has already groups of these people, growing groups—not only this but other similar types—will find himself for years, as is already the case, loaded with people, children and adults, who are hospitalized for years and who just cannot be got out of the hospitals. It is just not possible to get them out. The community is not prepared to receive them and they themselves are not in a state of mind to be able to fit into the community. [Time limit.]

When the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) stood up, I pricked up my ears. I thought that I would learn something this afternoon. He is a doctor and a man who has grown old in his profession, a man who knows much more about these matters than many of us do. One could have expected a constructive contribution from him, but what did he do? Scarcely was he on his feet when he again dragged the defunct motion of no confidence into this House with the specific purpose of getting at the hon. the Minister of Health. I do not deny the hon. member his right to criticize but let that criticism then be constructive criticism in a debate such as this. When criticism degenerates purely and simply into faultfinding I think that we then have to deal with a case of mental aberration and we would like to call in the advice of a psychiatrist.

I myself am critical of the whole matter which we are discussing this afternoon but I hope to be constructive. I am pleased that the hon. member returned to the actual problem towards the end of his speech after he had covered a variety of topics.

This problem in connection with the care of mental defectives with an I.Q. of between 30 and 50 was discussed in great detail last year under the Vote of Health. On that occasion the hon. the Minister of Health told us. inter alia (translation)—

I trust that his hope was not an idle one and that he will have good news for us this afternoon.

The hon. the Minister also envisaged the appointment of a commission of inquiry which would consist of the various departments concerned in this matter, Education, Social Welfare and Health, to investigate all the facets of this problem. I understand that a committee of this nature was recommended to the Cabinet and I hope and trust that it is already in operation because as far as the care of this particular type of mentally retarded child is concerned, this House and the public outside have good reason to have a guilty conscience. We do not even know how many of these mentally deficient children there are who need care. According to surveys made in Western Europe and America, the number of mental defectives number about 1 per cent of the total population and about 2 per cent of the child population. If our position can be compared with conditions there—and I do not think there is any reason to believe that it is not comparable—then we here in South Africa have scarcely touched the problem. A thorough investigation is therefore a prerequisite and I hope that this committee which has been appointed or which is to be appointed will get to work immediately so that we will be able to know precisely what the scope of this problem is.

Now, what provision have we already made? In the first place, we have the State institutions for mental defectives, as has already been mentioned. In particular, there are two large institutions. In these institutions can be accommodated juveniles up to the age of 18. I think that about 700 of them can be accommodated and there are no vacancies. On the contrary, there is a long waiting list which is put at hundreds. In other words, we cannot accommodate any more of this type of child in those institutions.

We also have the day-work centres which have already been referred to. Last year there were ten of these institutions with a total enrolment of 335 children. The number of these centres has been increased by one this year and the number of children has increased to 450. These centres are situated in the cities and larger towns. The children attend these day-work centres for a few hours a day. They are assisted there by a staff which is, we believe, devoted but mostly untrained. The children return to their homes in the evening. Because there are no boarding facilities at these institutions, the rural child is excluded and the only solution in the case of such child is for the parents to apply for the child’s admission to a State institution, and the parents have good reason to be hesitant in making use of this facility. Another reason why in my opinion these centres do not answer their purpose is the small subsidy which they obtain from the State. It is only 25c per child per day. This works out at about 40 per cent of the total expenditure incurred. Last year this expenditure worked out at R44 per child per annum. When we compare the allowances made to nursery schools—R40 per annum—we cannot but ask whose children these are who actually attend those schools. They are not the children of rich parents who can afford to send them there. But a better comparison is with what the schools for the cerebral palsied receive. They receive a loan for the erection of buildings which they repay at 4½ per cent per annum, that is to say, 3 per cent capital redemption and 1½ per cent interest. Besides this they receive a grant for the buildings in the ratio of two to one, that is to say, for every R2 which they collect, they obtain R4 from the Government. Their teachers’ salaries are 100 per cent subsidized, as are two-thirds of the salaries of other approved posts, and they are refunded 50 per cent of all expenditure approved by the Department. These children are only physically handicapped. We want to ask why there is this discrimination against the children who are mentally handicapped. I want to point out that if these children were to be sent to State institutions, the Department of Health would bear the full cost. The children at the daywork centres do go to the State institutions eventually. If we look at last year’s Estimates, we find that with the exception of the R9,000,000 appropriated for mental hospitals, there was only the small amount of R863,000 appropriated for mental health and from this amount must be deducted the amount of R20,000 which is earmarked for these centres. I am sure it will be readily agreed that our provision is not only hopelessly inadequate as far as space is concerned but that it is also these niggardly subsidies which are largely responsible for the position. The truth of the matter is that these day-work centres are merely halfway-houses between the child’s home and our institutions for mental defectives. He stays there a few years and then, when he reaches a certain age, he can no longer be admitted to the centre, or else his parents die and he finds himself on his way to a mental hospital. Children with an I.Q. of between 30 and 50 ought not to be admitted to mental institutions unless they show other deviations. There are already a number of private institutions in existence like the Rudolph Steiner institutions, which are being run successfully, but it is only rich people who can afford to send their children to these places. The fees are between R60 and R70 per month. Why should the State not establish similar institutions?

I want to sum up my case by making the following suggestions. The State must have a larger share in the care of this group, that is to say, the 30/50 I.Q. group, and it must do so by subsidization on a basis which is comparable with the subsidies for cerebral palsied institutions. It does not make very much difference under which State Department this matter falls because the classification of mental defectives into educables and uneducables is quite an arbitrary thing. It can therefore be Education or Health or Social Welfare or all three together. That is my first point. The second is this: These institutions must be equipped with boarding facilities so that children from the platteland can be admitted to them. As things are to-day, the platteland has to rely on State institutions to care for mental defectives. Thirdly, the institutions must be built on the platteland, away from the hustle and the bustle of the cities. I want to say that it can do no harm to take a leaf out of the book of the Steiner institutions in this respect. In the fourth place, the institutions must be aftercare institutions, a permanent home, if necessary, from the cradle to the grave. Furthermore, the institutions must make provisions for sheltered employment. There are many of these children who can do useful work, as the hon. member for Durban (Central) indicated. In the last place, they must be adequately staffed by trained personnel.

Sir, I make this appeal in the interests not only of these unfortunate children whom we are discussing but also in the interests of their normal brothers and sisters. The fact is that most of the homes from which these children come do not offer that joy and opportunity for full expression which is so indispensable to enable normal children to grow up into normal adults. I trust that this appeal will not fall on deaf ears. It has become a matter for our consciences.

Mr. Speaker, there must of necessity be a similarity between any speeches on this subject. I want to congratulate the mover of this motion, a motion which has come to the House almost every year since I have been in Parliament, if not in the form of a motion then under the Vote of the Minister of Health, but it has come more or less in the same form every year. But I feel that this is a subject on which we, the people of South Africa, feel in the same way. As the last speaker has said, this becomes a matter of conscience, and that is true. It is true that the State is doing a great deal, and it is true that these three large institutions are there at Alexandra, Umgeni Hospital and Witrand, at Potchefstroom. It is true that the State is keeping all these children at its expense, but I think it was evident from what the previous speakers have said that we all feel that something more should be done for these children than just keeping them there. I feel that the first thing to do is not to have such large institutions, because they are too big. I think the hon. member for Kimberley (South) said that he hoped that any future institutions would not be so big. But we are moving forward. When these institutions were established it was a case of looking after the physical needs of these children. That has been stressed already by other speakers: the difficulty in the homes where there are such unfortunate children, and such a child can be found in any home, in the highest home in the country as well as in the lowliest, is great. Nobody knows how or why it happens. The first thing was to take this child away and put it in a place of safety, for the sake of the parents as well as for the other children, and also for that child’s sake, because parents of necessity have to work and cannot care for those children. Therefore the Government established these big institutions. But something more is needed in these days, and I want to remind the hon. the Minister of something which the hon. member for Prieska also mentioned, and that is that we have a pattern in South Africa according to which we can work; that we have already seen what can be done. I refer to the Rudolph Steiner School. There is one very close by, at Hermanus, where I would ask the hon. the Minister to go, and all the other hon. members of the House, and where they will learn a great deal.

This movement started as the Camp Hill movement in Scotland many years ago and it spread to England, Ireland, Germany and to Holland, and eventually it came to South Africa. It caters for children who in this coun try are put into these large institutions. The Steiner School at Hermanus is called the Dawn Farm School, where children between the ages of 5 and 14 are kept. The older children are in the Robert Home. The teachers are not called teachers or nurses, but coworkers. Here the principle is that not too many children should be cared for by one person, and I think that is what is so necessary. I have quite often gone to the Umgeni Waterfall Institution, because it used to be in my constituency, and I saw how these children were cared for, and what worried me were these huge wards with sixty or eighty beds and nurses on duty all the time during the day and the night, giving this mass care to these children. These mentally deficient and retarded children cannot have mass care. We have so often seen that when a person gets old and helpless and needs special care, one person has to care for such a person. Of course in the case of children that is not possible, but I would suggest that these units should be no bigger than eight children to one person, so that they can get individual care.

Now I want to say this. When I was still visiting the Umgeni Waterfall Institution, the one subject which I found was always cropping up was the question of salaries for these people, these nurses or co-workers or teachers, or whatever you like to call them. These people lead a devoted life because it is not just anyone who can handle those poor unfortunates. It must be someone who has made this his life’s ideal and who with loving care and patience and perseverance looks after these children day after day. The Minister should think of the salaries these people are getting. They should be among the best-paid in the country, and the same applies to the doctors at the head of those institutions. They should have an extra allowance for the work they are doing, because they too must be devoted people. These children in the institutions usually have an I.Q. below 45 and they cannot be taught in the ordinary schools, and here is my difficulty. In the Rudolph Steiner institution at Hermanus they train pupil teachers to go out to other institutions. I believe they have other institutions in Port Elizabeth and in Johannesburg and elsewhere. I want to ask the Minister in his reply to this debate to tell me whether there is any provision made for training pupil teachers or co-workers to take care of these children. He should tell me what is the liaison between his Department and the Department of Education in this respect. These children can only be cared for if they receive individual treatment and loving care, and by receiving remedial and educational instruction and exercises. It must be clear to the House that very special people are needed to look after these children. Some of them can be educated, others cannot, but those who can be educated can only be educated by patience and loving care. Those who cannot be educated must be taught something, however little it is. because as the hon. member for Durban (Point) has said, it is a most terrible thing just to leave them to vegetate and to let them disappear from the sight of the ordinary human being and to remain in those institutions alone and forgotten. The Rudolph Steiner Schools have had an extension to the ordinary institutions for these children. In Scotland they have established a small farm connected with their ordinary institutions where these children go later on when they have been cared for in the institutions and when they reach a certain age. There they are taught ordinary little duties, like caring for animals and gardening and carpentry. They are taught to make serviettes and sheets. But every single one of these youths receives a disability allowance from the Government. That would help any private institution which works on those lines, because if every one of those children received a disability allowance it would help towards setting up such places. Sir, this is a difficult subject and one about which not much has been done in South Africa yet, but it is one which needs our attention. The latest idea is that there should be small units. Now we live at a time when there is a shortage of manpower everywhere, but planning must take place. The Minister must tell us what his blueprint for the future is, and what is the future of institutions like Alexandra, Witrand and Umgeni? Are they going to remain as they are? If not, what are his Department’s plans? What does the Director of Mental Hygiene say about this? What is the Minister’s own feeling about it? I would ask the Minister to give us a blueprint this afternoon of what he intends doing in future, what he is going to do about these large institutions; whether he intends breaking them down, or whether he intends creating smaller units, and what he intends doing about these day schools or centres, and what future planning there is for these unfortunate children. Sir, planning there must be because from both sides of the House it must have been clear to the Minister that we feel as one on this subject.

It is imperative for us in this debate to realize what we are talking about, and it seems to me that there is a fair amount of confusion in the minds of certain hon. members. I am thinking particularly of the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford). There are various degrees of mental deficiency, as the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter) has explained. There are the higher grades with an I.Q. of 50, and then again there are the lower grades between 20 and 50, and even below that. The higher grades do not fall under the Department of Health. That was in fact the case years ago before special schools were established for them. Therefore it will be seen to-day that in certain of our hospitals there are still a few high-grade mental defectives, but the great mass of these people with whom we are dealing today are the low grades, with an I.Q. which is so low, as the hon. member so carefully explained to the hon. member for Durban (Central), who probably did not understand it, that one cannot teach them anything useful. They are the people whom all one can practically teach them is to remain clean. One can only teach them the elementary little things about living in society. The hon. member now wants to tell us that they should be taught to maintain themselves, and to do useful work. The hon. member is thinking of the high grades. In the low grades that simply cannot be done. Therefore we are dealing here with the lower grades. I have visited most of the schools. One has to struggle to teach these children the simplest things. The hon. member said that we should appoint industrial therapists. We have people who try to do the best they can for these children, but one cannot appoint industrial therapists on a large scale. We have work therapists who try to teach these children something useful; we have 23 posts in our service. The hon. member simply devoted his time to seeing whether he could not attack the Government, and he again used the typical argument that there is a tremendous shortage of staff and of therapists. Twenty of these posts have been filled, but the hon. member launches this great attack on the Government in regard to the so-called tremendous shortage of staff.

We are dealing here with children who in the first place need practically only physical care. One must keep them busy, but the great thing in the life of that child with an I.Q. of 50 and lower is often just a matter of taking physical care of him. The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) made a comparison with the Camphill movement. The Camphill movement is not designed for the lower grades alone; they have all grades there. One should not look at what the higher grades can do and then imagine that all these children can do the same. That is the difficulty; the hon. members do not even analyze the type of person with whom they and we have to deal. We are concerned only with the lower grade.

I now first want to reply to a few of the problems stated by the hon. member for Drakensberg. She said that highly specialized people have to care for these children. One does not need highly specialized people to teach such children the mere elements of hygiene. What one requires is people with great love and great patience.

I spoke about devoted people.

Yes, people with devotion. Those are not people one can train; one cannot train people to render devoted service to the under-privileged. We have such people, but do hon. members know that the people in the Camphill movement are so devoted that they are not paid for their services? They live and sleep and eat with those children. But surely it is absurd to imagine that one can obtain people like that on a large scale. It is the most splendid labour of love, but they are not people whose services can be bought; they are very exceptional.

In certain of these movements there is a philosophy. Their philosophy is this: They believe that if a person has certain defects there are other parts of his spirit which can compensate for those defects, and eventually that person can live a life almost as useful or full as that of a mentally sound person. Well, that may be their philosophy; it is not a philosophy which we can support to-day with our scientific experience; we simply do not believe it. Our experience is different and the facts are different. The facts are simply that in the case of these poor children one cannot overcome the misfortune which has struck them by developing other parts of their spirit.

Let us state very clearly that the children with whom we are dealing and whom we are discussing to-day are those poor children who must be supported practically in life; they can never become useful citizens. I think that when we talk about the mental defectives in the community, it affects every one of us. It sounds a particular note in each of our hearts. It is when one has to deal with such children that one begins to realize that one is undeservedly privileged, how privileged one is to be normal, and that those poor children did not have that privilege. It touches us particularly as intelligent people when we realize, as has been discovered during the last few years, that mental deficiency is often a defect which develops after birth. We know to-day that when a baby, as the result of faulty digestion, cannot absorb enough of the proteins in the mother’s milk at a certain stage, it becomes mentally defective. In other words, normal children can land in this unfortunate position due merely to a digestive defect in the system. We know that most children’s diseases can cause mental deficiency. That makes us realize all the more that it is not due to a weakness in that family; it is not due to a sin committed by that family, as our people so often used to think in the past. Mental deficiency is often merely the result of circumstances, an accident. That makes us aware that we have a duty towards those children; it makes all of us feel that we should like to do something to assist those unfortunate children. It is not only a moral duty one feels towards that child.

One realizes that it is a moral duty, but to-day we feel that it has become our national duty, a duty one owes not only in the interests of the child but in the interests of the whole community, because one knows what disturbances this can cause in a family. Those of us who have friends and perhaps relations with such children know what upsets are caused in such a family. We know that it affects every child in that family. The normal child in that family gradually gets the idea that he might perhaps also have such a defect. It creates the idea in that child’s mind that he is perhaps also inferior. In other words, it undermines his self-confidence and his prestige in society. But it also affects the mother and father. It affects the mother because most mothers concentrate mainly on that child. It is peculiar that human beings always want to give the best care to the weakest child whom they love best. It affects the mother so seriously in most cases that she even neglects her normal children. But it also disturbs the whole family life; it disturbs the relationship between the man and his wife, with the result that this family does not make the expected contribution to the development and the economic welfare of the nation. Every one of us realizes that it is our duty, and in fact we want to help such people, but now we have a great problem, and that problem is the parents themselves. During the last two years a noticeable change has set in, but until about two years ago one was faced with the problem that people with mentally defective children could only with the greatest difficulty be persuaded to allow those children to go to a State institution or some other institution. The mother is so attached to the child and feels so strongly that it is her duty to care for that child, and that it would be an unethical deed to give up the child, that she often hides that child; she refuses to be parted from it.

I remember a case we had only last year where a woman in one of our cities was persuaded, after a tremendous struggle by the members of her family and her Member of Parliament and everybody else, to ask that her little daughter, a mentally defective girl for whom she could do nothing, should be taken up in one of our institutions. That was then done. The little girl was hardly there when she tried her utmost to get that child back; she threatened everybody and made everybody unhappy because she wanted that child back, in spite of the fact that the child was quite happy there. I mention this to indicate the mental state of opposition one finds on the part of most mothers. The mother does not want to give up the child, and in the national interest it is desirable that this should be done.

Let us take the position a little further. Hon. members need not think that the children in our institutions are unhappy. They are very happy, so happy that often they refuse to leave that institution, because the moment such a child returns home he feels that his brother and sisters do not regard him as normal. The children wish to remain there, but the problem is to persuade the parents to give up those children. The problem is how to persuade those parents. We have already learnt much from the experience of prominent people who practically sacrificed their whole lives for that type of child. There is one way in which one can convince the parents, and that is to establish an institution which can perhaps give that child a little instruction. The parent always feels that if she can send the child to a school she will be willing to part from the child. Parents are always convinced that these children are just a little backward and that with a little assistance they will be quite normal. They are not always ready to admit that the child is mentally deficient in the sense in which we are now talking. When one establishes a school to which those children can go, where they can be happy, and if they can convince their parents that they like to be there, we find that the parents eventually realize that the child will be happier in an institution and then they are much more willing to entrust that child to such an institution. Those are the new directions in which we are trying to work.

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to point out that we are already providing for over 6,000 of these children in our institutions such as Witrand and Alexandra.

Witzieshoek.

That hon. member is always thinking of Witzieshoek.

No, there is such a place there.

The hon. member is perhaps thinking of the smaller institutions. I am referring to the large institutions.

Mr. Speaker, the question is how many such children there are in South Africa for whom provision has to be made. We know that their names are sometimes put on waiting-lists when the institution is perhaps full, but we now have had the experience that when vacancies occur and one tries to trace the parents of those children who are on the waiting-list, one discovers that they have already been put into other institutions, or that they are dead, or that one cannot trace the parents. We do not know precisely what the numbers are. As the hon. member for Kimberley (District) has explained, certain figures are accepted by the World Health Organization as being the average for the world, viz. four mentally defectives per 1,000 in the groups we are referring to at the moment. Now, if there are four per 1,000, then there ought to be approximately 12,000 Whites in South Africa. Of that 12,000, i.e. if the overseas standards are valid here, a little more than 6,000 are already in our institutions. In other words, there are possibly 6,000 whose parents can only be persuaded with great trouble to send them to our institutions.

The problem is that it is not always easily ascertainable whether a child belongs to this group or not. One can only determine that if one tests the child’s I.Q., if one tests him according to certain norms, and those norms are not always infallible. The result is that for this reason also we do not know precisely how many of them should be entrusted to the care of the Department of Health, and how many of them are to a certain extent educable.

When we come to the non-Whites, the problem is even greater, because although we have about 3,000 Bantu in our mental institutions, the Bantu parent is even more doubtful about these institutions. They are not keen on giving up these children. When they live in the rural areas it is often not so necessary for them to give up those children. But the problem is to ascertain when a Bantu child is mentally deficient. Repeated attempts have been made to evolve a test which will enable one to ascertain whether the child is defective or not. The Bantu Welfare Trust has already tried it, but they have not yet been successful; they have never yet been able to devise a test according to which one can ascertain whether or not a Bantu child belongs to these categories we are discussing now.

Provision is being made for these children to-day. Provision is made in the first place by the day-time work centres, but these work centres cater mainly for the children of parents who do not want to part from their children. They are mostly women who work and then hand the children over to the centre while they are working. These work centres have been established particularly because the parents do not wish to be parted from their children. Everywhere in the cities such centres have been established under the guidance of the Mental Hygiene Association. In some cities there are quite a number of these centres and in other cities not so many. Hon. members will perhaps tell me that there should be such a centre in every town. Sir, let us not forget that these are all expensive institutions. In the first place, they are costly from a financial point of view, but they all demand human labour, and one cannot establish a centre in every town for one or two children and appoint one or two teachers there. One simply cannot afford it, nor can one find the personnel. In practice, therefore, we can only afford to have these work centres in the larger cities. But apart from these work centres, we have some of these mentally deficient children in Alexandra, Witrand and Umgeni Waterfall. The hon. member for Drakensberg asked us to break down those institutions, but the hon. member should remember that institutions like Alexandra do not cost a million, but millions, and surely it is utterly inconceivable, where we have those institutions to-day, to break them down and establish smaller institutions in their place.

How many children are there in Alexandra?

There are 744 Whites; I am referring only to Whites.

Are there not 744 in all three of these institutions?

No, in all three institutions there are 2,744. It is a coincidence that the figures are 744 and 2,744.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) asked what we were doing. We are developing continually. Hon. members will remember that a few years ago we started using the large Stikland Hospital. One of the ideas was to take all the mentally disturbed patients out of Alexandra as far as possible so that we could use it as an institute for mental defectives. Therefore the Stikland Institution, which cost millions, is there partly also for the mental defectives. We are now busy in Bloemfontein, where the City Council was good enough to grant us 30 morgen of land, building a large institution according to the latest standards, an institution which will cost us R1,000,000. We are also busy converting the Westlake Hospital at Retreat. Provision will then probably be made there for approximately 500 Coloureds. We are also converting a large portion of Tower Hill to make provision for a large number of mentally defective Bantu. Apart from that, there are numerous private institutions all over the country which are subsidized by the State.

Sir, I know that the criticism is that the State’s subsidy is not large enough, because that subsidy is always being compared with the education subsidy. But there is a difference between children who can possibly be educated to care for themselves, like the children with an I.Q. of over 50, and children whom it is just no use educating and who must be taught to perform the most elementary services for themselves. Only the most elementary knowledge can be imparted to them. There is a great difference in the cost, with the result that there is a difference in the subsidy. The subsidy is not as large as I myself would like to see it, and I hope that eventually we will succeed in increasing it, but it is obvious that there must be a difference. On the one hand, one has people who can be educated eventually to stand on their own feet and to look after themselves; on the other hand, one has people whom one practically has to care for all their lives. The two cases differ completely from one another. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) correctly pointed out that the obvious thing for parents to do is themselves to start such an undertaking and then to call on the State for assistance. Let us just take the example of the hon. member for Kimberley (District) himself. The hon. member has already achieved much in this sphere. Only a few months ago they obtained a splendid site from the De Beers Company, with a beautiful building on it, which was practically given to them in quitrent against payment of a nominal amount, and to which the State contributed generously, firstly for the renovation and the rebuilding of the building, where necessary, and for its maintenance. When private initiative starts something like that, the State is always willing to help, and we hope to be able to help even much more in future. Where it is not possible for the State to establish such an institution in every small town, it is for the parents to prove that such an institution is viable, and if it is I shall try to use my influence to ensure that such an institution is amply financed.

As I have said, our objective should be to remove all the mental defectives from their parental homes, because then the children themselves will be happier and family life will be restored. If we want to achieve that objective, it is absolutely essential for us to adopt a new course, and that is to start having small educational institutions attached to our large institutions, smaller educational institutions which will not actually ever be able to give education in the normal sense of the word because many of the children are not susceptible to it, but where the parents can convince themselves either that their child is educable or that he is not; where the parents can convince themselves that the child is happier when he is with other children like himself, and that the child is cared for very well. That will also solve the problem of parents who do not know what will happen to such a child one day when they die. That always causes great concern in every family which has such a mentally defective child, that the child will perhaps not be cared for properly when the parents are dead.

In order to be able to comply with the very latest and best methods, we have appointed a Committee of Inquiry consisting of experts in order to investigate this matter, and also consisting of people who have a love for such children, people who have sacrificed their lives for such children. We do not know when the report will be studied; we do not know how long the investigation will last, but we trust that when this report is submitted it will be an authoritative report which will indicate courses to be adopted and which may perhaps be able to still all the criticism expressed here to-day and convince every hon. member that the course we are already adopting to-day is to a large extent the correct one, but that probably in future we will be able to make improvements along that road to bring us into line with the best that the world has to offer.

The extraordinary thing about this debate to-day is that the hon. the Minister seems to be very critical of the remarks that came from this side of the House—he, in fact, almost interpreted it as severe criticism of the actions of his Department—he then proceeded virtually to confirm what had been said on this side of the House, namely the importance of having specialized personnel to examine the various cases which are dealt with under the law governing mentally defective persons. This particular motion, of course, deals with mentally defective children, and the mover of this motion if anything was even more critical than this side of the House, because what he says in his motion is that he requests the Government to consider the advisability of extending the necessary institutional facilities for this purpose to other large centres in our country.

If the hon. the Minister says he is in fact doing it one wonders where the criticism really came from. Did it come from members on his side of the House or from members on this side of the House? But apart from that, Sir, I do not think this type of debate is a debate in which anyone should be accused of being critical of the Government save in this respect, and that is a call on the Government to do very much more in this field than is being done at this stage.

The law under which mentally defective children are dealt with is a very complicated one and a great deal depends on the Minister in charge of the Department. Although the Minister indicates that a large number of children are covered, in relation to what he believes to be the total number, we would like to say that we think there are a number of cases which, if discovered, could well eventually be guided into the category of mentally retarded and not left to linger in the category of mentally deficient. I know a couple of cases myself where this has fortunately been discovered. One does not lay the blame for their not being discovered at the door of the Department of Health or the Minister but one says that every effort should be made to do so.

We also say that the necessary specialized personnel should be provided, not only people who can give the day to day care, but people—and here one can accept the view of the Minister—with a sense of devotion and affection. This is a matter to which the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) referred very pointedly. One requires specialized personnel to deal with the particular cases constantly in order to ensure that if there is any chance of improvement that improvement is noticed and built upon so as to bring that child as near as possible to his place in society.

I do not know that there is such a large number of institutions in this country. I know that at one time in Johannesburg we had what is now known as the Edenvale Hospital where these cases were dealt with. Mentally deficients who could not be placed into any educational category, who could not even be placed in the category of mentally retarded, were cared for there. They could not be taught anything at all; they virtually lay there and vegetated. Some endeavour was made to teach them even the mechanical action of looking after themselves from a hygienic point of view. We do not find that sufficient provision has been made in the larger cities. I do not think it is sufficient for the hon. the Minister to talk about a considerable amount of money possibly being required and whether the State can actually be expected to find the necessary funds. Because when one listened to the very earnest appeal of the hon. member for Kimberley (South) the question of money became quite unimportant. The hon. member put up such a plaintive plea that he must honestly have been convinced that it is possible for the Government to find the funds that will be required to establish institutions in the larger cities.

I think many of us are well aware of the reticence of parents to send their children even to established institutions. There are cases where children have virtually been hidden in some secluded part of the house for many years. I know of a case, somewhere in the western part of the world, of a man of 47 who was kept like that by his parents. Had his parents been properly advised, had they been encouraged, that child could well have been sent to an institution. That would have been a great relief to the parents. They would have been relieved of the tremendous burden which was forced on them for 47 years. This was a case where a mentally deficient child had virtually drained away the lifeblood of his parents because there were either not sufficient institutions, or because the parents did not know sufficient, or perhaps because their attention was not drawn to the advantages that could be gained by sending him to an institution. Many of us know of such cases. They constitute a very great tragedy in the domestic life of numerous families.

The Act under which we govern these particular cases was passed in 1916 and is something with which this country has had to wrestle over a large number of years. The hon. the Minister puts up such a bold front as to all that has been done and, I have no doubt, that he really would like to do a great deal, but I think more should be done from a practical point of view. Even the institutions which are established through the assistance of the public, institutions subsidized by local authorities, by public funds, by means of collections, by functions of all kinds, should become the responsibility of the State. Because even assuming that the number, as far as Whites are concerned, is just over 6,000 I do not think that in a country like South Africa it is a sufficiently large number for the Minister to argue that the expense would be too great. I think I am interpreting the feelings of both sides of the House when I say that we must seek some form of alleviation of what might be suffering, not only for the patient, but also for those on whom the patient is by nature and by law dependent. I do not think that we in our country should even regard the question of expense as a deterring factor in making the fullest provision to house and care for these unfortunate children.

We should go further, Sir. and have educational enlightenment in order to encourage, teach and educate parents who may unfortunately be afflicted with children like this, to make use of the service of the Department of Health, a service which should be available at all times. I do not want to traverse the whole question of mental health in South Africa. It is a very big problem indeed. The Department is faced with all sorts of difficulties. It is faced with the difficulty of a shortage of staff; it has in the past been faced with difficulties in regard to accommodation, difficulties which I think it is trying very hard to overcome. But I think we could perhaps have made even more rapid advance in this particular field. But that is actually not relevant today. What is relevant is to hearken to the plea that has been made so that in a country like South Africa it should not be necessary for us to devote two or three hours of a session to pleading the cause of a problem of this nature. This is a matter which pleads for itself. Members of Parliament should not be required to stage a debate in order to ensure that something is done.

This motion does not express thanks or appreciation to a Government, it merely states in very objective terms that it is appreciative of what has been done and of the steps that are being taken. It therefore becomes of moment to ensure that in dealing with this motion all sides of the House express their opinion, not in a critical sense, but in an encouraging sense, so as to ensure that this problem is easily and speedily dealt with and the best possible assistance given.

I would like to dwell for a moment on this very important aspect which I raised, namely, the question of education, not necessarily education for the mentally dificient patient, because as the hon. the Minister rightly says, a large number of these cases fall into the category where there can be no question of education from the intelligence point of view, but for the families who suffer from this unfortunate affliction. There we would put ourselves in the forefront, as the hon. member for Kimberley (South) has pleaded, of world health facilities if we were to embark upon a course of education to the public. For many years we have had to contend with this drawback that families, on. whom this hardship had been imposed, have tried to hide this so-called skeleton in the cupboard. But I think we are becoming a little more sensible about these things in modern days, because we realize what modern science can do. People are beginning to appreciate that these things happen through an act of nature over which there is no control. I am sure, therefore, that the parents would welcome educational enlightenment. I think if the hon. the Minister were to concentrate on the aspect of educational enlightenment he would find, not only, that parents would come forward with these cases but that he. the Minister, and his Department would be encouraged to embark on more and more modern methods of dealing with these problems the Department will be encouraged to ensure that we continuously have more specialized knowledge, and more specialized personnel available to deal with these cases. If he does that he will find that he will draw sufficient of those whom, he says, serve rather from a sense of love, devotion and affection than from a sense of being trained personnel. That creates a challenge in a country like South Africa. We obviously cannot relegate every aspect of our daily lives to one specific segment of our health structure in South Africa, but as the issue has been raised—and it is an important one—I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister will show that initiative in promoting this whole objective and giving a picture which will be very much more pleasant than the one which has been painted to-day. There have been constant pleas which in many senses almost evoked a defensive attitude on the part of the hon. the Minister.

The hon. the Minister has given us a number of facts which we appreciate. Those facts are within his knowledge and we appreciate the fact that he gives us the benefit of that knowledge and enlightens the House on the facts, figures and information available to him through the records and statistics of his Department. But if the hon. the Minister would rather take the lesson to heart then I think he would be rendering a service to the country, a service which will not necessitate debates but which will call for commendation whenever a report appears before the House on this particular aspect of our health services.

I think that this House should be very grateful to the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter). I also want to express my personal thanks to him for the opportunity which he has given this House to discuss this very important matter to-day—the question of the care of our mentally deficient children. This is truly a very important matter which affects any nation in a far-reaching definite way. I also want to express my gratitude to the Government for the steps which it is taking and has already taken. Mr. Speaker, as you know, last year the amount under the Vote of Health for mental hospitals, hospitals and the care of mental defectives, was increased from R361,000 to R368,000. This was a considerable increase and I think that we should be grateful to the hon. the Minister and his Department in this regard.

I also want to thank the hon. the Minister very much indeed for the announcement he made this afternoon in regard to the appointment of a committee to investigate this whole matter in all its ramifications and to ascertain what can be done. I should like to associate myself with the second portion of this motion, particularly where it is stated that “having regard to the more rapid change of approach on the part of parents in regard to the desirability of and necessity for such care, requests the Government to consider the advisability of extending the necessary institutional facilities for this purpose to other large centres in our country”. As the hon. member for Kimberley (South) correctly stated, there are three institutions for mental defectives in this country. These institutions are situated at Alexandra in the Cape, at Witrand in the Transvaal and at Umgeni in Natal. You will note immediately that the large area of the Northern Cape and the Orange Free State is not served by one of these institutions. There is therefore no provision for the Free State and the Northern Cape in regard to facilities for this purpose. A conservative estimate of the number of mental defectives in this area is given at about 1,000. The nearest institution to this area is Witrand at Potchefstroom where there is a long waiting list. Applicants have to wait from three to four years before they can be admitted. I feel that I can say without fear of contradiction that an extremely urgent need for an institution of this nature exists in this area and that is why I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for his announcement this afternoon.

I also think that it is right and good, as the hon. member for Kimberley (South) and the hon. the Minister quite correctly stated, that on an occasion such as this gratitude should be expressed to the day-work centres for the wonderful work they are doing. I think of the Lettie Fouche day-work centre in Bloemfontein, a centre which is in the very capable hands of Mrs. Judith Viljoen. She is a lady with a very great love for this cause who devotes all her time and energy to it. I do not think that parents and the public can be sufficiently grateful for the great work which Mrs. Viljoen is doing there. Let me give you one example, Mr. Speaker, so that you may realize what great work is being done there. I want to mention the example of a little boy who was admitted to this institution last year. He was mentally defective but he could be trained. He was a boy aged eight years. Up to the time when he was admitted to that day-work centre that boy could not speak. By means of patient guidance and by loving care, and also by massaging his neck muscles, Mrs. Viljoen succeeded in teaching him to speak. She succeeded in teaching him first of all the words “papa” and “mama”. Mr. Speaker, can you for one moment imagine the joy of those parents when they heard that child of eight years’ old say those words? If we put ourselves for a moment in the position of those parents we will realize the great work being done by these day-work centres.

In thanking the hon. the Minister for his statement in regard to the establishment of an institution in Bloemfontein, I want to say that this institution will meet a great need which has existed in the Free State and the Northern Cape for an institution of this nature. The need for an institution for trainable mental defectives, the group with an I.Q. of between 20 and 50, is, however, even greater in the Republic. The State makes provision for mental defectives at the institutions of Alexandra, Umgeni and Witrand but this provision is chiefly for the idiots, the lower groups whose I.Q. is about 20. But there are few, if any, training facilities for the group whose I.Q. is from 20 to 50. They are regarded as being uneducable, but they are trainable. They are the most dangerous group of mental defectives in our society because they do have a certain amount of reason but not sufficient to keep them out of mischief. I say that the only provision which is made for them on the part of the State is a grant-in-aid of R20,000 which is given to the National Council for Mental Health for the establishment and maintenance of day-work centres. If the estimate of the National Council for Mental Health is accepted—that it costs about R200 per annum to enable one child to attend a centre for five half-days per week—it will be realized what a drop in the ocean this grant-in-aid of R20,000 is. Provision is made for the group with an I.Q. of between 50 and 80, the educable mental defectives, by the Provincial Administrations in the form of aid-schools and aid-classes. But without doubt the least amount of State assistance is given to the middle group, the group with an I.Q. of between 20 and 50, the trainable group, while, uncared for, they constitute within our society the greatest potential danger to the community as such. As I have said, therefore, I am grateful that a mental institution will be established for this area but I want to express the hope that it will be an institution which is equipped with all the modern facilities for the training and treatment of this trainable group. If there is anyone who doubts the extent to which these people can be trained, they will do well to pay a visit to the Lettie Fouche work centre. There they will see irrefutable proof that it is possible to train those children. It is possible to train them to become worthy human beings and to make full use of the little reason which they have.

The need for an institution of this nature is really a very urgent one in the area I have mentioned. It is an unfortunate fact that the parents of these children, because it is difficult for them to visit their children over these long distances, are most unwilling to send their children far away. The nearest institution is at Witrand, near Potchefstroom, as I have said, which is a tremendous distance for most of the people in the Orange Free State and Northern Cape. I think therefore that there is a real need in this connection and I am pleased at the hon. the Minister’s announcement that provision will now be made to meet this need. Even if parents do succeed in having their child admitted to Witrand they are still faced with the difficulty of distance.

There is another fact I want to mention to prove the great need which exists in this area. I speak subject to correction but, as Mrs. Viljoen told me last year, there were almost 100 applications from the parents of mentally defective children to have their children admitted to the Lettie Fouche day-work centre at Bloemfontein. She simply cannot accommodate these children and, even though it is a great pity, the applications of their parents have to be refused. The children have then simply to rely upon their parents. The hon. member for Kimberley (South) indicated quite correctly here how much disruption is caused in a home when a mentally defective child is born to that family. I do not think that we realize all that the parents of that family have to endure. Fortunately, times have changed and there is a different approach to this matter. Fortunately, society no longer considers it a shameful thing when this type of child is born. Indeed, it is no longer necessary to regard it as such. I want to take the case which I mentioned on a previous occasion. If one couple can produce a President of the United States of America, as in the case of the late President Kennedy, and if a mentally retarded daughter can also be born to that same couple, then no family should be ashamed because it has a mentally defective child in its midst.

[Debate having continued for 2½ hours, the motion lapsed in terms of Standing Order No. 32.]

I move—

That this House requests the Government to introduce legislation to legalize a public lottery.

I put this in a pertinent form to the Government, to discuss the principle of a lottery. In the first place, I should state the attitude which this side of the House adopts in regard to this motion. It adopts the same attitude as it does in regard to questions of liquor and other such matters, where it is a free vote and each member can determine for himself what his views are and which way he will vote according to his conscience. Traditionally these matters have been considered as a matter of conscience and have been dealt with in this manner in this House for many years. I can recollect in the past when there has been a discussion on the lottery question, we have had from the Government side members stating their views pro and against a lottery. I therefore ask those sitting on the opposite side of the House to exercise a free vote on this matter, to express their views in accordance with their convictions. I believe it cuts across the political line, that it is not a matter that should be dealt with strictly as a political matter, people taking up rigid attitudes because of a political party.

Is there any significance in the fact that you as Chief Whip introduce the motion?

I will come to that. If we look at the history of this matter, we find in regard to a free vote and free expression of opinion that as far back as 1937 General Kemp speaking on this particular subject at a meeting at Fochville intimated that he and Mr. Pirow were in favour of a lottery, that that was their personal view. Yet they were members of the Cabinet. That in reply to the hon. Minister of Justice who has reminded me of the fact that I am Chief Whip of the party on this side of the House. At the time when General Kemp expressed those sentiments no exception was taken to that, and I do not think that any exception can be taken to the fact that I have introduced this motion being a Chief Whip. I am exercising my right as an ordinary Member of Parliament moving a motion on a private members’ day. In this respect I am not to be regarded in any sense as a Chief Whip acting. I hope the hon.

Minister will accept it in that spirit, which is the proper parliamentary spirit to accept it in.

Mr. Speaker, I have asked that this should be left to a free vote and I have explained why I am moving it in that way, exercising the right of a private member. On many occasions that has taken place in this House, anyway in regard to the expression of opinions.

My reasons for the wording of the motion in the manner in which it has been worded are the following: I have advisedly and deliberately used the words ‘ public lottery” and not “state lottery”. A public lottery requires an enabling measure stating the terms and conditions in which a lottery shall be run. A state lottery does the same except that it envisages that the Government shall be responsible for the running of the lottery. In both the object is to demonstrate that the running of a lottery is patently honest and fair to everybody. The difference between a state lottery and a public lottery is merely that in one case the state is responsible to run the lottery and in the other case it provides the conditions under which the lottery shall be run.

Coming to the history of this question, this issue has been raised many times in this House in various forms, and also in many other public bodies, such as provincial councils, town councils and many organizations, many of them more recently being agreed on the principle of a state lottery and requesting its introduction. It is interesting to note as a matter of history that in 1939 the Transvaal Provincial Council passed a resolution agreeing to a state lottery, and more recently many public bodies and associations have dealt with this matter. It has become a topical, a current matter, and in principle there seems to be agreement.

Perhaps it is as well in discussing this matter that one should face up to the reasons against the introduction of a lottery. They are many and varies, but I think they are principally stated in these terms: (1) Firstly, that it is a means of gaining by another’s loss. Personally I do not think that that reason holds water. When you look around to-day and see what is happening in regard to the Stock Exchange, horse-racing and many other things in present-day life, you discover that a great many things are gained at somebody else’s loss. And in this case the loss is voluntary. You choose as to whether you want to purchase a ticket in a lottery or not. You can refrain from doing so or you can decide to buy a ticket. So that that reason to my mind does not hold water.

Then the argument is advanced (2) that the money is squandered which should go to pay the grocer, the baker and the butcher. Mr. Speaker, I have yet to hear of a home being broken up by a lottery ticket. It is a small amount, and I do not think it causes embarrassment by delaying the payment of accounts that should be paid. I think there are many other things that we permit that delay those accounts. Legislation is coming forward which deals with hire-purchase, and I think that has a much greater effect on the delaying accounts than anybody buying a lottery ticket.

Then it is often stated that a win is disastrous to the winner. We read in the papers of the disasters that have overtaken individuals who have won a lottery. Sensation is picked out and we hear about it. We hear very little about the lives of those who have been successful in a lottery and lead ordinary, sensible and reasonable lives. I believe that depends on the strength of character. There are many other happenings in life which would cause a person to succumb, causing the same result, such as an inheritance, the enjoyment of a large salary, or any other sudden excessive wealth. That would have the same effect on those people that are pointed out in regard to the winner of a lottery.

Then it is also said that it encourages the desire to get rich quickly, that it enriches a few against the many. I believe these things are inherent in life, and as regards to getting rich quickly, I think those who take a ticket in a lottery recognize that the chance is fairly remote. I have not calculated the actual chance, but the chance is very, very small.

Then it is also stated that it kills vigour and initiative. Here I may say that that is not observed in some of the countries where lotteries are permitted and which I have visited. I have not observed that there is any killing of vigour and initiative. It does not affect the community to such an extent, or in any noticeable way.

Some argue that there is a loss of respectability and slow undermining of morale attached to a lottery. Well, there was a lottery, or many lotteries in adjoining territories, and I have not noticed in my contact with Rhodesians, nor have I seen any reference to the fact that they are morally depraved because they happen to buy lottery tickets. Nor have I noticed in South Africa where we until recently were able to indulge in the purchase of lottery tickets to a large extent that that resulted in any depravity of the population. I believe that in this country to all intents and purposes until fairly recently we had a lottery, because the purchase of tickets was on such a scale in the lotteries that were run just beyond our borders that one might say that there was almost a lottery existing in this country. I am glad to see the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs here. He recently saw fit to intervene and avail himself of the powers which he had under the law to try and stop the practice of buying lottery tickets in this country. I would describe this rather as using the Hertzog “hatchet” to break open the seals of letters that he thought might contain lottery tickets. I can imagine with what joy he tore into them to find out whether there was any money or any prize in those letters. Of course he has succeeded to quite an extent. But there was no evidence in this country of all the dire things that people predicted about those who participate in a lottery.

It is said that 12,000,000 tickets were sold annually by the lotteries run in Central Africa, and of course a large proportion of these tickets were taken by South Africans. To show you what was happening, it is recorded that last year the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in outgoing mail in May was able to intercept 36,000 articles, in October it had fallen to 700, in November to 400, and incoming it was 53,000 in November when a month or two later it was only 14,000. I believe the action of the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has not done any good. It has not raised the morals of the average South African. In fact I believe that by intervening in this way he has hardened public opinion in favour of a lottery. His action has done much to expose the widespread support for a lottery. I think it has had the opposite effect of what he intends, and I think it made people think about it and to express their opinions more freely.

I realize that there are those who oppose a lottery on religious or ethical grounds and that is a matter of each individual’s conscience. But I cannot accept the fact that because a person buys a lottery ticket, he is unchristian, or immoral. Because when one examines the position, one finds the great Christian faith divided on both sides of the line in regard to lotteries. The Anglicans and Roman Catholics has no objection, the Dutch Reformed Church and the Methodists are against a lottery. There are many other of the Christian faith that align themselves on either side of the line. So I cannot see how it can be said as a rebutting statement that lotteries are unchristian.

After stating the general reasons advanced against a lottery, in putting forward this proposition I now want to give some reasons in favour of a lottery. Mr. Speaker, we allow other forms of gambling, notably horseracing, presumably because people like that sport; it is called “the sport of kings”, and incidentally it brings a lot of revenue into the public coffer. That has increased in recent years and expanded. I am not up in all these terms, I am not a knowledgeable person on these things, but I understand that you have a Quinella and a Jack Pot.

A Jackboot?

I was not referring to the hon. Minister. They are both entirely on gambling as to whether a horse that you have selected, or a combination of horses comes home. If I may say so, I think that is far worse—although I am not against racing—than allowing a person to buy a lottery ticket and participating in a lottery.

Then permitting lotteries would keep the money in the country. That argument may not appear to have the force it did have a little while ago before the interference of the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, but it still holds good. I think we would be surprised if we know the amount of money that is still going out of the country to purchase lottery tickets. It is something to my mind that you cannot stop. Prohibited lottery laws are almost impossible to apply. I believe they are evaded hundreds of times a day. I am reminded of a similar problem which existed with regard to liquor, when because of the non-supply of liquor to the Bantu, that was creating a great many petty criminals. Then the step was taken to legalize the supply of liquor to Bantu and to do away with these petty criminal offences that took place, I believe with great success. I believe that that has been a success. In the same way I believe that a person who buys a ticket in a lottery should not be made a petty criminal and be subject to stringent laws that are about to be applied in this country. Many modern countries have lotteries. Many of the countries I have been to have lotteries, and I have seen nothing untoward in the conduct of the lotteries and the effect on the people.

Another question I would like to pose, was I think posed by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood), a very long time ago, when he asked: Is a quiz a lottery? I refer to the S.A.B.C. and its programmes. Mr. Speaker, almost as an excuse a flimsy test of skill is provided, and on occasions you are helped to the answers in order that you may qualify as to whether you may choose a certain sum of money which you know or something which is in a box which you do not know.

The money or the box?

I see hon. members there are listening carefully. It is one of the most popular programmes. I am not against it. But it seems almost hypocrisy to permit the things we do and prevent a lottery being made legal. Skill is at a minimum. You can easily qualify and I can see this in no other light but a lottery. I believe that restrictive legislation is wrong on matters of conscience. I am one of those who believe that you should be able to do what you like with your own money, and I think most people take that view. If you want to go to the races, or spend it on the Stock Exchange, or go to the dogs … not literally—that is your affair. A lottery does not lead to heavy gambling. It is gambling with the smallest possible stakes. And we have in our country the position that a draw by lottery is enshrined in our law. A while back in an election for a town council (I think it was in a Free State town) six councillors resigned on the very question of a lottery. They were pro lottery. They went to the electorate to test the position. Four of them won their seats—and a lottery was the only issue—and one tied, and then of course lots had to be drawn, and the one that won was anti lottery. History does not recall that he immediately resigned his seat.

I am not going to advance the argument that is often advanced, because I accept it as axiomatic, that if you have a lottery the funds should be devoted for welfare purposes and directed to charitable objects. I believe that argument rather savours of the means justifying the end. I think that is done, and it is accepted that that will be done, but I do not think it is a particularly strong argument. I would like this to be argued on the principle of a lottery or not.

I would like to quote a letter which reflects my opinions—I could not put it better myself. It is a letter written by Cannon Welton of King William’s Town (I believe he is now in East London) writing in a parish magazine “Kingfisher” on 9 March 1964—

I think that is a most sensible and human approach to the problem and he expresses it in a way which I believe a great number of people would agree with. Mr. Speaker, I believe at the present moment in the country outside 80 to 90 per cent of the South African population, of the public, favour the establishment of a lottery, and the numbers are growing daily. I believe it is a matter, whoever sits on the Government side will not be able to resist eventually. You have the evidence of most distinguished people, coming out openly in favour of a lottery. I noticed that when last year Mr. J. Liebenberg, chairman of the Railway Artisan Staff, was addressing his association, he said at the end of his speech, as quoted in the papers: “And television and a lottery will be had in due course.”

I wonder what would happen if the Government were to face up to this question and have a plebiscite by way of a referendum on this question. I predict that there would be an overwhelming majority in favour of a lottery.

I want to add that the South African public have a deep sense of when a social evil is being created, and I give as an example how in years gone by in the Transvaal dog racing was permitted. It was quite clear that it became an evil of the worse sort. There is no argument about that. The proper authorities there, the Transvaal Provincial Council, after it had run for a while and it had become quite evident what was happening, stopped it. That is why I say that in this country I have faith in the public in recognizing something that is evil to the people as a whole. They favour a lottery, and I believe it has not the evils that many people contend. I would like to requote the words of Canon Welton in conclusion—

Why should we prevent this innocent fun, this pleasure? What harm does it do? I therefore ask the Government to give this matter serious consideration and permit a lottery in this country.

The hon. member who moved this motion took the opportunity to reply in advance to every possible objection that one can lodge against it. The fact that he has done so, however, is not going to change my mind; I do not propose to abandon my ideas to oppose a State lottery on grounds of principle and I do so with a full realization of my responsibility.

What is a lottery? We find that term was defined in Europe as far back as the 17th and the 18th centuries and even as far back as the 14th and the 15th centuries. All these definitions are more or less in line with what we still read to-day in Webster’s Dictionary amongst others: “A lottery is a distribution of prizes by lot or chance;” and in Act No. 7 of 1880 of the Transvaal it is stated that “a lottery is a plan which is based on contributions and in which the prize can be won by lot or by some other chance”.

The recognition of a lottery as a State industry would bring into being a host of unlawful and private lotteries, which would be stimulated by a State lottery, and a host of laws would then have to be passed to forbid those lotteries because no State can allow a modus operandi, which the State has appropriated for itself to collect State funds, to be taken over by private initiative. We find that in England a series of laws was enacted over a period of nearly 200 years, from 1698 to 1846, to protect State lotteries and to forbid private lotteries. No wonder Sections 41 and 61 of the Lotteries Act of 1823 contains the following words—

There are innumerable unlawful practices that may be resorted to, and I want to mention just a few examples of what happened in England. Coupons were placed in packets of tea; those packets were sold at 25c per packet and the holder of a coupon was entitled to a gift, the nature and character of which remained a secret until the packet was opened. The court held that this constituted a lottery. And then there was a second case where 13 types of dogs’ food had to be set out in order of popularity. The court held that it constituted a lottery and it was forbidden.

Then there was a third case where various roles played by the same actress had to be set out in order of popularity. The court held that this was a lottery on the ground that no intelligence was required to arrive at a decision; that it was purely a game of chance. But I want to mention one example where the court found that it was not a lottery. Participants had to guess how many children were likely to be born in London during a particular week. The court held that this was not a lottery, and it held this on the ground that participants had to use some degree of intelligence in estimating how many babies were likely to be born during that particular week. There is a striking similarity between all the provisions contained in Acts passed during the 18th and the 19th centuries in England and Australia to prohibit lotteries.

There is also a great similarity between those provisions and the provisions of the Bill introduced here by the Minister of Justice to prohibit games of chance and luck. I refer amongst other things to the possession, purchase or sale of tickets, both within the country as well as abroad; the printing, publication or dissemination of notices or advertisements with regard to lotteries and participation in games of luck in which wagers are placed. But I should like to give the House a few facts in connection with the history of lotteries in South Africa. On 18 February 1930—it happens to be February again—Mr. Kentridge, M.P. for Troyeville, moved the following motion, according to Hansard Vol. 14—

It must be noted that the champions of lotteries are all very concerned about the poor, the sick, the aged, the widows and the orphans. Their reasoning, however, is false because their main desire is to become rich quickly without having to work. Mr. Kentridge dealt with this motion of his, not on ethical grounds, but purely as a practical venture. Why? It was perfectly clear to him that any arguments based on Christian ethics and doctrines would immediately destroy the very case that he was putting up. When he was referring to the element of gambling in lotteries, he was interrupted by the hon. member for Green Point (who is still the member for Green Point to this day) who interjected to say that the latest form of gambling was politics. Sir, as far as the United Party is concerned, this statement by the hon. member for Green Point is perfectly true. Look where he sits to-day. When one becomes the victim of political gambling to the extent that the hon. member for Green Point has, what hope has one of escaping the harmful consequences that would flow from this motion if it were implemented?

Dr. H. Reitz, M.P. for Brits, who seconded the motion, tried to justify lotteries on biblical grounds. He mentioned by way of example the election of an apostle after the death of Judas, but I shall come back to that later on. Major K. Rood, M.P. for Vereeniging, who spoke against the motion, pointed out that Mr. Kentridge had refused to discuss the moral aspect of the case; that he had refused to do so for understandable reasons which I have already mentioned. The Minister of Finance, who was Mr. Havenga at that time, replied—

The present Minister of Finance did not want it, and on one occasion he said that it was not necessary either—

But I want to quote what was said at that time by Mr. Blackwell. M.P. for Bezuidenhout—

The debate was adjourned without a division. That, Sir, is phase A of the parliamentary history of lotteries. Then we come to phase B, 13 February 1934—it again happens to be February. On that date Dr. H. Reitz, M.P. for Jeppes, moved, according to Hansard Vol. 22, Col. 478—

I find it strange that the hon. Chief Whip of the United Party comes along at this stage to move this motion. If my memory serves me correctly, there was a motion calling for the introduction of a State lottery on the agenda of a Free State congress of the United Party and the Leader of the Opposition asked that that motion be deleted because he did not want it to be made a political issue. He also stated that if such a motion perhaps came before Parliament at some later stage, there should be a free vote on it. An opportunity was then given to the representatives to cast a free vote; they were told to imagine that they were in Parliament and that they had a free vote. The matter was then put to a free vote and the vast majority rejected a State lottery. But I may say that on a similar occasion in the Transvaal the same thing happened at a United Party congress. Delegates were also allowed a free vote and there the majority voted in favour of a State lottery. I think I am correct in saying that there was a similar motion at the Union Congress of the United Party at Bloemfontein but it was never put to the vote because the leader of the United Party talked this motion out of court. That is why I say that I find it rather strange that this motion has been Tabled here to-day by the Chief Whip of the United Party. We are making history here with reference to this motion but we will leave it to Mr. X, M.P. for constituency Y, to dig up and to quote this history in February nineteen hundred and so much when he rises to oppose a similar motion, whereupon Parliament, with a National Party Government still in power, will reject the motion.

Mr. Speaker, before I proceed to condemn and to reject this motion on grounds of principle, I want to refer to the sorrow-and-tears campaign which has been launched from Bloemfontein and which is now resolving itself into an attitude of pointing a pistol at the Government’s head, because the hon. member for Von Brandis wants to know what we are going to do if this issue is submitted to the public by way of a referendum. This attitude which emanates from Bloemfontein is adopted in the name of love, compassion, the will of the electorate, nationalism, freedom, Christian democracy and justice. Sir, let me first put this question to these moaners, these people who take so much pity on the wretched and who sob out their pity in this way before the nation: What have they done by way of cash expenditure out of their own pockets to care for the poor and to alleviate the lot of the sick? What do they know about extending a Christian hand of help? In Circular Letter No. 3 dated March 1965, sent out by the same people, they say—

Yes, that is true; they may buy lottery tickets with a glad heart but the eternal waiting, the hope and the despair, the consuming disappointment that millions of participants suffer over and over again year after year melts away that so-called gladness of the heart, deprives these people of their vitality, makes them miserable beings and lowers their productivity in their work. Then, amongst other things, reference is made in this circular letter to the distressful circumstances under which certain children have to live and the begging on the streets where street collections are taken; they talk about the crying, hungry little children and the prayers for salvation and mercy; about stupid and dishonourable conduct on the part of the Government, about the stubbornness of this Government in resisting the will of the electorate, and about the longing for the good old days of General Hertzog, in spite of the fact that General Hertzog, as I showed a moment ago, was one of the people who voted against such a motion. It contains the threat that they will send their supporters to the House of Assembly, although they refer in the same breath to the so-called fact that 80 per cent of the citizens are in favour of a State lottery. None of this, however, impresses me in the least. Sir, I propose in the rest of my speech to take a clear stand, a stand for which I am prepared to assume responsibility in this House and outside towards the public who are being indoctrinated at this moment to hold a pistol at the Government’s head in the forthcoming election. Mr. Speaker, I am going to hit back very hard here to-day. If people call street collections begging, then you will permit me to remind them that every person who seeks to enrich himself by means of a lottery at the expense of his fellow-men, without working for his money and without compensating his fellow-men, is practically guilty of theft as far as I am concerned, because the difference is only one of degree. A lottery is the twin sister of theft.

Theft?

Yes, I said I would strike a new note in my rejection of every single attempt that is made to introduce a State lottery in this country. A further proposition that I want to advance is that the basis of our national existence, in terms of Section 1 of our Constitution, is unconditionally Christian, and that means, amongst other things, that the Holy Writ also serves as a guide to us in our national life. On a previous occasion when I referred in the course of a speech to God’s Word, one of the English-language newspapers referred to me as “the pulpit speaker”. They are perfectly free to do so again; I thank them for that compliment. Am I not allowed to testify in this House? Must I only do so outside or in the church? I go further. God decreed that one could only acquire property through unflagging industry, hard work and faithful labour, and for the rest by way of inheritance and donations. The drawing of lots is a direct contravention of the eighth Commandment. Mr. Speaker, there are frequent references in the Holy Bible to the casting of lots, but I want to point out that the casting of lots was only resorted to in those cases where it was impossible for man to judge objectively; and, moreover, according to the Holy Bible—and I mention this with the greatest respect—whenever the process of casting lots was adopted, according to the Holy Writ it was accompanied by an appeal to the Lord for guidance; it always had a religious connotation. The casting of lots that we read about in the Bible was resorted to at God’s command as an instrument in His hands to make His will known. It was used where land had to be divided; it was used to point out persons; to point out Saul, for example, as King; Jonathan as the person who had contravened the command that nobody was to eat anything; Jonah on the ship to Tarsis; Aghan as the thief and in electing an apostle in the place of Judas. Let me quote from the Statebijbel (State Bible)—

That is the basis of the use of lots in the Bible. I just want to say for record purposes that all Protestant churches, in accordance with this clear doctrine in the Bible, have always issued a warning that thieves, usurers, and gamblers must be admonished to keep away from the Table of the Lord as long as they persist in these sins. And since large numbers of the White population are members of these churches, the authorities would be perpetrating a blatant injustice against them if they not only sanctioned a practice which is condemned by the churches but elevated it to a State industry by introducing a State lottery. It will be argued, of course, that there are many people who think differently and that the State is no longer being neutral; that it is not being impartial, but that is not the position. This Government has never been neutral. This Government is deliberately and positively Christian in terms of Section 1 of the Constitution. Before an argument such as that can hold water, we must first knock the very bottom out of the Constitution by deleting Section 1 from it. If it is argued that it is the wish of the majority of the people, as we have been told here today, to have a lottery, then we must sound a warning note here that this is a very dangerous tendency. No responsible Government can take it upon itself to promote this decadence by introducing a State lottery. It dare not do so under any circumstances. [Interjections.] The argument that charitable causes can be served is, I repeat, absolutely spurious, because as far as the participant in a lottery is concerned, it is definitely not a question of positive obedience to the eighth Commandment to promote the interests of his neighbour wherever he can, but rather a question of a positive contravention of the eighth Commandment, in order to get as much as he possibly can from his fellow-men and to pocket it to his own advantage and to their detriment.

Sir, one cannot help being struck by the fact that this motion is being introduced at this particular stage, simultaneously with the launching of this agitation from Bloemfontein, that there is talk about the possibility of a free vote and that some of the arguments advanced here by the hon. member for Von Brandis correspond with what we read in that particular document. We want to say to hon. members opposite, however, that they will leave this House with nothing to show for their pains. A State lottery will never be introduced as long as we have a National Party Government in power.

The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Heystek) gave this House a homily on the evils of a lottery, and he based it firstly on objections on moral grounds, and objections on religious grounds. He said that anybody who dares to introduce a lottery into our Republic is going to contaminate the souls of the people, and would be responsible for “diefstal”, which was the word he used. Well, if he is so sure about that type of argument and is convinced that the public outside will support him, I would ask him why is he not prepared to let this issue be the subject of a free vote on his side of the House? He has spoken about the “volkswil”. I will deal with that in a few moments. If a lottery is such an evil, I should like to call as a witness in support of the motion of the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) none other than the late President of the Transvaal Republic, that very dear and revered gentleman, Paul Kruger. What do we find? I have in front of me the original page of the Staatskoerant, called “Bijvoegsel tot de Staats Courant der Z.A. Republiek dated 1 May 1889”. Here is an advertisement for the Transvaalsche Loterij. I will read the English translation of it, because my Nederlands is not so good—

This was a lottery officially sponsored by the President of the Transvaal Republic.

That is wrong. He did not sponsor it at all.

Sir, I would like to say: “Good old Paul Kruger” and hats off to those gallant old greybeards who liked their harmless little flutter as much as most of us do to-day. And if the hon. member for Waterberg still thinks that Paul Kruger was an immoral and irreligious person, may I draw his attention to the fact that in the Free State Republic of that time there was also a lottery. I want to read from this publication, “De Express en Oranjevrijstaatsch Advertentieblad” of 20 August 1889. It will be remembered that President Reitz had followed President Jan Brand the previous year, after President Brand had been President for 35 years. This is the advertisement which appeared in the official Free State Republican paper—

Sir, were these gentlemen immoral or dishonest? And, what is more, when the late President Kruger found that it was causing too many administrative problems to handle the lottery in the Transvaal, he gave out a concession to a certain W. A. Phillips for him to conduct the lottery in the Transvaal, and for that he got £25,000 a year, which went into the coffers of the Republic. That is exactly the same as what the Government is doing to-day. In the Transvaal alone they are taking R4,000,000 a year in taxation from horse-racing. Is that information incorrect? What is then wrong with a flutter on a lottery?

But the hon. member has spoken about the “volkswil”. Sir, the volkswil is changing. Hon. members opposite know only too well how rapidly it has changed in the past 25 years; 25 years ago the public were against a Republic, but to-day they are in favour of it. Twenty-five years ago they were against liquor for the Bantu and against selling wines in grocery stores, but to-day they have accepted it. I say to the hon. member for Waterberg and those who are opposing this motion, that they should follow the volkswil and allow the public to express their opinion in a referendum which could possibly be combined with a general election next year (so as to avoid expense), to say whether they are in favour of a lottery being held in the Republic. The “volkswil” has been briefly touched on by the mover of this motion when he referred to what happened in Bethulie, but what happened in Parys? The Parys Town Council took a vote on whether they were in favour of a lottery, and they divided equally, four on each side, but the Mayor’s casting vote went against the acceptance, and therefore the motion was lost. But the significant thing is that four members on each side of the Parys Town Council voted in a deadlock on this matter. What happened at Zastron? Zastron voted in favour of a lotetry. What happened at Bredasdorp? There the Council allowed the inhabitants of the village to signify their opinion, and 400 petitioners in Bredasdorp said that they were in favour of a lottery. Wepener as well. Who would ever have dreamt that a general campaign would have been inspired in the villages of the Free State? I say it is from those villages that the movement and the impetus comes for the Government to accede to public desires for a lottery and it will be increased more than ever before.

We also find that they passed a resolution—I think it was in 1960—at the annual congress of the Association of Chambers of Commerce, in favour of a lottery. They submitted this resolution to the Government, but it was turned down by the Government. Sir, where could you get a better cross-section of opinion than in a trade union council? At the Trade Union Conference in 1964, they decided to urge the Government to hold a referendum on the question of a lottery, the proceeds of which are to be used for 1 a State health scheme, 2 for pensioners, and 3 for child welfare. That was requested by the trade union council. Surely these people represent a very fine cross-section of public opinion. I think the hon. the Minister of Justice must admit that possibly the best cross-section of opinion (volkswil) is to be found in the “John Vorster” branch of the Nationalist Party in Brakpan. Sir, what did that branch decide? That branch decided unanimously to submit a resolution to the congress of the Nationalist Party last year, asking the Nationalist Party to hold a referendum to test public opinion as to whether or not the public is in favour of a lottery. When this came up before the Brakpan divisional committee—here I am speaking subject to correction—the divisional committee of the Brakpan branch of the Nationalist Party also decided, so I am informed, to support that resolution. I may be wrong; I do not know too much about the procedure at Nationalist Party congresses,—it is a long time ago since I was in their caucus—but it may be that no resolution can go forward to a Nationalist Party congress unless it comes from a division. If it did not come from the division, my information is quite definite that it nevertheless came from the “John Vorster” branch of the Nationalist Party and went to the congress

They should be banned.

I am reliably informed that when the gentleman who moved this motion spoke in favour of it, he was given very little opportunity to do so; he was so dissatisfied with the treatment that he received there that subsequently he resigned from the Nationalist Party together with nine other English-speaking Nats who were dissatisfied with the treatment that they had received. I am quoting from an article which appeared in the Rand Daily Mail yesterday—in which this ex-Chairman stated—

Sir, I am correct in terms of this article in saying that the divisional committee of the Brakpan Nationalist Party were definitely in favour of a lottery Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell this House what is going on in this constituency which adjoins his, where the “volkswil” is apparently not in favour of a lottery, according to the opinion of the hon. member for Waterberg! I would also like to read from the letter of another individual, the chairman of a Nationalist Party branch in the constituency of the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder), who has given me authority to read out this letter. He says—

Then he goes on to say—

Then he goes on to make a point which I would like to ask the Minister of Justice to consider most seriously, he says—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to bear in mind that many of the immigrants who are coming to our country to-day come from countries where they have this type of harmless sport …

And television too.

… and now they find that they are deprived of all these opportunities, as well as Sunday swimming, for instance. This has stirred up a tremendous amount of resistance amongst immigrants to the policies of South Africa. I say that we must not by legislation deprive people of these harmless little flutters. A lottery is really the mildest form of gambling ever devised and does nobody any harm whatsoever. Sir, have you ever heard of a suicide as a result of purchasing a lottery ticket? I have heard of many suicides as a result of racing debts! Have you ever heard of thefts from employers as a result of purchasing lottery tickets? I have not, but I have heard of numerous thefts from employers by people in order to go and bet on the races. Just a week ago we heard that the theft of R150,000 from a bank was motivated by the racing misfortunes of the person concerned. Sir, another very important aspect that I think we as a country must bear in mind at this psychological time is the fact that the Protectorates are now starting to have their own lotteries. Already Swaziland is conducting its own lottery under the name of the Swazilot and a considerable amount of money is being sent from this country into Swaziland. I do not think that the Minister, even with the Gambling Bill which he contemplates submitting to the House, will ever be able to stop the egress of money from this country to places like Swaziland. Basutoland passed legislation in 1963 giving it the right to have a lottery. Similarly, Bechuanaland is going to conduct a lottery. All these Protectorates are going to conduct lotteries because they have to supplement their meagre revenue. Then, Sir, I want to put a very pertinent question to the hon. the Minister: What is going to happen when the Transkei Legislative Assembly asks our State President to sanction a state lottery in the Transkei? Can we refuse? Will we refuse? If we do refuse, what is going to be the reaction of all those citizens of the Transkei when they find that their brothers in Bechuanaland, Basutoland and Swaziland are able to conduct lotteries, but that we deprive them of the opportunity to do so?

The Minister of Bantu Administration will help.

I do not want to deal with the religious angle that has been raised by the hon. member for Waterberg except to say that nowhere in the Bible is there any direct or indirect reference against lotteries. I can quote from Joshua, Chapters 13, 14 and 18, which show where lots were drawn.

You do not know your Bible.

I do. Sir, what more do you want; are you not drawing lots for ballottees to-day? Are our own boys not going into military service as a result of a draw by ballot?

It is a government national gamble every year.

They gamble with human lives.

Sir, I want to conclude with the adage—“if you invest in the Malta sweep you get your reward within 48 hours”. But the hon. member for Waterberg—I do not hold it against him that he holds this point of view—says, “Invest with me and you will get your reward in life hereafter.” Sir, I prefer taking my risk and my pleasures while I am still on this earth, and with those sentiments I have pleasure in supporting the motion of the hon. member for Von Brandis.

I would not like to be in your company in the life hereafter.

Listening to the hon. member who introduced this motion and the arguments advanced in this regard, and noticing too the fair amount of interest on the Opposition side for this motion, I came to the conclusion that the Opposition have discussed this matter on a reasonably high level and have come to the conclusion that although they are going forward to meet the coming election with a very poor political programme, they are at least going to offer the electorate a lottery ticket. I must say that the arguments which have been advanced here have not convinced me at all that they have made out a good case. It was noticeable to my mind that the hon. member who introduced this motion admitted that we are dealing here with a form of gambling. Indeed, he used these words: “We allow other forms of gambling”.

Allow me at the outset and by way of comment on this motion, to quote to hon. members a few sentences expressing the opinion of Prof. Keet, a man who is considered to be one of the most sober-minded theologists in this country. He says (translation)—

In these few sentences we have a very strong condemnation of this motion which has been introduced in this House to-day.

Do you also want to abolish horse racing?

I shall come back to the question of horse racing: I am not in a position to authorize or abolish horse racing but I am now in a position to comment on this motion and I hope that the hon. member will give me the opportunity to do so.

Allow me to say that when we approach this matter and consider it calmly and objectively and give particular attention to the longterm affect of a development of this nature, we cannot but oppose it. The argument has been advanced to-day that public opinion is in favour of a State lottery and that people are asking for it. I can say—and I can say it with my hand on my heart—that as far as the constituency which I represent is concerned there is no agitation at all for a State lottery.

Let us test it.

I cannot remember one of the voters in my constituency urging the establishment of a State lottery or, as is suggested here, a public lottery. I do believe that there will be people who will be interested and will buy tickets but that does not mean to say that the responsible citizens in our country insist on a State lottery. It has also been said here this afternoon that it will give the poor man a chance. Sir, that argument may possibly be an argument aimed at winning the vote of the poor man but it is certainly not an argument aimed at improving his financial or economic position. I think that that is the only reason why this argument has been advanced here to-day. Experience of any form of lottery, whether it be a State lottery or horse racing or whatever form of gambling it may take, has shown us that it is the poor man who pays for it and does not get back what he has invested in it. As far as horse racing is concerned my attitude has always been that broadly speaking it is no public asset because all the horses, all the officials, all the bookmakers and whoever may make his living from this profession, are paid for and paid by the public. That is why it has always been the poor man who has been asked to take out a lottery ticket, either one or more, to finance it. It does not help to tell me that a certain man has won a wonderful prize of R100,000 because for that one man who may win R100,000 there are hundreds of thousands who are R1 poorer and who could have made better use of that money.

This argument has also been mentioned—and it is always mentioned—that a great deal of money is made available for charitable institutions in this way. I should like in this regard to quote a few sentences expressing the opinion of Professor Keet to whom I have already referred. He said (translation)—

Listening to the arguments which have been advanced here in favour of a lottery—and I listened to them impartially—I came to the conclusion that the arguments were very shallow. There are always people who like to gamble; there are always people who like to obtain money the easy way. As a rule, these are people who do not want to work, people who do not want to make use of the opportunities which life offers them to make a living worthy of human dignity and to go ahead. These are the people who insist on the introduction of a public or State lottery and that is why to my mind this is not an important argument.

I want to advance a few arguments against a State lottery and I want to start by saying that in principle a State lottery is wrong. It is wrong in principle because it encourages people to win money and even to become rich without having something to show for it. Possessions and human prosperity are inextricably bound to the principle of labour, and when we advance the argument that we can make life very interesting for certain people and that people can even become rich through the medium of a State lottery, we are forfeiting a principle by creating the opportunity for people to make a little money, or possibly a large sum of money, by dubious means. There are a few simple principles of Christian ethics which apply here. The first is that man shall earn his bread by the sweat of his brow and the second, which is complementary to this, is that if a man does not want to work, he shall not eat. Labour is the basis of a nation’s civilization and prosperity and forms the basis of and earns for that nation the good right to the things which it possesses. This is also true of every individual. It will be a great pity if the representatives of the people of South Africa in this House were to depart from this principle and say: “Let us give the people an opportunity to gamble a little”. Moreover, any form of gambling, including a State or public lottery, is completely unproductive. Mr. Speaker have you considered that absolutely nothing is produced or created by this sort of institution—not one single cent’s worth? Absolutely nothing is achieved; it simply panders to the desire on the part of certain people to gamble, but absolutely nothing is achieved. Nothing is built up and nothing is created. In other words, it makes no contribution whatsoever towards the income of a nation. On the contrary, it robs the individual and the nation of the realization that the labourer is worthy of his hire. It encourages people to concentrate on these opportunities so as to make a living in this way. I think that any nation should be on its guard not to encourage and increase that percentage of people which refuses to work and who are always trying in divers clever ways to make money at the cost of those people who are actually earning it—the people who work the land; the people who go down into the bowels of the earth and work our mines; the people who work on our roads, on our trains and in our factories. These are the people who produce our national income; they are the people who actually produce; they are the people who achieve something. They are the people who really earn money for the country and they are the people whom we must encourage and protect, not those who want to organize a public lottery or who want to encourage horse racing and seek to increase that type or organization in order to gain possession of public money in an evil way. In essence, Mr. Speaker, a State lottery is a waste of money and labour. The staff used in such an undertaking can be used productively elsewhere. Hon. members on the other side have repeatedly said during the past week that we are experiencing a manpower shortage. The more opportunity there is for gambling, the more lotteries we have, the more people there are who, having no regular employment, prey on these places like vultures and the larger the number of people who have to organize those lotteries and have to administer those organizations. I also want to mention the fact that a State lottery is essentially demoralizing. Ireland is a country which is known for its sweepstakes and various kinds of lotteries.

I have read that an Irish minister has said, probably with a tear in heart—

This is not my opinion; it is the opinion of people who have considered the effect of this type of body over a long period. This is the conclusion of people who are saddened by the evil conditions which have arisen because of that type of institution which should never have been there.

I may also add that a State lottery is valueless as a form of sport. The hon. member for Yeoville asked whether I would advocate the abolition of horse racing. This is wrong in principle and as far as I am concerned I have very little sympathy for it. But we know that it is a form of sport apart from being a lottery and that is why there are other considerations which are to a certain extent different from those operative in the case of a pure and simple lottery. But in principle it is wrong and I am not in sympathy with it. I also want to refer to an article which was written by certain supporters of a State lottery in Bloemfontein, an article to which reference was also made by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Heystek). I must say that this article is such a poor one that I think that everyone who received it could best reply to it by throwing it into the wastepaper basket as quickly as possible; it is an unsavoury article in which there is actually no substance. I am referring to it because it mentions certain women and mothers who stand on our streets from time to time in order to collect for some or other good cause—as the article puts it, to collect alms. Let me say that I have the greatest respect for any woman who has the courage and is willing to stand on street corners with a collection box in order to collect money for our institutions for the blind or the deaf or crippled persons or whoever they may be. I have the highest respect for any woman who sacrifices her time in this regard and is willing to do this work, because we need people like this; from time to time we need willing workers to come forward not simply to ask us to make a contribution but to remind us that there are people in our society who are not as fortunate as we are, who are able to walk our streets and move from one place to the other and work as we can, and that it is our duty and our responsibility not simply to make contributions by way of taxes to maintain those people but also to assist them by means of a voluntary contribution. That is why I reject this type of article with the contempt which it deserves. I mention it merely because I feel that these ladies, whether in Cape Town or in any other city or town in the Republic of South Africa, who are willing to do this work, are worthy not only of our support but of our great respect as well, and it is necessary for us to keep this fact in mind.

Mr. Speaker, what conclusion have I arrived at in this connection? My conclusion is this: South Africa is a young country; South Africa is a rich country; South Africa is a country which is still to a very large extent undeveloped. and if people are looking for sensation, I think that they would do well to investigate the riches on our ocean floor and see what they can salvage. If people are looking for sensation I think that they would do well to investigate the riches of the Namib to which the hon. member for Namib (Mr. De Wet) referred here recently. If people are looking for sensation, they should make their way to the wide open spaces and hills and plains of Namaqualand where they will find variety. Let them go to the northern areas of South West; let them go to the Kalahari; let them go to the Witwatersrand and the Free State and see what is being done there on our mines. Let them discover how much sensation there is in the everyday life of the ordinary man. There is a world of possibilities; there is a world of sensation and excitement which every man can experience daily if he will make use of the opportunities offered in this country and use them in the right direction. Many of our riches as yet lie untouched, just waiting for those people who have the initiative, and. I would almost say, the courage and the daring to seek and find these things. The jackpot of our riches does not lie on our race tracks or gambling tables or in a public lottery; it lies in the patient tilling of our soil and the conservation and development of our country; it lies in the riches under our seas; it lies in the riches of our homeland. And so, if I may say something to-day by way of contrast. I should like to make an appeal to the people of South Africa to appreciate the inheritance of our country and to search for and grasp those things which as yet lie hidden so that we may enrich ourselves thereby and pave the way for a greater future for us all. We are faced with the challenge of honest, hard and concentrated labour and it is only on this basis that we will be able to build a bright and rosy future. Let us do this and let us to-day consign a State lottery to the limbo of forgotten things

The two hon. members who have spoken on the other side of the House, the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Heystek) and the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. Treurnicht) based their opposition to the motion introduced by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) on high moral, ethical and religious grounds, as I understood their speeches.

I would be the last person to dispute the right of the hon. members to their convictions as far as religious grounds are concerned, but I trust they will allow me and anybody who supports the motion to hold our convictions, as far as religious grounds are concerned. that there is nothing wrong in a lottery. I can refer the hon. member for Waterberg, in particular, to a speech I made in this House in which I listed all the Bible quotations to show that in the Good Book there were many examples of where the principle of a lottery were accepted. Time does not permit me to quote them again but I refer the hon. member to the relevant Hansard. I am quite prepared to let him have all the references and, let me add, Sir, there are quite a number of them.

I now come to the moral argument. I would be the first one to admit that there are different standards of morals. Far be it for me to say that the moral standards of the hon. member for Piquetberg and the hon. member for Waterberg are standards with which I cannot compete, because I favour the motion. You see, Sir, the determination of whether an action or a thought or an idea is right or wrong is dependant upon a uniform standard of morality, a uniform standard of morality applicable to all classes and all men in all circumstances. But I am not aware that modern theorists have come to any agreement on the question of what constitutes a uniform standard of morality in respect of the principle contained in this motion of gambling. There is no moral standard laid down by the Government. There is no moral standard accepted by the hon. member for Piquetberg because in one breath he speaks against a lottery and in the other breath he says he is prepared to recognize that there is some merit in horse racing. But horse racing is based on the sport of gambling.

I said it was wrong in principle.

The gentleman does not object to it, Sir. He has not got such a high moral standard that he would advocate to the Government to abolish horse racing on moral grounds. I think it ill becomes any member to determine in which category the participation in a lottery by any citizen falls. What are the ethics? Is it right to condemn a lottery when the Minister of Justice himself, in the minds of many people, administers legislation which causes half the divorces in South Africa, much of the gun play on the streets of Johannesburg, the majority of the traffic crashes according to statistics, and a host of other crimes, because the Minister of Justice administers the liquor laws, the laws which constitute the basic cause of most of the crimes of the nature I have listed? In order to be completely moral must we therefore advocate prohibition in South Africa. Must we advocate that in order to prevent half the divorces, to stop all the gun play in Johannesburg, to prevent further traffic crashes on our roads and all these other crimes? That is why I say that when one comes to the moral argument on the question embodied in this motion there is no uniform standard. The Government itself accepts that the principle of gambling is an acceptable principle.

Reference has been made to horse racing. The mover of the motion referred to the new trend to create so-called jackpots, quinellas and other forms of investment on and off race courses. The Minister is surely aware of the off-course betting that is assuming such vast dimensions in the province of Natal as far as the jackpot is concerned. What is the difference between a jackpot and a lottery? In the case of a jackpot the person who buys a ticket must select four numbers which are carried by certain horses and the winner will be the person who selected the four numbers who first passed the winning post. Is there any skill in a jackpot? In principle there is absolutely no difference whatsoever. It is based purely on chance. The Government and every Provincial Administration sanction jackpots, which, in the case of the Cape Province, has a turnover of something like R1,250,000 per annum—I am talking in round figures. That does not in any way compare with the turnover on the race courses in the Transvaal or even in Natal where, at one meeting, the gambling for the jackpot was over R250,000. What is more, Sir, where does the morality come in when the Government derives revenue from this principle of gambling? The revenue the Provincial Administrations are presently getting from the sport of gambling on the race course exceeds over R6,500,000 per annum. Is there a member in this House who would suggest that Provincial Administrations should cease to receive this revenue? Would the Minister advocate that as Government policy? I do not think so. The extraordinary thing is that since the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs stepped in some time ago and impounded lottery tickets sent through the post every single tote on the South African race courses has shown an increase in its turnover. If I may quote the figure as far as the Cape race courses are concerned they have shown an average increase in turnover of over R20,000 per week. In other words, Sir, the money that was spent by people who wished to indulge in a lottery ticket was merely directed into another channel. I sometimes wonder whether it was not done on purpose by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in order to get more revenue for the Provincial Administrations?

I come to the other moral argument present here, the argument advanced by the hon. member for Piquetberg that because a poor man buys a lottery ticket it will automatically lead to his ruin and degradation. What is to prevent a poor man from taking a Jack Pot ticket or from indulging in any other form of legalized gambling in South Africa? What is to prevent it? Nothing at all. Let us take the morality of the issue. Take the case of a man, a poor man, an irresponsible type, who suddenly finds himself winning a large sum of money and because he is morally not capable of handling a large sum of money goes to his ruin and degradation. That happened, I admit.

A glorious death!

Let us weigh the ruin of an individual not fitted to win a lottery ticket against the receipt of funds by charitable institutions in this country. Think of the hospitals, think of the establishment of better and more old-age homes, place for the mentally deficient, the cripples and others in whose cases the Government has made no provision and where those who normally look after them have to carry the burden. The hon. gentleman referred to those good-hearted women who, out of the goodness of their hearts, stood at street corners waving a box at the passing public to collect money for their own particular charity. What in fact are they doing? They are conducting a lottery on street corners for the benefit of their favourite charity. But what is worse is that the recipients, those whom they seek to benefit have to rely on the gamble that the passing public is generous and the ability of the women to wave their boxes a little harder on the street corners.

Nonsense !

It is not “nonesense”, it is a fact. I do not agree with the mover of the motion when he draws a distinction between a public lottery and a State lottery. I realize the great interest the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has in this matter because he has admitted that he himself indulges now and again in a lottery ticket. And he sees nothing morally wrong in a lottery. [Interjections.] Quite a number of hon. members may sit with tickets in their pockets; I am not sure.

As I have said I do not draw the same distinction between a public lottery and a State lottery which the hon. the mover of the motion has drawn. What is virtually inscribed in the motion is the principle of gambling. I want to say this that if a motion were moved for the establishment of a lottery as a means of raising revenue for Government expenditure I would be absolutely opposed to that principle. I have made that clear on former occasions when I have dealt with this matter in this House, both by way of motion and when Bills have been discussed. So I do not agree that there is this distinction between a public lottery and a State lottery because I cannot conceive of any lottery being conducted without adequate control by the State over the conduct of that lottery, whether the State exercises that control itself or whether it establishes a board or other machinery to do so. Because, I repeat, I am opposed to the principle of a lottery being conducted for revenue for the State. That has traditionally been the attitude of all governments since Union. Mr. Havenga, the Minister of Finance at the time, stated clearly that he was against the principle of raising revenue for public purposes by means of a lottery. That point of view was endorsed by Minister Hofmeyr years later when he said that a State lottery was not a suitable basis for the finances of the State. So on that principle I am opposed to it. And in order to get complete clarity in regard to the motion as it appears on the Order Paper I want to move as an amendment—

I have made my standpoint perfectly clear on this issue in the past. Because if a lottery is conducted there must be three sources for the disposal of the money if you are opposed to the State using it for normal revenue purposes, for expenditure from revenue. Then it can only be used for administering the lottery, for the obvious prize money which is the attraction to the public to buy a ticket, and then also some third purpose to justify the lottery, and its only justification I can see on that principle, in order to give expression to the natural sport of gambling which we all have, is for some noble purpose, and the only noble purposes I can see is purposes where the public can feel that their money is being usefully and properly spent, and that is for the alleviation of distress and for the betterment of the people, where everybody shares on an equal basis, for our aged and the care of those who need help. I think we should make that quite clear, because I do not believe that where there is a desire for a public lottery in South Africa—the Minister knows that that desire exists, and the non. member for Humansdorp knows it even better because the matter was raised at party congresses of the Nationalist Party and very strenuous efforts had to be made to talk it down from the platform, according to Press reports—but the public, I think, are prepared to accept the principle that the disposal of any residue money from a lottery should go to social purposes, to benefit those who are least able to benefit themselves.

Finally, we come to this situation, and I put this pertinently to the hon. Minister because the hon. Minister has made no effort to enter the debate at this stage: I wonder what the position is in the Cabinet at the present time about this matter, I wonder if there is in fact any certainty at all, because I do know that we have in the Cabinet at the present time certainly some very strong support for the principle enshrined in the motion of the hon. member for Von Brandis and that is the Minister of Information, because as I would like to point out to the House, Sir, the Minister of Information is on record of voting for this principle, in terms of the amendment which I have moved to the motion. Therefore I should ask the hon. Minister of Justice pertinently whether the Government in the light of the fact that there is at least some support in the Cabinet, whether the Minister and the Government will give serious consideration to the motion before us and the amendment I have moved.

When the Springbok captain, Trevor Goddard, won the toss this morning, we were all very pleased. The latest score I have, Sir, is 259 for 3.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, if you will permit me to do so I shall come back to that fact again in the course of my address because I want to link up a certain argument with it.

We have a motion here which deals with the question of lotteries, gambling and the taking of chances. I have listened attentively to the arguments advanced from both sides of the House, and having listened to the arguments I have gained certain impressions; I have gained a very positive impression, particularly after having heard certain interjections by the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), and that is that apart from other matters which are under discussion or under consideration, we are dealing here with an Opposition that wants to take a chance, an Opposition that believes that by taking this chance they will improve their fortunes, either in March this year or some other date in 1966. And on that occasion when they are prepared to take a chance, wagers will once again be entered into, wagers about hats and other things which are contained in other cubic measures. I know in advance on whose side I am going to put my money when such bets are entered into, and in doing so I will not be gambling either because it is not gambling when one bets on something which is a certainty. It is certainly not gambling when one bets on a certainty. Reference has been made to these things by various hon. members in justification of the attitude that they adopt. Perhaps if my time permits I will come back to this subject again later because it is an interesting subject for speculation.

But let me deal first with the motion moved by the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty). Let me make it perfectly clear for record purposes—let it never be said of me that I did not admit unequivocally and with due regard to the significance of the words—that the motion introduced by the hon. member for Von Brandis is a private motion. The fact that he happens to be the Chief Whip of the United Party is purely coincidental. In that connection one is struck by the fact—and I am grateful to the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Heystek) for the review which he has given of the various motions which have been introduced in this House so that it is not necessary for me to do so—one is struck by the fact that motions of this kind have been introduced here throughout the years, but in the period that I have been in Parliament we have also had a private Bill introduced by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), a Bill which was not discussed just for a single day; I have taken the trouble to ascertain that it was discussed in the House on three successive occasions; there was ample opportunity therefore for hon. members of all convictions, and particularly, of course, for those on both sides who held strong views on the subject to state their case, and it is clear from the Hansard reports that that is precisely what happened. But I notice that in 1955 when the Bill was under discussion, the hon. member for Von Brandis apparently did not hold very strong views with regard to this matter. It is true that he voted in favour of the Bill but he did not take part in the debate. Perhaps he did not do so—I do not know—because the reproach had been leveled at the hon. member that he talked too much, but nevertheless at that time the hon. member did not hold sufficiently strong views on this subject to take part in debate. The hon. member has not taken us into his confidence by telling us what has happened in the meantime to account for the fact that he now holds such strong views on this matter that he has even gone so far as to introduce a private motion with regard to this subject. The hon. member did not tell us either what particular reason prompted his party, which, after all, I take it, in practice determines the priority to be given to motions, to give such a very high priority to this motion. I can only speculate about these things because I do not know and the hon. member did not take us into his confidence either by telling us what the reason was. It is just something that strikes one.

But there is another thing that strikes one and that is the terms in which this motion is drafted, and it strikes one particularly when one compares the wording of this motion with speeches made by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) and the hon. member for Turffontein. Sir, this motion could have been drafted in one of two forms; it could have read, “That this House expresses itself in favour of a public lottery” since it is a private motion and not only a private motion, but, as the hon. member for Von Brandis has said, a motion dealing with a matter which has nothing at all to do with party politics and in connection with which he has indicated to the members on his side in advance that they are at liberty to vote as they like—since this matter is one which is so delicate that it has not even been put to the vote always at party congresses of the Opposition party, since it is a matter that is so delicate that the Union Congress, which is the policy-framing organ of the Opposition party, did not even vote on it, and since they now pretend that their attitude is that this is not a party matter, that it has nothing to do with politics—far be it from me to make the accusation against anybody that this is an attempt to each votes—since it is such a delicate matter that one even becomes annoyed when the accusation is made that this is an attempt to catch votes, one is struck by the fact—it may be because of the nature of the portfolio that I hold that I am more suspicious than other people—but one is struck by the fact that the motion reads, not that this House expresses itself in favour of a public lottery, but it assumes a different form. It would have been reasonable to ask the House to express its opinion because in that case every member would have been free to do whatever he liked and to say whatever he liked as long as you, Mr. Speaker, did not call him to order. But this motion goes much further. This motion drags the Government into it; this motion wants to force the Government to do something or to adopt a definite attitude because it now reads; “That this House requests the Government to establish a public lottery”. If the Government refuses then the public is going to be told that a pertinent request was made to the Government to establish a State lottery and that the Government refused to do so. You will see, Sir, what is behind this. Perhaps I am being unnecessarily suspicious, I do not know, but let me analyze the position now.

You are gambling now.

Perhaps I am taking a chance, I do not know, but experience has taught me that when I take a chance with my hon. friends on the other side I am always correct. But let us deal with this matter on its merits. We are dealing here with a private member’s motion which asks the Government to introduce a public gamble or lottery. It is noteworthy in this connection that the hon. member did not set about things with his usual characteristic thoroughness. He left the thing in mid-air; he simply talked about a public gamble. Sir, when we talk about a State lottery, we all know more or less what we are dealing with. We can all form a pretty clear picture as to what it is all about. Does the hon. member for Turffontein know what the hon. member for Von Brandis wants? I do not know; I honestly do not know, nor does the hon. member for Turffontein know. That is borne out not only by the fact that he moved this amendment, but he made no attempt to explain to us what the hon. member for Von Brandis wants. The motion simply hangs in mid-air. The Government is asked to introduce a public lottery. What does that mean? Who is to be in control of it and how often is it to be held?

But the principle is there.

Precisely. That is what is behind it and that is precisely what I wanted to hear from the hon. member. I wanted the hon. member to tell me that what they want this House to accept is the principle of lotteries. That is all. That is what hon. members opposite want this House to accept, but they want to leave the whole thing suspended in mid-air because the hon. member over there who made the interjection, and the hon. member for Springs, who quoted certain letters here, and all my hon. friends on the other side have discovered that there are people in this country, people belonging to all political parties, including the National Party, good people, with whom there is nothing wrong, who are in favour of State lotteries. In my constituency and in the constituency of everyone of us there are people who are in favour of State lotteries. There was a time years ago when there were isolated instances where people expressed themselves in favour of a State lottery, but to-day there are certain people who have formed themselves into an association or partnership, and these people are not only in favour of a lottery, hon. members have received circular letters from them and they have now discovered that these people are not only pro-lottery but, according to their circular letter, also anti-Government, and far be it from hon. members on the other side, whether as private individuals or as a party, not to ally themselves with anybody who is anti-Government. And that is the answer. They are trying to curry favour with these people because they believe that these people enjoy a tremendous amount of support in the country and that they are going to create an uproar in the country. I am not accusing the non. member for Von Brandis but my accusation against the hon. member for Springs and the hon. member for Turffontein is that they believe that they will be able to curry favour with these people. These people have a tremendous voting strength and they believe that if they can win the favours of these people they will be in a much stronger position in the near future. That will not happen, however.

Why are you being so sensitive about votes? Why not deal with the motion on its merits?

No, I am not being sensitive about votes; the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), however, is, and he is going to be even more sensitive when he discovers that he was only daydreaming. The hon. member for Turffontein wants to know what the Government’s attitude is, but, Sir, it is not necessary for the hon. member to ask what the Government’s attitude is. The Government has repeatedly stated its attitude. It is true—we all know that that is so—that from time to time certain items appear on the agendas of the congresses of all political parties, including the National Party, and it is also true, as the hon. member for Springs has said, that such an item appeared on the agenda of the last congress of the National Party in the Transvaal. But it is not true, as stated by the hon. member, that the person who moved this item was treated unfairly. He received the same treatment that is meted out to any delegate who puts an item for discussion on the agenda. Moreover, he was given a longer time to state his case than is normally given to delegates.

That is not what he says.

I do not care what he says; I am giving the hon. member the facts; he was given a longer time to state his case than is normally given to other delegates; but it is also true that a similar motion was discussed at the congress of the United Party. One might perhaps ask what difference there was in the procedure adopted at the two congresses. At the congress of my hon. friends an attempt was made to shelve this thing, to say “yes” and at the same time to say “no”. At our congress that was not the case. The basic attitude that we adopted as a Government—we made it perfectly clear and the Government will always make its attitude perfectly clear at every congress where this matter comes under discussion—was that it was not in favour of a public lottery. If hon. members do not understand that and want me to say it more clearly, then they must tell me so. There may be hon. members on the other side who will be grateful for the fact that I am once again stating our attitude in perfectly clear terms and who believe that they will benefit by it politically. Let me make this perfectly clear: I know that there are people who do not share my attitude and who do not share the basic attitude of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. Heystek) or the attitude of the hon. member for Piketberg (Mr. Treurnicht) and who believe that there is nothing wrong in establishing a State lottery and in buying a ticket in such a lottery. There are people who adopt that attitude but the people I know, who believe that there is nothing wrong with it, are not people who are prepared to throw overboard their principles and their policies for a lottery ticket. They are not the sort of people who are going to join another political party, as hon. members opposite may be hoping, because the Government adopts this basic attitude, and it is a basic attitude that we are adopting here. That attitude has been stated on various occasions and at congresses, and it is not necessary for me therefore to repeat it here.

On what principle is it based—a financial principle or a moral principle?

Sir, there are people who are opposed to it on religious principles, on theological principles. There are more people, however, who are opposed to it on moral grounds. [Interjections.] Since the hon. member has interrupted me, let me say that his entire argument was based on the fact that the “jackpots” in horse-racing are in fact lotteries.

In principle it is gambling.

We have these jackpots already and there are many of them. Well, if the hon. member is correct in his attitude—and he stated it with very great conviction—why then does he ask the Government to introduce another lottery? Surely there are enough lotteries already; the people who want to indulge in a little innocent sport have adequate facilities already for doing so, and in that case this motion is not necessary at all; because what the hon. member now asks for exists already. Either his argument is wrong, therefore, or he already has what he is asking for, and if he already has what he now is asking the Government to introduce then I accuse him outright of raising this matter for political reasons only. If that is not the position, then I simply cannot understand his attitude.

There are many people in all parties who want a lottery.

Of course, but if the hon. member’s argument is correct, if what he now asks the Government to introduce already exists, what sense is there then in asking the Government to introduce a lottery? On the one hand he makes the accusation that the Government introduces lotteries and allows lotteries to continue, and now he says that it is not the Government that allows it.

But where does the principle come in?

That is precisely what I want to know from the hon. member, but I leave the hon. member there. I cannot deal with all the arguments which have been advanced here by hon. members opposite.

The hon. member for Springs went back to the dim and distant past to find support for his case; he relied on Paul Kruger. This is the second time in the course of this Session that hon. members on the other side have quoted Paul Kruger to support their policies. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) did the same thing here the other day. They have now suddenly become Paul Kruger supporters!

I come back to the argument of the hon. member for Von Brandis. The hon. member is a very senior member of this House and he occupies a very responsible position in the Opposition. Rightly or wrongly, he has the reputation of being the power behind the throne, and this proposal comes from him. When a senior member puts forward a proposal such as this one would expect him to tell us which political party is in favour of a public lottery. Because you see, Sir, there is a twist to this motion; it no longer asks for a State lottery but for a public lottery. Does the hon. member know a single responsible political party—for the purposes of argument I even include the Progressive Party, but I do so only for the purposes of argument—which has expressed itself in favour of a public lottery? I know of no such party. I put it to the hon. member. If I am doing him and his party an injustice then he must tell me.

But this is not a party matter.

Precisely. It is not a party matter because no single political party has ever been willing to commit itself to the principle of a lottery. If this is something that the political parties refuse to touch even with a six-foot pole, why should this House do so? If it is such a contentious issue—because that is the reason—if it is such a contentious issue that no single political party is prepared to express an opinion about it …

Are you in favour of the sale of liquor to the Bantu?

The hon. member knows that when that issue was under discussion it was dealt with as a party matter on this side of the House. The hon. member knows that the National Party took full responsibility for the legislation that was introduced here. He knows that we have had numbers of congresses since then and that no congress has taken a stand against it. On the contrary, the general attitude was that it was a good thing that the Government as a Government and the party as a party had introduced that legislation. But the question of lotteries is such a contentious issue that no single political party has ever been prepared to make it a plank in its platform that it is in favour of a public or a State lottery. But in the second place I want to put this question to the hon. member for Von Brandis, because I do not want to repeat all the old arguments which have been advanced ad nauseam in this debate: Does the hon. member know of a single organization, which has the interests of the people of South Africa at heart, which exerts its energies to care for the poor, an organization which exerts its energies to care for the widow and the orphan, an organization which is perturbed about social evils and which makes sacrifices in terms of time and money to eliminate such evils; does he know of a single organization of that kind which has ever expressed itself in favour of a public lottery? Sir, I have done my best but I have been unable to find any such organization.

What about the Trade Union Council?

No, that is a trade union. I do not know whether the broad masses of the members of that trade union passed such a resolution. But I know of no single charitable or welfare organization which has expressed itself in favour of a lottery. What right have we then, when we know that the people of South Africa, organized as they are into various political parties and various welfare organizations, have never expressed themselves in favour of a lottery, to come and vote on such a matter in this House?

Would it make any difference if such a request were made to you?

It would certainly make a difference in this sense that it would give me a better idea as to the feelings of the public with regard to this matter, because what we have here at the moment is simply an unsupported argument that 80 per cent or 90 per cent of the population is in favour of a lottery. On what grounds is that allegation made? Why not make it 99 per cent? I want to make it perfectly clear, however, that even if certain organizations outside of this House were to say that they are in favour of a lottery, I would still be opposed to it in principle because I believe that in principle it is wrong and I believe that we would not be serving the cause of morality by introducing a lottery; I believe that we would not be rendering a service to our people. But I go further. The hon. member for Von Brandis tells us that he wants a public lottery without specifying how it is to be managed, how it is to be controlled. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) goes further. He says that he simply wants this House to accept the principle of lotteries. Sir, let me put this to the hon. member: If a lottery is so innocent, if it is such a good thing and if it is as praiseworthy as suggested by hon. members on the other side, can they give me the answer to this argument: If this House accepts that argument then surely every person can start running his own lottery provided there are safeguards against cheating.

No; it is up to the Government then to pass legislation.

In other words, the hon. member for Turffontein wants control in order to eliminate cheating. The only reason why one wants control is to eliminate cheating; is that not correct?

I said so in the course of my speech.

Yes, the hon. member wants State control or control by way of legislation because he does not want members of the public to be cheated; he wants it to be run fairly and honestly. Is that correct?

Yes.

Very well, if that is all one wants, then surely it means, if this motion is accepted, that every person and every group of persons who comply with the requirement that there shall be no cheating will be able to introduce a lottery.

That is not how I see it.

That is how I see it and indeed that is the only way to see it. You will see, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that this motion is not only ill-considered, it is half-baked, it is impractical; it is immoral to come along with such a motion.

I must say that we on this side of the House have reason to expect the hon. the Minister of Justice to answer some of the arguments in favour of a State lottery, particularly those that dealt with the distinction, if any, between the immoral practice of gambling on horse racing and the immoral practice of gambling in or on a lottery. But, Sir, he took up a great deal more time than I can hope to have this afternoon—in terms of the rules—in order to chide us for coming forward with this motion, a private member’s motion; but the overtones which he attributed to it in a ‘‘humorous” dissertation on the subject of the person responsible for the motion, indicated that he thought we were doing so for political advantage. Sir, this is merely a case of side-stepping the issue. The hon. the Minister himself pointed to his own experience, to his own training, to his capacity as Minister of Justice, which he said had made him suspicious of many things and many people. I may say with due respect to him that what he has said here this afternoon will make many people suspicious of him, the hon. the Minister, in regard to the moral stand he has taken against a lottery; it will make them very suspicious of him, because for so long as the Minister is responsible for the administration of certain Acts which permit gambling as such, he surely must be the last hon. gentleman in this House to get up on his moral high horse and read the House a lecture on morality. As has been said here this afternoon if it is true to say that gambling is a vice—I am not dealing now with the form of it—it is equally true to say that the practice of drinking to excess is a vice and yet the hon. the Minister has himself taken steps which we were told only yesterday by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs—and as we were told the day before—had tremendously expanded the consumption of wine in this country. Sir, you have to talk to social workers to find out what this tremendous expansion in the consumption of wine has achieved in the field of human conduct. I do not want to be accused of digressing, Sir, but I merely put it to you that the hon. the Minister, apart from saying categorically, for which we are grateful to him, that the attitude of the Government was that they would not permit a State lottery or a public lottery under State control, has not given a single cogent reason why those who wish to have a lottery, for reasons of their own, should not be permitted to indulge to the same extent in this vice, as they are apparently being encouraged to indulge in other vices which suit certain other interests better.

You closed your ears.

My ears are not closed at all. Sir, I want to put this to you: The Minister was heard to say that he did not know what the hon. member for Von Brandis meant by his motion, that he could not quite see what there was in this particular motion or in the move, as it were. Sir, this is merely a tribute to the inscrutability of the hon. Chief Whip of the Opposition, and even the Minister with his training and his well-founded suspicions of people, does not seem to understand what goes on behind that inscrutable exterior of the hon. Chief Whip of the Opposition. But whether he does or not, or whether we on this side do or do not, the motion surely is perfectly clear. As the Minister himself put it, every man can start his own lottery, provided, as he says, there is no “verneukery” and the object of the motion is to ensure that in the event of a lottery being initiated in this country there shall be no “verneukery”. Surely this is the essence of it. Just as the hon. the Minister of Finance takes certain powers to ensure that in another field of human endeavour, the investment of money or the purchase or acquisition of an insurance policy, there shall be no “verneukery”, is there anything wrong in the hon. the Minister of Justice allowing people who wish to buy a lottery ticket—since we are under no compulsion to do so as we are if we use a motor car to buy a third-party insurance policy—to allow those people who wish to buy a lottery ticket the protection of statutory control so that there will be none of this “verneukery” which he rightly said would arise?

That would keep you out.

Well, keep me out of it, by all means; I do not particularly care one way or the other, but I do say that the hon. the Minister was to-day in a position to give us a good and cogent reason why the State will not permit the establishment of a public lottery in this country—and I say he has failed to do so.

Apart from that, he (the hon. the Minister) as well as some of the speakers on his side, appear to have been stung by a certain circular letter which has come into the possession of members of this House—and I must say I am one of them. This comes from the organization in Bloemfontein to which I think the hon. member for Piketberg (Mr. Treurnicht) referred. It is obviously addressed to supporters of the National Party, and the organization apparently assumes that I am a supporter of the National Party, which Heaven forbid. It says certain things about the National Party … [Interjection.] Sir, I am prepared to take a chance, but not that kind of a chance! Three members on the Government side referred to this circular letter, but not one would make any reference to those paragraphs which dealt with the attitude of the Government.

You read it out.

I am going to read it out as much as I can in the time at my disposal. Apart from giving the reasons why a lottery is a reasonable proposition in South Africa, it goes on to say …

Read the previous sentence.

I cannot read three pages in two minutes. I will leave it to the hon. member to quote the previous sentence. The circular letter says—

The fact that this document, coming from a National Party source, says categorically that we have no free Press in this country and no free radio in this country, is something, of course, that will not be mentioned by hon. members opposite. Sir, in case the point has not been well made, there is this excerpt on the second page, again apropos of the ideal, as the writer puts it, of a State lottery. I am not prepared to deal with the merits of his idea—that it is an ideal—but he thinks it is. He says, inter alia—

Why did somebody on the other side not quote that?

Who wrote that?

The hon. member knows who wrote it. May I suppose he wrote it himself?

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 32 and the motion lapsed.