I move as an unopposed motion—

1. (1) That on Thursday, 13 May, the hours of sitting shall be:
   • 2.15 p.m. to 6.30 p.m.; and 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m.;
2. (2) that notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 22 (1), Saturday, 15 May, shall be a sitting day and that the hours of sitting shall be 10 a.m. to 12.45 p.m.; and
3. (3) that the House at its rising on Wednesday, 26 May, adjourn until Tuesday, 1 June, at 2.15 p.m.

Agreed to.

I move—

The reason I move this motion is that during the second reading of this Bill yesterday, I indicated to the hon. the Deputy Minister of the Interior that it was my desire to move an amendment which would extend the scope of the Bill before us to enable the provinces to have the right to celebrate our national day in any year instead of just the year prescribed by this Bill. I sincerely hope that the hon. Deputy Minister will support me in this. I believe he does, and I believe the whole House will support this motion.

As I promised to do yesterday, I have devoted attention to this matter and I take pleasure in saying that I will accept this amendment. Although the provinces had in mind that this amount of money voted should be for the coming Festival, it is nevertheless quite probable that the provinces in future will also want to contribute to similar Festivals, and then the way is open for them to do so.

I should like once again to express my appreciation for the goodwill and the good spirit evinced by the Opposition in terms of this amendment in regard to the Republic Festival. It really makes one look forward optimistically to this festival in the expectation that Afrikaans and English-speaking people will participate in it proudly and enthusiastically. In that spirit I accept the amendment moved by the Opposition.

Motion put and agreed to.

House in Committee:

On Clause 2,

I move as an amendment—

I have already given my reasons and I trust that the Minister will accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

I raised yesterday, during the second-reading debate, the question of the use of these halls, and I would once more point out that although the amendment is that moneys should be made available for the purchase …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to Clause 2.

I am sorry, I did not hear that Clause 1 was put. As far as Clause 2 is concerned, I want to ask the hon. Minister why the word “without” appears in this clause. Why should it be necessary for a provincial council to spend money in respect of anything that is organized outside a particular province? If there are various functions organized, each provincial council will obviously be responsible for its own expenditure, and if there is anything organized outside a province, surely that is the Government’s responsibility.

The word “without” has been inserted in this clause to allow provinces to contribute towards any central festival, which in this case will be held in Pretoria and in future, perhaps in Cape Town.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clause put and agreed to.

On the Title of the Bill.

I move as an amendment—

Agreed to.

Title, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Amendments put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

This Correspondence Colleges Bill is an agreed measure. It was agreed in the first place between the constituent colleges themselves, subsequently it was agreed between the Minister of Education, Arts and Science, and the colleges as a group, and, finally, it was agreed on both sides of the House. It should be realized, however, that the fact that the colleges have now their own council, does not remove from the Minister of Education the responsibility that he has for all education in South Africa, all education of White people especially, nor does it absolve him from blame if the Bill is not successful.

The only point that I was able to raise was that if a group of people come together, they should have like responsibility; in this Bill they have like responsibilities in regard to subscriptions, and so on, but they do not have the same right in voting strength. Sir, that is an unusual provision. However, I am informed by the hon. the Deputy Minister that the constituent colleges, especially the smaller colleges, are quite satisfied with that agreement. That being so, we welcome the Bill and shall look forward to better control of correspondence colleges in the future.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I think it is just as well for me to reply immediately because we have had a fairly long adjournment of the debate and it is just as well to refresh our memories again.

I want to reply in the first place to what was said by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). The hon. member said he found it peculiar that previously we made available R300,000 for Public Service bursaries and that less than R300,000 is being asked for this year. He said that particularly in this time of a shortage of officials one would have thought that there would be a rising tendency. I can only say that this year, for example, there were more than 50 engineering bursaries available for which we received 146 applications. They also indicated in their applications that this was their first choice. Eventually 37 candidates, 12 more than last year, accepted the bursaries, after the Public Service Commission had offered 88 in this particular division. We must remember that the bursary market is tremendously overladen, or the study assistance market, to put it that way. There are large bodies which all offer bursaries in various directions, and because there is a limited number of persons to whom these offers are made one cannot attract them only in that way. Experience has shown that most large employers of repute already have such bursary funds and consequently we simply cannot get the necessary number of people to accept these bursaries.

The hon. member for South Coast, and also the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) spoke about the uncertainty of the date on which Parliament usually prorogues, which lands the staff in difficulty. The hon. member for Pretoria (Central) suggested that the Government should consider paying the officials an allowance as from the 1st day of the month in which the Parliamentary Session begins, even though they are still in Pretoria then, until the last day of the month in which the session ends. I cannot agree with the idea that the date from which the allowance is paid should be the first of the month. The date on which Parliament reopens is announced approximately six months before that time already, which of course gives officials the opportunity to make their arrangements timeously, and consequently I cannot support the suggestion that the session allowances should be paid as from the beginning of that month. As the hon. member for South Coast has said, the last day of the session is an uncertain date and it causes problems because officials cannot previously make arrangements. The request that allowances should be paid until the end of the month in which the session ends possibly justifies further consideration and investigation.

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) voiced criticism in regard to various matters, the first of which was that in regard to salaries he followed his leader by suggesting that we should return to the old system of paying cost-of-living allowances. The hon. member said that his leader said at Bredasdorp that we should revert to the old system of cost-of-living allowance which is adapted to the consumers’ price index, and then he quoted the following from the Public Servant of December 1964 (translation)—

The hon. member, however, failed to complete the sentence. He did not read it further, and I now want to do so. The Public Servant goes further—

Now the hon. member says that his leader said something new at Bredasdorp, but the Public Servant says that everything went well until the United Party Government began tampering with it. Without blaming any Government for having deviated from its own accepted standpoints by the manipulation of remuneration, the last portion of the quotation contains the reply as to why the present system, where the consolidated salaries can only be reduced with the approval of Parliament, is preferable to the system where the official’s income is determined by the capriciousness of an index figure. Surely that gives more certainty to the officials. The price index can serve as an additional consideration when determining salaries in general, but when one advocates it as the basic yardstick a few matters are lost sight of. I should like to name them. Firstly, the percentage increase of salaries alone as the result of general reviews only in the past 16 years amounted to more than the percentage increase in the price index. If the hon. member wants to revert to the old system he will commit an injustice in respect of the present level of salaries of public servants. The second is that the existing bases of remuneration, improved post structures, opportunities for promotion, etc., have a more lasting value than periodic general revisions, and whereby opportunities are created for officials to improve their position in the service and their financial position by devoted service and study. The hon. member should bear that in mind also. It is so easy to shout a slogan here and thereby attempt to make these poor people live in a Utopia which simply does not exist. These are facts and the hon. member can test them, and he will discover that his allegations are not well founded and that if we were to do what he suggests the public servants would be worse off than they are to-day.

Then the hon. member launched a strenuous attack on a speech which I held at a conference of Departmental Heads in October 1964. But the hon. member did not act correctly. He did not quote my speech correctly. He began by saying that I said the following in December 1964—

No.

That is what the hon. member said in his speech and I heard him clearly. Nowhere in that speech did I refer to “political integrity”, but to political sensitivity, or in other words, the sensitivity of senior officials. Secondly, the hon. member drew the inference that officers who show that they are politically adapted in so far as their functions are concerned will have the best opportunities for promotion. That inference was drawn by the hon. member.

I quoted the words.

No, no, I will read the correct words in a moment. It is not a logical inference the hon. member drew. In that speech the duties and responsibilities of Ministers and of Departmental Heads are discussed jointly and separately. I will now quote fully that portion of the speech to which objection has been raised—

We must accept political responsibility for every official. If a Minister gets up here he cannot shelter behind an officer and say: “That officer said so.” And if the Minister has to do that, then Ministers must be able to depend on the political sensitivity of senior officers. I continue (translation)—

The natural processes of selection in the Public Service therefore tend to advance those officers who have shown that they are adaptable to the political aspects of their functions.

I do not know whether the hon. member still understands Afrikaans, but that is precisely what was said there. Nowhere was there reference to party-political loyalties or bonds, or that the political views of the officer were at stake. Nothing of the kind. It simply means that those who have the sensitivity and are able correctly to interpret and implement the prevailing policy are really playing their constitutional role where greater responsibilities are involved—

The hon. member has misrepresented these statements. That is precisely what is desired. An officer must implement the Minister’s policy, which is determined by the Government. In that respect he plays a constitutional role, and if he does not understand anything about it and is not interested in it, how can the officer be expected to apply it properly? I hope that this misconception which the hon. member for Orange Grove has tried to create has now been cleared up.

The hon. member further said that not enough was being done in regard to the utilization of women in the Public Service. Perhaps it is just as well to summarize what has already been done.

In 1962 and again in 1964 all the Departments were informed as to what course of action should be followed in regard to the permanent appointment of married women and the permanent retention of the services of women after their marriage.

In October 1963 the basis of recognition for temporary female staff was appreciably improved, and provision was then also made for promotion to the next highest rank after serving for a year at the maximum salary of the commencing grade.

In August 1964 authorization was granted for matriculated or graduated women to be employed in the posts of male clerks and senior clerks. It was also further approved at that time that women employed as such and who do good work could automatically progress to the two next highest female grades of special grade female clerk and senior female clerk. Formerly they would have had to wait for vacancies.

In order to obtain the best qualified candidates for clerical and typists’ posts, it was further arranged that matriculated and graduated women should receive preference for the period 15 December to 31 January and should be appointed permanently immediately. Then in January 1965 we created a whole number of new facilities. Part-time female clerks and typists were employed to fill vacant posts, and furthermore the commencing salaries of temporary clerks were improved, with provision for promotion after certain periods of satisfactory service, etc.

Having given this exposition, I should now like to turn to the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor), who also had something to say about women. I shall come back again to the hon. member for Orange Grove. The hon. member for Wynberg insisted on the speeding up of promotion for female personnel in the Public Service. That was her theme. I just want to say that in a circular of December 1963, referring to the promotion and the speedy promotion of female staff in the Public Service, the Commission made the following remarks—

That was in December 1963. Now I may just say that in the administrative grades towards the end of 1964 there were already 136 women who since 1956 had joined the administrative grade (i.e. the salary scale R2,280 to R2,760), and of whom 117 had been promoted to that grade since 1960. That is good progress. In 1964 the largest number, i.e. 43, reached that grade.

For the first time in history, there are now women occupying the higher administrative posts with salaries of up to R3,840. In the last three years, i.e. from 1962 to 1964, 14 women were promoted to the rank of senior administrative officer, i.e. R2,880 to R3,240. In the technical division, under which female posts such as those of State veterinarian, State medical officer, agricultural officer, language officers, hydrologists, inspectresses, architects, etc., fall, 71 women are employed who have been promoted since 1952 to posts with a maximum scale of salary varying from R2,760 to R5,250. I can only mention that at present, on the scale with a maximum of R2,760, there are now 13 women, at R3,420 there are 15, at R3,840 there are 12, at R4,350 there are 18, at R4,800 there are 5, and at R5,250 there are 8. I mention this just to show that this is a new development which is progressing very well and that, as far as the Public Service is concerned, if a certain stage is reached where the woman proves that she has chosen it as a permanent career, she can compete on an equal footing with men. I think we should be satisfied with that. The position is gradually being remedied, and I am glad to be able to inform hon. members of the great progress that has already been made.

I now come back to the hon. member for Orange Grove, who alleged that agreements were entered into with outside concerns such as, e.g. the S.A.B.C., Volkskas and Barclays Bank, by the Government, not to employ each other’s staff, and that the officials are very dissatisfied about it. I do not know where the hon. member gets that sort of information from, but I just want to say that the only agreement existing under the aegis of the Public Service Commission in regard to the employment of each other’s staff, existed with the S.A. Railway Administration. And that agreement was entered into as far back as 1945, when that hon. member still belonged to this party, when the people amongst whom he is now sitting were in power. The United Party still entered into that agreement with the Railways, and they also entered into it with the Public Service Departments. These agreements were terminated as from 1 April 1961 in the case of the Railways and as from 1 August 1963 in the case of the Service. They were terminated and no longer exist. There is no such arrangement any more. But the Departments were in any case requested to ensure that the employment of each other’s personnel should only take place after thorough mutual consultation, whereas persons who had already resigned could apply for employment in any of the aforementioned bodies. As far as the Public Service Commission is concerned, there are no agreements with the S.A.B.C. or any banking institution in regard to the employment of staff. I shall be glad if the hon. member will tell us where he got this information. It just does not exist. The P.S.C. would have had to be a contracting party, but it knows nothing about it.

Was it done without the knowledge of the Public Service Commission?

No, how could it be done without their knowledge? I do not want to go too deeply into the hon. member’s speech in regard to the Post Office staff difficulties and the ratio of posts and the remuneration of those people, but I just want to tell the hon. member that he correctly remarked that it could not be expected that there should be equality in regard to the higher posts in all the Departments. I accept that the post structure and the equal opportunities for promotion of Post Office personnel as a group within the Public Service is determined on precisely the same basis as for the rest of the Public Service, taking into consideration, inter alia, the educational requirements set for the various categories. In regard to the number and the grading and regrading and the conversion of certain existing posts, the Post Office Staff Association now has the power to make recommendations in respect of posts the maximum salary of which does not exceed R4,800 per annum, on condition that such changes are made according to the existing salary pattern which applies to the whole of the Public Service. General comparisons such as e.g. that in the Post Office only one out of 50 can attain a salary of R2,600, whereas in other Departments a much larger percentage can attain those high posts, as the hon. member has alleged, can only have any meaning if, for example, the qualifications required for joining the service and the possibilities for promotion and the conditions of work and the work in respect of the Post Office as compared with other Departments in the rest of the Public Service are compared with one another and evaluated. Any deviations in favour of a particular Department must be viewed in the light of the needs and the circumstances prevailing in that Department, and not in the first place on a basis of comparison with other Departments or groups of personnel which are hardly comparable. I may just say that a Committee under the chairmanship of the former Secretary for Finance, Dr. D. H. Steyn, who is also the chairman of the Economic Advisory Council, investigated the salaries in the Post Office, and he made a comparison between those salaries and those of other Departments and found that in fact no discrimination exists against the Post Office and in favour of the rest of the Public Service. That is his considered conclusion. But the hon. member is aware that the Government has devoted attention to the matter and that within the post structure improvements were made wherever necessary, but that it was not found to be discriminatory. One concedes that in certain cases there are fewer opportunities for promotion. That can only be remedied by changing the post structure in such a way that there are more opportunities for promotion within the service itself, and thorough attention has in fact been devoted to it, and the matter can be discussed further under the Vote of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. I think I have now answered all the points raised by the hon. member and now only the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) remains.

The hon. member for Turffontein asked for the appointment of a commission of inquiry to investigate the whole of the Public Service. He has raised this matter quite a few times already. He did so twice last year and he predicted that if one kept k>n worrying this Government long enough it would eventually make concessions. If one has a sound case, this is of course a Government which is susceptible to logic, but this Government has never yet been susceptible to any illogical argument. The argument must be well founded. Surely one must have a reason for wanting a commission of inquiry to be appointed. If the hon. member thinks there are too few or too many officials, or that they do not do their work, that is what the Public Service Commission is there for. It is that Commission which continually has to watch the position. Let me give a few examples. The normal expansion in the establishment of the Public Serivice for 1964 was 2.3 per cent, and except for two years that was the lowest during the past 14 years. The total expansion for that year was 11.9 per cent, but that includes 11,628 posts for Coloured teachers which were taken over from the provinces. In other words, the posts which are now included for the first time in the annual report of the Commission were taken over from the provinces. The normal average expansion was 3.2 per cent during the past 14 years since 1951, which according to all standards is very conservative if one has regard to the development that has taken place in both the public and the private sectors. The Commission itself last year accepted an increase of 2.5 per cent in the establishment as normal, and the 2.3 per cent increase for 1964 indicates to what extent this expansion is being controlled. The tightening up of the whole departmental organization and the application of modern managerial techniques and aids is continually receiving attention as a matter of policy. We are always busy with that. In regard to several of these measures, the Public Service has not only given the lead, but even today private and semi-private bodies look to it for guidance. I do not know what the hon. member wants to investigate. He should be more specific. He should make accusations. He should say that here there is a waste of money and there the labour force is not being fully utilized. He must tell us what he wants such a commission to investigate so that we can see whether there is any substance in it. But merely to talk generally, as the hon. member did, and to say an investigation should be made does not tell me what precisely should be done. We of course welcome suggestions that the P.S.C. is always on its toes to see that the most modern techniques are applied. The Departments are inspected by the Public Service Commissioners. They all have specific matters which they discuss with the relevant departmental heads and also with the other chief officials in order to obtain the utmost efficiency. We admit that 10 per cent of the posts are not filled, but the work is still being done without abnormal periods of overtime being worked, and the public servants do their work efficiently and do not even ask for overtime pay. I am one of those who has always advocated a smaller but more efficient Public Service, and this matter is continually being dealt with, and with modern methods one can do the work without overworking the staff, or without making them work gratis and not paying them overtime.

I think I have now replied to all the matters raised.

The Minister has again tried to escape the major issue we have raised in the course of these debates during the last two years, that the time has arrived for a re. view of our Public Service as a whole. The Minister now says I must go into detail. I do not want to take up the time of the House by restating my case, but I want to give the Minister one or two specific reasons in support of my request that there should be a broad investigation of the Public Service, not only in respect of the establishment but in regard to the grievances and the conditions of service of public servants. The Minister says it has been his aim and that of the Government to have a smaller but more efficient Public Service. Sir, the facts are quite to the contrary. In the last ten years the Public Service has grown by 25 per cent.

What about it? Has not the work of the Government increased?

The increase in the Public Service is quite out of proportion with the increase in the economy of the country. If you have to draw a comparison between a private company which has achieved the same degree of expansion, and the State, there would be no comparison; the company would have been bankrupt long ago by virtue of the enormous wage bill it would have had to meet.

The Minister says the Public Service Commission regards an increase of 2.5 per cent as being normal. I have here the report of the Commission for 1963. Unfortunately we have to debate these matters on a report that is two years old. The Minister quoted the 1964 figures, but we do not have those figures. In this report figures are given to show the increase in the establishment over the past ten years, from 1956 to 1963, and in only two instances has the increase been less than 2.5 per cent. In one instance it was 2.4 per cent, in 1961, and in 1957 it was 2.1 per cent.

In the last 14 years the average increase was 3.2 per cent.

Then why does the Minister make the statement that the P.S.C. regards the normal increase as being 2.5 per cent? But here I have a statement made by Mr. de Villiers, one of the Public Service Commissioners, that since 1958 the increase has been on an average 4.5 per cent. But the Minister says it is 2.5 per cent. The fact remains that you cannot relate it from year to year and say that this increase must go on. It is a question of efficiency and the systems that are applied in the Public Service. The fact remains that there is not a single high-ranking public servant who is not concerned about the position prevailing in the Public Service.

Let us take one other fact. One of the reasons I gave for the appointment of such a commission was to investigate the degree of efficiency, the method of promotion, and the need for a contented Public Service. Here we have in this old report of the P.S.C. certain comments in regard to the inspection policy, and there is a long rigmarole about the number of inspections. They say that in regard to merit assessment something like 11,443 officers were subjected to merit assessment. I have in my hands the latest copy of the Public Servant. They write a leading article about this question of discontent and the manner in which the merit system is presently applied. The Minister says we do not give sufficient reasons. I want to ask him whether he regards what I am about to read out as nonsense also. These are the views expressed by the editor of the Public Servant, and he has some very strong observations to make. I shall read it to the Minister—

The official opinion of public servants, if one accepts what is expressed in this publication, is that as far as promotion is concerned on the merit system as it is at present applied by the various committees, there is wide dissatisfaction. Now we have to read in the 1963 report of the Commission, but I am aware of no subsequent remarks by the Commission in this regard, that reports that are made according to the merit system on public servants by the committees are immediately being made available to that servant, because it was found in the past that due to the degree of secrecy that was observed, the public servants were becoming highly suspicious of these reports made about their work. The commission ends its observations in this regard by saying, in regard to making these reports available to the servants, that they find that where necessary they can reprimand and guide those reported upon in a spirit of corrective counselling. Sir, to me that is an amazing statement, because I thought that for a public servant to get a reprimand, or to get some corrective counselling, implied that he had committed an offence. A reprimand is surely a punishment meted out for an offence committed. But surely a reprimand is not justified on the basis of a merit report being put in in regard to a man’s promotion, and in which it is found that he is not fitted for a particular job, and in consequence of that report he is represented. These are issues which worry public servants and cause discontent among them, and these are issues which public servants feel should be widely investigated. If the Minister says I come with no grounds, surely the Minister is aware of the reports and the views submitted by the Public Servants’ Association which passed resolutions asking for the appointment of a commission to investigate the whole structure of the Public Service. The Minister says there are no other grounds. Of course there are grounds. There are two precedents, as I pointed out on a former occasion. We appointed a commission after the First World War, and after the last World War, because it was recognized that certain developments had taken place in the country and it was necessary that the Public Service should keep pace with those developments, a further commission was appointed and new patterns of public administration were laid down. My contention, and that of this side of the House, is that since the last war two decades have gone by and vast industrial and other developments have taken place in our country, and we cannot continue to administer our Public Service on the basis of out-dated ideas of public administration. The world does not stand still. Therefore it is felt that by getting other viewpoints the grievances of public servants will be satisfied. [Time limit.]

I want to touch on quite a different matter from the one dealt with by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I briefly want to discuss the evaluation or grading of posts in the Public Service. The matter I particularly wish to discuss to some extent falls under the Education, Arts and Science Vote, but seeing that it affects the grading of posts I must raise it under this Vote. I am however, glad that it is the same Minister who handles both Departments.

I should like to plead with the Minister that the post of State Historian should be upgraded. As one who is interested in history and as a person who has done research for years and who is also interested in the work of the State Historian, I believe that this post is graded too low. Some years ago when this post was established we who are interested in history were very glad. This post filled a need that had long been felt. The post was put on a certain grade, but at that time the most important consideration to us was the fact that such a post had in fact been created. During 1962 the post of State Herald was established. That was generally approved of and the State Herald was appointed on a particular grade. We now notice that the State Herald is on a higher grade than the State Historian, both in regard to the commencing salary and the maximum salary, and therefore also in regard to status. Without derogating from the grading of the post of State Herald, I want to make a plea for a higher grading and the resultant higher status of the post of State Historian.

I admit that it is difficult to compare the two posts of State Historian and State Herald, but nevertheless there are certain points of comparison. We accept that the post of State Herald is a very comprehensive one, but the post of State Historian is no less comprehensive. I think that it covers a wider field. In regard to the importance of the work, we do not want to make comparisons, but in a certain sense the post of State Historian is in my opinion a more difficult one because the historian always has to be objective; in other words he is always a greater target for the critics. I want to add that the State Historian also has to do more creative work, whereas the Herald more serves in a supervisory capacity. I therefore plead that these two posts should at least be put on an equal footing. I also want to point out that the post of State Historian is only equal to the fifth highest post in the number of posts falling under the director of Archives. I want to mention those posts seriatim, viz. the Director of Archives, the Deputy Director, the Assistant Director and then the Chief Archivist. Thereafter we get the fifth highest post, namely that of First Technical Officer; and the post of State Historian is at the moment on a level with that post.

I plead with the Minister that the post of State Historian should at least be put on a footing equal to that of the Chief Archivist. This post, in passing, also happens to be on a footing equal to that of the State Herald. If this request cannot be complied with, I at least want to ask for the establishment of the post of Senior State Historian, which can then be graded higher than the post of State Historian is at the moment. I hope the Minister will accede to this request.

I want to associate myself with the plea made by the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) that the State Historian should be treated better. He has raised an important matter and I hope the Minister will accede to his request.

When I spoke previously I said there were State Departments which negotiated with private bodies regarding the recruitment of staff. The hon. the Minister asked me to-day where I got that information from and that there was nothing of the sort. Let me read to the Minister what I have here. This is the reply of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to a question put by me on 1 May 1964, namely, whether a request had been made or an agreement arrived at with other State Departments, public bodies, private undertakings and other employers regarding the employment of existing and former employees of his Department. What was his reply?—

Where do I get it from? Here it is. It comes from one of the Minister’s colleagues. I take it, however, that the hon. Minister did not know about it because the Public Service Commission was not consulted prior to entering into this unheard of arrangement. Now that the hon. the Minister knows about it I trust he will take steps to see to it that arrangements of that nature are not made by individual departments on their own. I am convinced that these arrangements still exist to-day because the complaint to which I referred previously came from one of the Post Office staff associations. The complaint was in respect of this very kind of thing. I accept the Minister’s explanation regarding the request that public servants should be politically sensitive and be attuned to the political aspects of their functions but I still say those were ill chosen words.

The hon. the Minister levelled an attack at me because, like my leader, I had asked for the reintroduction of cost-of-living allowances and that the salaries of public servants should be brought into line with the increased cost of living. I did not, however, exclude the idea that the basic salaries paid in the Public Service should from time to time be increased. I am in favour of salaries being increased and where we are to-day pleading for it that cost-of-living allowances should be consolidated with the salaries, we are pleading that it be done on the present-day basis. It is absolute nonsense, therefore, to say that the public servant will be worse off under our suggestion; as a matter of fact he will be better off if his cost-of-living allowance is consolidated with his existing salary. Has the hon. the Minister read what his own party said in connection with this matter in 1945, 1946 and 1947? They were very strongly in favour of it because they said the Government of the day had meddled with the system which had worked reasonably well.

I think one thing will flow from the reply of the Minister’s reply and that will be bitter disappointment on the part of the Post Office staff in his reply to their representations for better salaries and conditions of employment and that the Public Service Commission should look better after their interests.

You are fishing in troubled waters.

If the hon. member for Pretoria (East) can plead for any person in the Public Service I am entitled to plead for the 30,000 Post Office men. We can point the finger at those hon. members because of the fact that not a single one of them has got up to say a word on behalf of the Post Office workers. The position in the Post Office is critical to-day. The Post Office is the stepchild. the Cinderella, the outcast of the entire Public Service to-day. We are not asking that the Post Office should be treated better than other State Departments; we are merely asking for them to be treated on a comparable basis; we are asking that there should not be such a disproportion as there is to-day between the higher and the lower posts. We do not accept the submission that there is no disproportion.

I say there is indeed disproportion; I accept the word of the Post and Telegraph Society and that of the S.A. Telecommunication Society as well as that of the South African Postal Society. Everybody is agreed that the position is unsatisfactory as far as their conditions of service and income are concerned. The serious consequences of this state of affairs to the public are evident, consequences which I do not want to discuss at the moment. We see the serious results of this dissatisfaction in the Public Service to-day.

We deprecate the patchwork which has been done. A few steps have been taken; women have been appointed in the sorting section. That is all very well but that does not solve the problem of salaries in the Post Office. We have the agreements entered into with Volkskas and other bodies, with the S.A.B.C., etc. I deprecate that; that offers no solution. The little power that has been given to the Post Office Staff Board is not going to solve the problem of the ordinary family man in the Post Office who has to look after his wife and children. I want to know from the hon. the Minister when he is going to come forward with new suggestions concerning the Post Office Staff Board. He did hold that out in prospect; let him tell us when he is going to come forward with it.

That brings me to the most recent little increase, this ridiculous little increase. Mr. Chairman, postmen receive £30 per month. Do you know that the highest salary a member of the technical staff in the Post Office can earn is only R2,760 per annum? The time has arrived when those people should receive some attention. I am convinced that every one of those 30,000 employees in the Post Office was deeply disappointed when they realized that there was not a single ray of hope for them in the reply which the hon. the Minister gave today. The Post Office is being discriminated against to-day as compared with other State Departments. The Post Office staff have to work longer hours than the staff of other State Departments; their chances of promotion are less in the Post Office than in other State Departments. The salaries are hopelessly inadequate. The cost of living is going up and up month after month. Why is there such a long delay in granting some relief to the Post Office staff? This matter has been hanging fire for the past six months and the men are still waiting for some relief but none is forthcoming. It is not surprising that there have been 30,000 resignations over a period of five years and that there are approximately 800 resignations per month to-day. How can the Post Office continue if that position is allowed to continue? Do not ask where the money is to come from to increase their salaries. The Post Office shows an annual profit of R1,000,000; the year before last it had a profit of R 13,000,000. How can it be said that there is no money to increase the salary of the ordinary Post Office worker? I notice that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is not even here. That shows you, Sir, how little interest he shows when the position of members of his Department is being discussed.

The Public Service Commission is under discussion at the moment.

I do not mind if that hon. member wants to blame the hon. the Minister of the Interior for everything but I do not think he is 100 per cent to be blamed for everything. I am now dealing with the 50 per cent of the blame which can indeed be placed on his shoulders.

Mr. Chairman, what is the position of the Post Office staff who are having such a hard struggle to-day in comparison with the railway staff? In the case of the Railways I think the hon. the Minister of Railways is paying those members of his staff who live in big cities a special monthly residential allowance of up to R60. Why cannot we at least think of something similar in the case of public servants in the big cities? I put a question to the hon. the Minister in that connection and was informed that they only received the ordinary travelling and subsistence allowance. Cost of living is going to go up; other bodies are going to continue attracting staff away from the Post Office and the position is going to deteriorate unless something is done. We warn the hon. the Minister that if the postal service collapses in South Africa he will be to blame for it and the whole Government will be to blame for it. [Time limit.]

I think there is one thing that should be put right right at the beginning. I refer to the reply of the hon. the Minister when he was speaking about cost-of-living allowances. This is what he said: Why should we plead for cost-of-living allowances when the salaries of these people are fixed, and their salaries (the salaries of the public servants) can only be changed by Parliament, but the cost-of-living is at the whim of a Minister? That is what he said. The cost-of-living allowance is at the whim of the Minister; that is what the Minister said.

I did not say that.

Yes, the hon. the Minister did; I wrote it down. He went on to say: Hierdie arme mense sal nou hoop kry as hulle dink hulle sal ’n lewenskostetoelae kan kry. Sir,‘whoever said that their salaries must be touched? Did this side of the House not say that the cost-of-living allowance had to come on top of their salaries? Where is this raising a false hope in the breasts of these people? I can quite understand that the hon. the Minister says that he did not say it because I quite realize that he did not know what he was talking about, but there it is! Sir, the Government has persistently refused to raise the salaries of the public servants. They have persistently refused to do so on the ground that it will cause inflation, we are now seeking other measures to help these people and that is why we suggest that they be given a cost-of-living allowance. The Minister, however, says that this is raising false hope in their breasts. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) who has just sat down has told the Minister that services in the post offices are grinding to a standstill. I want to repeat that and I want to emphasize that never have I seen a Government that is so unsympathetic to the public servants as this Government has been.

Now you are talking nonsense.

That is absolutely true. That is the position not only in Posts and Telegraphs but also in other Departments. I want to ask the Minister of Health, for example, how many registered doctors there are in the mental institutions, people who are on the register. He is running these mental institutions at the present moment with people who are not on the register. I believe that in Weskoppies, Pretoria, there is only one man who is registered, a registered psychiatrist. The other people who are there are only waiting until they can get on to the register and then they are going to leave because they can get better salaries in the private sector. Sir, I want to quote what is stated in the last edition of the Public Servant. This is what they say—

Sir, why should that be the position in a country like South Africa where the Minister of Finance does not know what to do with his surpluses?

I want to come back also to the position of women in the Public Service. The hon. the Minister has told us that there is a programme of 51 women now in advanced posts. Amazingly enough, in the medical Department, the veterinary department and in the architectural department, there has never been a difference between the salaries of men and women. While the Minister says that he is sympathetic and that he has made improvements—and I accept that he has made improvements—there are still many things to be done. The same salary scales should apply to men and women on appointment to the service; the day they enter the service they should go on to the same salary scales, because, after all, they have had the same training.

Mrs. Taylor does not agree with you.

Sir, I am not speaking about Mrs. Taylor now; I am speaking to the hon. the Minister and I am speaking about women in the Public Service. I want to say that one of the first things that should be introduced is the same scales for men and women on appointment and subsequent promotion. The hon. the Minister did not deal with this, but I want to quote the following: Last year the scales for males were R 1,410, rising by increments of R102 to R 1,920, rising by increments of R120 to R2,280; for women with the same qualifications, the same training and the same experience the scale was R1,320, rising by increments of R16 (as compared with R102 in the case of men), to R 1,440 (in the case of men it is R 1,920), rising by increments of R84 to R2,280 eventually. It takes a woman about twice as long to get to the top of the notch as it takes a man. I think this practice of having men and women on different salary scales is outmoded. The hon. the Minister talks about the merit system. Well, if there is a merit system surely men and women should receive the same treatment. Their salaries should be based on qualifications and experience. The Government should take a lead in this matter. The story in the past, of course, has been that the man is the breadwinner but that scene has changed now. Sir, amazingly enough, the Nationalist Party used to say that the woman’s place is in front of the stove in the kitchen, but they have now changed that story completely. A few months ago there was a motion in the Other Place begging the women of South Africa to come forward, asking women on their bended knees to come forward to relieve the shortage of manpower. As I have said, this practice of having different scales for men and women is outmoded because international labour conventions have said for many years that there should be equal pay for equal work and that when women have the same training and qualifications as men they should be paid the same salaries as men. This decision by the Convention has been ratified by many countries. Sir, there is one thing here that I find rather amazing: In last year’s Estimates it was stated: “The excess of women employed over the number of posts calling for women is due to the employment of women against posts for men.” But this year they thought that they would be rather more clever about it, and this is the way in which they put it this year: “xx includes the salaries of four part-time women additional to the establishment” —for part-time women on a very high salary scale, additional to the establishment. They do not say in these Estimates that they could not find men to do the job so they had to give this work to women. Sir, I spoke about the International Labour Organization and their conventions. Year after year they have demanded the same rate of nay for men and women doing equal work. The hon. the Minister said last year that he was sympathetic and he has referred here to-day to certain improvements. As a matter of fact I think he said that there were eight women on the very high salary scales to-day of R5,250, but I still want to draw his attention to the fact that the public servants are not satisfied with what he is doing; they want him to do more. This is what the Public Servant said—

This shows quite clearly that they are not satisfied with what the hon. the Minister is doing—

May I say, Sir, that year after year they have taken this decision; year after year without fail the public servants have told the hon. the Minister this. [Time limit.]

I want to refer to certain anomalies with regard to the salaries of professional men and draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that these are all salaries which are controlled by the Public Service Commission. In the first place we have the regional health officers who are state employees, who are the senior professional officers, next to the Secretary for Health, in the Department of Health. They are therefore very senior men. I want to compare their remuneration with that of the Hospital Directors of the Provinces, also people whose salaries are fixed by the Public Service Commission. I cannot believe for one moment that the Public Service Commission, in arriving at the salaries of these officers, has thoroughly investigated or considered the duties of these particular officers. I propose later on to mention others who are also in the service of the State. The regional health officers are responsible for all the health in the areas in which they work. Let us take a simple example, the regional health officer for the Cape. He is responsible for the health of everybody in the Cape Province, that is to say, under the Secretary of Health. The regional health officer is responsible for the ports; he is responsible for infectious diseases. Every epidemic comes under his care; all immunization comes under his care. From the health point of view there is no limit to his duties. He is responsible for seeing to the hospitals which are not under the care of the Province, that is to say, the mental hospitals and the tuberculosis hospitals. He is responsible for seeing that forensic medicine services are supplied to the State; he is responsible for the pathological work; he is responsible for the supply of smallpox vaccine to the whole country. All these matters are under his control and his maximum salary is R6,150. May I say that to occupy this post he must have a higher qualification; it is not everybody who can be a regional health officer. A regional health officer has to go back to university for at least two years to learn the specialty of state medicine. He has to know law; he has to have qualifications additional to those required of an ordinary doctor and yet his maximum salary is R6,150. Let us compare his position with that of a director of hospital services in the Provinces—and some of our Provinces are not very big. A director of hospital services receives a salary of R7,200, which is more than R 1,000 more than the regional health officer receives. A director of hospital services has to have no particular qualifications. He learns his job as he goes along. He starts as an assistant hospital superintendent and then he moves up the scale. He arrives at this particular salary in the course of time provided he is not passed over. His responsibility is not for health; that is the responsibility of the doctors in the hospitals. He is responsible merely for the management of the hospitals. He is responsible for work which in many countries is done by lay administrators. Sir, I am not going to argue here whether a hospital administrator should, be a layman who is specially trained or whether he should be a doctor; that is not the point at issue. I am merely saying that here we have men who have learned purely from experience, men with no particular training, men with no responsibility as doctors, which is a grave responsibility to carry. They merely have a responsibility for the administration of the funds and for the supervision of nurses and generally for the running of the hospital apart from the purely medical side of it. They are paid R 1,000 a year more than the maximum salary payable to regional health officers. Let us compare this salary of R7,200 with that of a medical superintendent in the State service. Take the Director of Tuberculosis, who has to spend over R 13,000,000 of State money, who is responsible for thousands of sick persons. He is the medical superintendent of a hospital of 1,600 beds, King George V, and he receives the magnificent sum of an extra R150 a year for being adviser to the Minister of Health on tuberculosis. Let us look for a moment at the salary of the Commissioner for Mental Hygiene. The Commissioner for Mental Hygiene is responsible for 25,000 mentally disturbed people. Not only has he a medical responsibility towards them, he has a legal responsibility towards them, because part of his duty is to deprive people of their liberty, and when he orders a man’s liberty to be taken away from him, a very grave responsibility rests on him. He receives the magnificent sum of an extra R900 as compared with the superintendent of a mental hospital. His total salary is R6,600, as compared with the R7,200 that a provincial director of hospital services receives.

I want to refer now to another group, the health inspectors. These are men who are paid R1,104 as a commencing salary in the State service, and they end up at R2,760. I do not need to emphasize the importance of these people, because whether they are working for a Department of State, for a Province or for a local authority, they are more or less doing the same work and carrying the same responsibility. Sir, some most curious things have been happening. The first is that the City of Johannesburg took the matter before the Department of Labour and the Department of Labour decided that the starting salary of health inspectors, sanitary inspectors, employed by the City of Johannesburg, should be R2,328, going up to R2,472. [Time limit.]

There are one or two issues which have been brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister to-day and on earlier occasions. The Minister in his reply to-day dealt with the question that was raised by the hon. member for Natal South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) and also by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) and that is the position of public servants who come down here on sessional duties. The Minister has indicated that he has sympathy with the request that was put to him in respect of civil servants who at the end of the Session, because of the uncertainty of the closing date, find themselves at a considerable financial disadvantage when they have to go back to the centres at which they are stationed and when the homes which they normally occupy are not available to them because of the lease that they entered into at the beginning of the Session. The Minister has said that he is prepared to go into the question of the payment of allowances in respect of the last month of the Session, but in respect of the beginning of a Session he felt that since civil servants have at least six months’ notice of the date on which the Session will start, they have ample opportunity of making the necessary arrangements in respect of the letting of their homes, etc., before they come down for the Session. I think that is true in respect of a majority of the civil servants, but it is not true in the case of all the civil servants because there are some who are notified fairly late that they will be required to come down on sessional work, and they are at a disadvantage. But that is not the main issue. The main issue, of course, is that through no fault of the civil servants, Parliament usually starts sitting in the middle of January. Unfortunately time has moved on and in many of the larger cities to-day it is taking a considerable risk, to say the least of it, to leave one’s home empty even for a few weeks. The problem that the oivil servant has is that he either has to find other accommodation from 1 January to the middle of the month when he assumes duty down here or he has to leave his home vacant for two weeks until the end of January, and both represent a considerable risk, one a risk of considerable loss because of the fact that his home is left vacant for two weeks and the other loss that is involved if he comes down here and has to find accommodation, without receiving any allowance, in respect of the first half of the month before the Session starts. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that if he is prepared to consider the position at the end of the Session he should also consider the position at the beginning of the Session. I think the Minister has taken half of the step in respect of the end of the Session and I hope he will take the full step and deal with the matter in respect of the beginning of the Session as well. I know what a difficulty this is as far as civil servants are concerned. Parliament brings them down here; we should recognize that fact and compensate them fully for the inconvenience caused in view of the difficulties they have at the moment and those difficulties are bound to go on for a considerable period of time.

I do not know whether the attention of the hon. the Minister has been drawn to another fact, namely, the introduction of a five-day week as far as civil servants are concerned. I think this is generally enjoyed by the majority of civil servants where it is possible to let them have this facility. The question to-day is whether the leisure time available to them is being made the best use of in view of a report which appeared in the Press about a week ago. In that report it is said that Pretoria has the reputation of having the greatest number of deaths due to heart trouble of any city of the Republic. The suggestion has been made that this is due to the considerable number of civil servants in Pretoria who are not in a position to enjoy the normal facilities available to others in respect of recreation. I suggest that this is a matter which the hon. the Minister should investigate. It is always a distressing thing for a Parliamentarian to learn of a civil servant who has passed away in the course of his duties but it is far more distressing to the family of that person. In so many cases it is devotion to duty which has brought about his unfortunate position. I feel that the Minister should inquire into this report to ascertain whether there is substance in the allegation that the high incidence of heart disease in Pretoria is due to the inability of so many civil servants in particular to get an opportunity of relaxing and enjoying the amenities which other workers in the country enjoy at the present time. I think the introduction of the five-day week was a step in the right direction to meet the position but for many this has come too late. That is why I am raising this matter to-day in the hope that the hon. the Minister will inquire into it to find out whether there is any substance in the allegation. If there is I hope steps will be taken to assist in establishing a system which will enable civil servants to enjoy as much of the leisure time available to them as possible and enjoy life in much the same way as other workers in the country.

I think as the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission he has this responsibility. He is not the Minister of Health but as the Minister responsible for the Public Service Commission, which is responsible for the welfare of so many civil servants, he should get some guidance, in regard to the matter I have just raised, from the Department of Health so that remedial steps can be taken by the Minister himself through the Public Service Commission if it is found that there is substance in this report and that there is need for attention to be given to the matter.

Before leaving the comparison between the salary of the Director of Hospital Services, the provincial person, and the regional Health Officer of the State, I want to say that I do not wish in any way to detract from the work of the provincial officers. Nor do I think their salaries should be reduced in any way. I do think, though, that the regional Health Officer should at least reach the same salary, if not higher, than the provincial officer. The work these men do is responsible work but some do more difficult, more responsible and more senior work than others.

To return to the sanitary inspectors. They too are qualified men. They are post-matric men. They do not enter the civil service as matriculated civil servants and gradually work their way to the top if they are men of ability. They take a post-matric course which is either a two-year full-time course at a technical college or a three-year course if it is part time. The Department of Health pays them a starting salary of R1,104. Various cities have at times taken this to arbitration because the Department of Health pays a subsidy in respect of these posts and as that subsidy is tied to the salary it can only be pushed up, as a rule, by the municipality or the local authority at their own cost. As I say this has already been taken to arbitration. We find the curious anomaly that in Cape Town the maximum salary is R3,480 as compared with the maximum salary of R2,760 paid by the State.

Let us take the position in other towns which have also been taken to arbitration. In Cape Town it was taken to R3,480. We have some extraordinary figures here. Paarl is quite a small town with 20,000 inhabitants and it pays R3,552; Rustenburg, which is even smaller with 10,000 inhabitants, pays R4,140. That is a higher salary than the salary of a medical officer in the State service. I think Stellenbosch holds the record. I can give you the figure in respect of Stellenbosch, if I have it on my list; I only heard of it lately. It pays R4,500.

Departments of State actually entice the health inspectors from the Department of Health by offering them higher salaries. If you read the Odendaal Report on South West Africa, you will find that there are no health inspectors in the employ of the State but that there are health inspectors in the employ of the municipalities and of the Railways. The remark is made in that report that as fast as the State Health Department recruits health inspectors into its service they leave for the attractions offered by municipalities or other local authorities and the Railways. The Department of Labour employs health inspectors; the Railways, the South African Bureau of Standards and the Department of Mines employ health inspectors. Some of them pay a higher salary yet they also fall under the control of the Public Service Commission. These other Departments of State employ these men in the same work, actually in junior work, at a higher salary than is allowed in the Department of Health. One of the ludicrous anomalies about this is that the health inspectors of the Department of Health are required to act in a supervisory and advisory capacity to local authorities and their health personnel. That is part of their job. Do you wonder, therefore, Sir, that one of the effects of this particular curiosity which we find in the working of the Public Service Commission, working which is supposed to be based on carefully worked-out calculations and the examination of facts, has resulted in the following position: Up to 1964 the average number of men who passed the medical inspector’s examination per annum in the Republic were 77. In the year 1964 no courses were offered in Johannesburg or Durban—there are only a few places where these courses are offered and these are two of them —because there were not enough recruits. At the end of 1965 a possible 15 will qualify in the whole country and there are over 100 vacancies. Unless something is done very quickly there will be no qualified inspectors of health produced in Natal before the end of 1968 at the earliest. The City of Durban alone employs over 50.

I cannot believe that the hon. the Minister can justify in any way these curious anomalies by which different Departments of State, different provinces, can pay higher salaries than the other.

I just want to reply briefly to a few matters raised. As far as the figures given by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) for the period 1958 to 1964 are concerned to show that the increase has been more than the average percentage I think he is probably aware of the fact that it is natural to have an increase when a number of new Departments are established. Since 1958 a number of new Departments have been established. It is not an abnormal increase therefore. The average increase over a period of 14 years was 3.2 per cent provided no new Department was established. For example, when we established the Department of Coloured Affairs it was 11.9 per cent, that is an abnormal percentage, however. The normal expansion of 2.5 per cent is in line with the activities of the State.

That has never been the position; it has always been less.

That hon. member will never be satisfied.

The hon. member also spoke about the merit system. I agree with him. To a great extent the merit system is based on personal factors, that is, the judgment of one or two people over another person. That never gives satisfaction. If I were to judge the hon. member or he has to judge me I am sure neither he nor I would be satisfied. A personal factor is involved, therefore, but the fact remains that since the introduction of the merit system I challenge anybody to prove that anybody has deliberately been favoured. I hope the hon. member is not suggesting that we should abolish the merit system completely and promote people merely on the basis of seniority because we have had bitter experience of that system.

I am not suggesting that at all.

I am not saying the hon. member has suggested it; I say I hope he does not want that. We have to keep the merit system in force and improve it annually. We should work at it continually. I am continually consulting the Public Service Commission to ascertain in what respects we can improve the system and in what way we can judge people more objectively than has hitherto been done. It often happens that somebody is given an increase on merit and that he is dissatisfied and complains; that an ad hoc committee is appointed which finds that he should have received more or that he should have received less. One finds that sort of thing but I do not condemn the system as such nor do I think the hon. member condemns the system.

The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) has pleaded for the State Historian to be graded higher. I think there is some misunderstanding. The State Herald is in continuous employment. It is a position which carries great responsibility with it; the person has to be especially highly qualified. The State historian, on the other hand, is not there as research worker or as a writer of history as such. All the research work and the writing of history is done by universities and other institutions. The two State historians who were appointed were specially appointed by the Government to perform a specific task, namely, to place on record the history of the Second War of Independence. Seeing that they have to perform a special task the post as such cannot be evaluated because they are paid to perform a specific task. When such a task has been performed the position falls away and the person can do other work. It is not a question, therefore, of there having been discriminated against the one or the other.

I just want to say to the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) that we must not misunderstand each other. I said very clearly, that under the Public Service Commission Vote, no agreements had been entered into with Volkskas, Barclays Bank, the S.A.B.C. or any other institution. I said in my reply that there had been agreements with the Railway Administration and other bodies but that they had come to an end. I also gave the dates on which they were ended.

Don’t you know of this one of the Post Office?

I know nothing about that. I said no agreements had been entered into under this Vote of mine. The Public Service Commission is already covering such a wide field; we have already entered the educational field to some extent. A few things have already been mentioned which really fall under Education. Many of these health services rightly belong under Education.

The hon. member said I had made a promise last year that I would confer greater power on the Post Office Staff Board and that I had not done so. I can just tell the hon. member that we have already made a start. We have already amended the Public Service Act to enable us to delegate further power by way of regulation. That amendment was approved by Parliament during this Session. That delegation is now taking place. It is not a question of legal amendments but a question of being empowered to delegate. It must be possible for the Public Service Commission to delegate power and it did not have the power to delegate certain powers. I therefore did not deserve that reproach. The various powers are already in the process of being delegated.

I do not want to enter into an argument with the hon. member as to whether the Post Office staff is sufficiently remunerated or not. That falls under my hon. colleague and the hon. member can take him to task. But the hon. member said a few other things which I cannot allow to pass unnoticed. The hon. member is inclined to make sweeping statements but they are nothing else than slogans. He pushes out his chest, he waves his arms and thinks the Post Office staff will say: “Ach, wat ben je ’n mooie jongen” (My, you are a pretty fellow). I can only tell the hon. member that he will not get away with that. On 31 March 1965 out of the total Post Office establishment of 32,192, the following could advance within their own groups—the hon. member said they had no opportunity to advance—1,383 can advance to administrative posts; from the 6,891 posts in the clerical division, i.e. those posts which require St. VTII as an admission qualification. In other words, one out of every five clerks can advance to the administrative section, and to a minimum salary of R2,400 per annum. Last week the hon. member said one out of every 50. That is the kind of slogan we get from the hon. member, Sir. One out of every five has an opportunity to advance and this is not a slogan it is a fact. The others can automatically advance to R2,400 while provision is also made for a long-service increase up to R2,520 per annum. In terms of the recent improvements announced in respect of the Post Office staff the ratio between clerical and administrative staff will improve from 5 to 1 to 3 to 1. What does that look like? Was that the picture the hon. member painted? The picture he wants to paint to the country is one of an unsympathetic government which has no time for the poor Post Office workers who work themselves to death.

Why do so many of them resign?

The hon. member must not be in such a hurry, I shall give her some further information. In the engineers section there are 210 posts where they compete within their own ranks. Their chances of promotion are similar to those of their colleagues in the rest of the Public Service. I challenge the hon. member for Orange Grove to prove the contrary.

I now come to the technical section. There are 3,506 posts, competition is confined to their own ranks, and the officials do not come into consideration for the clerical/administrative posts. After they have completed their course of training they can, like others in the Public Service, automatically advance to R2,760 per annum, while there are more senior …

May I just ask the Minister for one figure? How many, did the Minister say, were there in the technical section?

There are 3,506 posts in the technical section.

That is not what the establishment says.

What does the establishment say?

Professional and Technical: 148 higher posts, technical division 47 and various: total 195.

I shall come to that in a moment. Let me just finish my argument. These people cannot compete in the administrative division. They advance automatically to R2,760, while there are more senior posts in respect of which the Post Office Staff Board determine how many there should be and how they should be graded. I shall not deal with the general A and B division; in those divisions there are 20,202 posts. As hon. members know they are all telephone workers, postmen, telephonists, female assistants, etc. Most of them only have Std. VI up to St. VIII and approximately half these posts are occupied by women. Each group advances within its own ranks and does not compete, on a normal promotional basis, with others in the department.

When you look at the actual figures, Sir, you should consider the way in which the staff is actually constituted before making general comparisons or allegations of discrimination within the Department or within the rest of the Public Service. I do not think it is right to do that. That takes us nowhere. With the new improvements the ratio has changed.

We specifically went into that aspect. We said we did not want to discriminate and that if the chances of promotion were better in the one case than in the other the ratio should be adjusted so that the chances of promotion in the case of the Post Office staff should at least compare favourably with those in the Public Service.

Why are the staff associations so dissatisfied?

Bring me a person who does not like money: I should like to see what he looks like. I do not know whether the hon. member is satisfied with his salary. If he is he has lost all ambition. Of course you always want a little more. You are always dissatisfied. I can just inform the hon. member that the public servants have also come forward with demands. I have a long list of them and I shall meet them shortly in order to discuss their demands with them.

The hon. member for Drakensberg was unfortunately not present when we discussed the female staff and the promotion of women. I can only say to her that she said many things with which I fully agree. It was not necessary for her to get so hot under the collar. I also believe in “equal pay for equal work” but there are many reasons why we cannot pay the young girls who just start work the same salary we pay their male counterparts. There are many other conditional reasons that can be stipulated. We have already drawn attention to the fact that a large percentage of these young girls only remain in the service for one or two years. One must at least qualify oneself in your work; one must make it one’s career; one must be trained in that work. Nobody with a matriculation certificate can walk into an office and say: “I am qualified to do any work in this office”. They must undergo vocational training and a great amount of money is spent on that. They must receive vocational guidance. It is not merely a question of paying a salary and saying: “Just see what you can do”. There are many things at stake and when a woman has shown that she has chosen that as her new career, just like the man has, they are treated on the same basis. The hon. member must not forget that there was great prejudice against female labour in the past in this country. There are still many private employers in the private sector who are prejudiced but a break-through has been effected. I have a high regard for female labour and for what women can do. To a certain extent a state of emergency definitely exists in this country and the woman must simply push up her sleeves and help. We must make it possible for her to do so. That is why we go further and even allow them to do part-time work, to work for half a day or part of a day, so that their families are not neglected. We try to encourage them in every possible way to do so and where discrimination is not justified we eliminate it as much as possible. But we must set about it very cautiously. The hon. member for Wynberg and I are very satisfied with the progress that has been made and I trust the hon. member for Drakensberg will join us. Next time we shall be able to report further progress.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question: He says the young girls with matric who join the Service have had no training and that they have to start at the beginning. Does the same not apply to the boys who have just completed their matric? Why differentiate.

The percentage of boys who leave the Service in the first year and in the first five years is much lower than the percentage of girls who leave the service. That is why. Some of them only join to find a marriage partner. The moment they find a husband they leave. They leave for various reasons. However, those are problems they will have to solve themselves.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) spoke about the salaries paid to doctors. That matter is being thoroughly investigated and consideration is being given to the salaries of the doctors in the various Governmental posts. I trust the various bodies will submit their representations and that, as a result of the investigation, we shall attract better men to the senior posts because of the more realistic salaries offered. The hon. member set out everything very ably. Some of the points raised by him do not fall under the Public Service Commission. He dealt with the whole matter from the medical point of view and I can assure him that we are attending to it.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) made a fervent plea that as far as the Parliamentary Session is concerned we should try to do something and nay public servants an allowance at the beginning of the Session. It often happens that they are given short notice and suffer financial loss as a result. The hon. member also pleaded for something else. I am surprised that the doctors in this House did not laugh. The hon. member said that Pretoria had the highest incidence of heart disease cases and that many public servants died of coronary thrombosis. He pleaded that those people should be accorded more recreational facilities. A five-day week has been introduced but some do not as yet work a five-day week. As I have said, I do not know why the doctors did not laugh because I read something different every day in the newspaper as to what causes coronary thrombosis. We were first told not to eat fatty foods and eggs; now they say: “Eat fatty foods and eggs but do not eat anything sweet”. Some say: “Do not worry”; others say: “Worry will not do you much harm”. I do not know of anybody who has more worries than the Ministers of this country and the members of the Opposition who have to put up such a strenous fight simply to retain their name. Yet we are all alive and we all look healthy. I can only tell the hon. member that I think the State look after its employees as far as their housing, Office facilities, and working hours are concerned, in such a way that it is certainly not due to the fact that they are not properly housed or looked after. Hon. members know that a great deal is being done in this respect and I think that next to being a member of the Opposition the most pleasant thing is to be a public servant.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Revenue Vote No. 17,—“Printing and Stationery”, R5,054,000,

Just a few minor matters in regard to this Vote. The first is the way in which publications distributed by the Government are despatched by the Government Printer. I have an example here. Just look at the cover in which the publication is wrapped. It is practically impossible to open it without tearing the enclosure and it may be an important document. Surely a different way can be evolved for sending these small publications, and that also applies to the larger ones.

What I really want to bring to the notice of the Minister is the deterioration in the quality of the printing of the Government Gazette. Firstly, the quality of the paper has certainly not improved in recent years. It seems to me that the paper is steadily becoming worse, and also darker. In fact if one wants to make any note on it with a pen it immediately blots. Another matter I want to raise in regard to the Government Gazette is that in my opinion too many mistakes appear in it. If there is one publication in South Africa which should always strive for absolute accuracy, it is the Government Gazette. There was a case, as I read in a Press report, where the index was inaccurate, resulting in a person who regularly reads the Government Gazette to see whether it contains something in connection with his business missing a certain notice and suffering damage as the result simply because that particular notice was not indicated in the index. That is the sort of mistake which should not occur in the Government Gazette. I hope that something can be done in that regard. There is, of course, a great shortage of staff, but it is essential that the Government Gazette should be accurate.

Another matter I should like to refer to in connection with the Government Gazette is the advertisements and their accuracy. Here I have an advertisement before me and I want to read it to the hon. the Minister and ask him to tell me what it means. It is an advertisement in connection with the Post Office Savings Bank, and it says: “die veiligheid van u geld word deur die Staat houding en ongeëwenaarde diens in verband gewaarborg en u is verseker van streng geheim met inlaes en opvragings”. When I saw this shocking printing error for the first time I thought that surely it would be rectified in the next issue, but it appeared in that form three times, and possibly it will reappear in Friday’s Government Gazette in the same form. It is clear that it is the normal type of printing error. Lines have been omitted or transposed, but the proof-reader of the Government Printer should surely have noticed it. I should like to know how they set to work in regard to proofs of advertisements like this. After having been set, are they sent to the relevant Departments so that they can again check them and make sure that they are correct? Or is the copy sent directly to the Government Printer, and are the advertisements sent there, and is the further responsibility then that of the proof-reader of the Government Printer himself? Proof-reading is of course a very important and difficult task and there may be difficulty in regard to obtaining sufficient personnel, but we should not find something like this in a publication like the Government Gazette, and I hope that something will be done in regard to the matter.

I appreciate what the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) has brought to our notice. I am pleased to see that he is a critical reader of the Government Gazette. Perhaps I should just mention that as far as the Government Printing Works are concerned we decided to give them a greater measure of autonomy because they are a manufacturing concern, they have to produce things. I have therefore separated the Government Printing Works as much as possible from the Public Service and from the Department of the Interior. I have direct control over them, together with a small control committee which assists the Government Printer. But I want to give the hon. member the assurance that I will bring these few facts to the notice of the Government Printer.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 18,—“Education, Arts and Science”, R35,523,000,

I wish to claim the privilege of the half-hour under this Vote.

I am astonished, after all the debates that have taken place in this House on what we rather euphemistically call “the manpower shortage”, that there are no really imaginative proposals of any kind in the present Budget for Education. It is a matter of astonishment and regret to us on this side of the House. Mr. Chairman, we have a national surplus of R135,000,000—I refer to the Budget and the Treasury Vote combined. How much of that has come to Education? It is quite true that last year we had the Study Loans and Bursaries Act, that the Government has established a new university at Port Elizabeth and that there are a few additions in the Votes here and there. But, Mr. Chairman, the hard fact is that the Government has done nothing but scratch the surface of this problem of education and the manpower shortage for many years past. And under these Estimates themselves the total increase in the Minister’s Vote (under all Heads) amounts to less than R4,250,000. What has been the true financial position for some years? That is what we are dealing with fundamentally here. With the amount from Revenue Account allotted to the Department of Education, Arts and Science running at an annual average of between 3 and 3½ per cent of the whole, the amount from Loan Account hovers between 1 and 1½ per cent. For a country in a state of crisis over trained manpower, this is a sad state of affairs.

In 1963, the late President Kennedy of the United States announced a massive new education programme for the United States of America, planned to cost R4,250,000,000 over a period of four years, and the programme included an increase from R60,000,000 to nearly R 100,000,000 for student loans, and an increase from 1,500 to 10,000 a year in the number of graduate fellowships for students. As the hon. Minister knows, the United Kingdom has taken similar steps over a period of years. Pro rata, and adapted to our own domestic situation, there is no reason whatever why South Africa should not introduce a similar scheme.

I would like to make this point that money voted for education purposes will do nothing to cause inflation. It is a first-class investment, it is a long-term investment, and of course it is a gilt-edged investment. So far all suggestions for dealing with the inflationary trend in South Africa have involved curbs on demand. In the long run, however, the only permanent answer lies in stepping up productivity, not to place curbs on demand. And you don’t step up productivity by merely increasing wages. We are agreed on that. One of the means of doing it is to provide a larger quota of poductively active workers, which means using all our available talent. From an educational point of view that means educating more and more people to an ever higher standard of achievement, irrespective of colour. Now the hon. Minister spoke on this subject in the Senate yesterday, and he spoke about “project talent”, the project talent for White school-children, a thorough investigation into the capabilities of South Africa’s White school-goers, and the hon. member cannot refer to a debate in the this year by the manpower centre in the Research Bureau of his Department.

Order! The hon. member cannot refer to a debate in the Other Place.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, I did not know that. With respect, this type of education programme to which I have been referring, should have been one of the Government’s main plans in the immediate post-war period. They did nothing about it, with the resultant confusion that we have in South Africa to-day.

On 3 April, this year, the Minister of Planning made a speech at Kimberley on the same subject, in which he had the following to say—

The Minister said that to attain the growth rate envisaged in the economic development plan for the next five years, heavy reliance would be placed on education.

With the aid of the economic development plan, which reflected the economy’s broad pattern of development, the Department of Planning would be able to furnish estimates of the total and sectoral volume and types of labour required.

It would then be the task of the Advisory Committee for Manpower, Research and Planning to draw up a plan of training for the education authorities on the basis of the expected future pattern of demand for labour.

The hon. the Deputy Minister also referred to this matter in the no-confidence debate this year, and he said—

and then he went on to say—

I think to suggest that the Government has been far-sighted about this matter is a masterly over-statement which in no way reflects the true position. Why was the Manpower Research and Planning Committee only appointed last year? It should have been appointed years ago. That is the opinion we have on this side of the House. In fact, I want to remind the hon. the Minister, by quoting three short extracts from the Report of the De Villiers Commission on Technical and vocational Education, which reported in 1948, that important suggestions were made as far back as 1948. I quote paragraph 157 of the report, which says—

And then paragraph 539—

And, Mr. Chairman, what was the Commission’s recommendation in this regard? Paragraphs 1683 and 1686 contain the following recommendations—

That was 18 years ago! I am aware that the De Villiers Commission was limited to discussing technical and vocational education. These are two vast and important aspects of the crisis with which we are faced at the moment. I would emphasise how tragic it is that it has taken this Government 18 years to accept the wisdom of what was clearly recommended to them in the country’s interests in 1948. You see, Sir, the irony of it is that there is no real manpower shortage in South Africa at all. There is only a chronic shortage of skilled, trained people, which is something quite different. Now the whole Cabinet is moaning about it, with a few notable exceptions, and it is entirely their own fault. The Cabinet Ministers who have admitted the gravity of the situation now make a very impressive list:

But the most interesting thing of all is that the Minister of Finance in his 1964 Budget speech told this House that there was a very real danger of a bottle-neck and said that this manpower shortage could have a serious effect upon the country’s economy. So you can imagine our astonishment, Sir, when in reply to this year’s Budget debate, the hon. the Minister of Finance referred to the so-called “manpower shortage” as almost a blessing in disguise. What a fatuous statement for a responsible Minister to make.

The Minister of Transport is a sensible man. He spoke quite trenchantly on the subject under his Railway Budget and told the country that the number of graded posts on the Railways was 101,200 and that in these categories alone there were 7,500 vacancies. Those figures of course exclude all unskilled workers. The Minister went on to say a very significant thing from an educational point of view. He said that the lower class of jobs on the Railways were the most difficult to fill because they were the most unpopular. They are unpopular, of course, because they carry a low wage rate, and they carry a low wage rate because these people have low qualifications. That is the answer. So we come back to education.

The Deputy Minister of Education, Arts and Science also hopes to fill these gaps very largely with an influx of immigrants, but I think that the Government’s thinking on this subject is a little off-beat, because every rand of investment capital that comes into South Africa and every skilled immigrant who is absorbed into South Africa’s economy means the employment of two, three or four more non-Whites down the assembly line, and by that I am now referring to the question of unskilled workers. The number of unskilled workers in the country is not thereby either eliminated or reduced.

One of South Africa’s main problems is the grave state of imbalance, and it is largely an educational problem, between the number of skilled workers and unskilled workers. In South Africa 66 per cent of all industrial workers are unskilled, compared with 15 per cent in the United States of America. We will have to do something to redress that balance sooner or later.

In 1963, the Deputy Minister of Education told a meeting in the Transvaal (I am quoting from the Burger, 14/9/63)—

The Minister then went on to tell his audience that it was quite all right and that the Government was quite able to cope with the situation. He said—

That sounds fine. Mr. Speaker, on the surface, but I think people’s memories are apt to be a bit short. How many people realize that between 1949 and 1956, the first eight years of Nationalist administration, over 96,000 people left South Africa for good? And 90 per cent of them were South African citizens, most of whom we had helped to educate and train in one degree or another. What would we not do to have those people back at the present time! So when the Deputy Minister of Education tells the country that 2,500 immigrants a month will very largely solve our trained manpower crisis and help the educational position, he has got something of a leeway to make up.

But I have another quarrel with the Deputy Minister. He made an astonishing statement in the no-confidence debate this year which completely contradicted what was said by the hon. the Prime Minister. He said—

Compare that statement with the one issued by the hon. the Prime Minister in the name of his Economic Advisory Council in August 1963, when he told the country that he had come to the conclusion that unless extra efforts were made to supplement the trained manpower available in South Africa, the future economic development of the country would be seriously hampered. Two completely contradictory statements!

What the public expects in the field of education and training in South Africa to-day, is something dynamic, something that catches the imagination, something constructive.

The mass of evidence, given by experts, before the Select Committee on the National Advisory Education Council Bill seems to me to prove beyond all doubt that there are no undue risks involved in formulating a bold, comprehensive and far-seeing plan for education in South Africa. What should be done to improve the position? Hon. members are always saying that we do nothing but criticize, and I want to make a few suggestions to the hon. the Minister, and maybe he will be kind enough to comment on these suggestions later on.

We think that the first need is for one Central Department of Education, Arts and Science, with one single full-time Minister in charge dealing with education for all our population groups. Let it be the present Minister, by all means, but that, for us, is basic and is a matter of principle.

The only possible way to co-ordinate the talents of South Africa’s young people effectively and put them to the best possible use is by means of a planned education programme in which there is a place for all. That should not be handled by the hon. Minister of Planning but by the Minister of Education. The boot is on the wrong foot when the hon. Minister of Planning gets involved on this type of issue.

With the divided system we have at present, and the difficulties of co-ordination from an educational and economic point of view, the real danger is that our whole economic structure will become unstable. I do not believe there is anyone in South Africa who will dispute the fact that 3,500,000 Whites cannot possibly maintain the country’s services— whether public or private—and keep a nation of over 15,000,000 people going. They simply cannot do it. One of the main reasons, and this is also very relevant to education, for maintaining a colour bar in industry—and it is a valid reason—is that White workers should not be forced out of their jobs by cheap labour. We have had discussions in this House on that subject before. I think it is time that the Government’s policy-makers and educationists faced the fact that this danger no longer really exists, for our non-Whites, both skilled and unskilled, are urgently needed— not for jobs already held by Whites, but for jobs held by nobody at all. And when it comes to talking about protecting the White workers, what has this Government done about it, from an educational point of view? I will tell you, Sir: Absolutely nothing. In fact this Government, more than any other, when it comes to education, has let the White workers down. If you do not believe that, Sir, why are there more than 2,000 White workers in the Post Office to-day earning less than R100 per month? Their qualifications do not deserve a higher wage—that is why. Why are there more than 12,000 adult White workers on the Railways to-day who earn between R80 and R100 a month, and have to keep growing families on a pittance of that kind? Because they are not qualified to do anything else. They are the Dead End Kids in South Africa, thanks to this Government and its so-called visionary policies in the field of education over the last 18 years. If the education standards of these people were higher, if they had been encouraged to become more skilled, if they had been subsidized by the Government some years ago, their rates of pay would have been a great deal higher than they are now. The surest way to protect the White worker in South Africa is to educate him to capacity, in a practical or an academic sense, for whichever he happens to be fit. We would like to know why this Government has not given tangible proof of its intentions to do this, to raise the status of these workers, by means of a dramatic and generous allocation of funds for education purposes in this Budget? The Government has had 18 years in which to do it. They are very interested in the votes of people at the age of 18, but they have not cared two hoots about their education.

My second proposal is an administrative one. It is to place the control of all primary and secondary education, up to and including Std. X, in the hands of the provinces, which means control over most of our vocational and technical trainin gas well. This is a prerequisite, as we see it, for any future development of our skilled labour force, for without it there can be no comprehensive introduction of a system of differentiation, which as the Minister knows means the gradual introduction of a practical as well as an academic course into our secondary schools. It is abundantly clear that, apart from the work being done on the training of teachers in South Africa, nothing practical can be put into operation and no real plans can be carried out until a decision is taken on the allocation of responsibility for secondary education and all that it implies. The only indication we have had to date is a veiled statement by the Superintendent-General of Education in the Cape in April this year that there was going to be reorganization of secondary education as soon as the National Education Advisory Council issues its final report.

I think it is a shocking state of affairs that the Government is only now paying attention to this urgent matter. Education experts have estimated that the so-called dull-normal group of children in the White population in South Africa constitutes 17 per cent of the total White school-going population. The Minister knows that in ordinary secondary schools—this also applies in the vocational and technical schools over which he has jurisdiction—this group can seldom go further than Std. VI and many of them would never pass the academic Std. VI examination in any case. These are the youngsters who pass Std. V at the age of 15, Stds. VI at the age of 16 or 17, and some of whom then become apprenticed. Hundreds more of them could become apprenticed and become extremely able artisans, operators, machinists, etc., if they were able to receive the beginnings of a practical training course during and as part of their post-primary school course. I want to tell the Minister that there are 136,000 of those children in South Africa to.day. As it is, thousands of them take up the unskilled, dead-end jobs I have been describing to the Minister on the Railways and elsewhere, and as soon as the economic situation of the country deteriorates they are the first to be paid off and, with a few notable exceptions, their promotion prospects for the rest of their working lives are practically negligible. Until correct provision is made— and this has to deal with this divided control —by means of differentiation in our school courses for this 17 per cent of the White school population, South Africa will continue to lose approximately 136,000 skilled White workers every year.

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) said in the 1963 debate in this House on the Apprenticeship Bill that he complained about Std. VII being the minimum education standard for apprentices, and then he went on to say that increasingly higher education qualifications are being required from boys and girls in various spheres of work and we are reaching the position to-day where it is very difficult for boys and girls with a Std. VI certificate to obtain work. He was entirely correct, and the answer is the introduction of differentiation into our schools. That brings us back to the question of divided control. The passing of the Vocational Education Act of 1955 was an arbitrary action by the Cabinet, with the minimum consultation with the educationists concerned. I feel now that the Government has perhaps begun to see the foolishness of its actions in that regard. If the Minister does not believe me, I want to quote to him from Die Unie, which is the magazine issued by the Onderwysersunie in the Cape. This is the March issue and it is an article written by Mr. F. C. Gunther—

Then he goes on to say—

And then he goes on to say that the situation must be solved as quickly as possible. That is not my opinion but that of an Afrikaans speaking teacher who belongs to an Afrikaans teachers’ organization. In the meantime the country cannot afford to drift along like this any more. The Minister will certainly come back and quote figures at me, because he has all his officials behind him to provide him with figures, but I just want to quote to him a report which appeared in the Burger in January this year when children were enrolling in the local technical schools—

The 350 pupils turned away is a large number, and that is in the Cape alone. What about all the other provinces, and what is the Government doing about it, with all its vision and foresight? We know that extensions are being made to all these buildings, but the situation is really a very serious one indeed.

I do not want to go into detail into the need for apprentices, but there is a real need to shorten the period of apprenticeship training, which as far as I know is being tackled by the Department at present. The Minister has made a statement about it. Few youngsters care to wait for four years before earning a decent wage, and why should they? Another thing is that we think that financial assistance should be given on a large scale, not only to student teachers and matriculants but to boys and girls in the secondary, vocational and technical schools. There should be an immediate extension of the system of in-service training for those already in employment and we consider that there should be universal provision, with some form of compulsory attendance, for those not already apprenticed, of part-time classes for all those who leave school under the age of 18, as they have it in the United Kingdom, for so many hours a week. Another need is to make our university training an increasingly selective business so that the people who go there know what they are about.

I think we need more universities with smaller teaching units. That would be far more effective. We need to relieve the pressure on our technical colleges, and that could be done by some of these being upgraded into technological institutes linked with the universities and having the power to bestow diplomas, certificates and degrees in specialized fields. More technical colleges should be built in the rural areas, for three reasons, to prevent the continued population drift from the rural to the urban areas, to encourage the decentralization of industry, and to issue diplomas and certificates for the continuous development of agricultural-technical services and research. We consider that all teacher-training institutions—this is nothing new to the Minister—should be linked with the universities, and that all primary student-teachers should have a three-year course and not a two-year course after matriculation. Whilst this change is taking place there should be a deliberate campaign on the part of the Government to attract married woman teachers back into the profession. My final suggestion is that the temporary lack of science and mathematics and language teachers, to which the Minister referred in the Other Place yesterday, could at least in part be made good by a reasoned and controlled use of closed circuit television for education purposes. If we had any imagination in this country at all in regard to education, that sort of service could be extended on a far larger scale in the training of non-Whites, to whom audio-visual methods are particularly suited. [Time limit.]

Before seeing the hon. member for South Coast, I should like to state that I have had another look at Rules Nos. 120 and 121, and it appears, as these rules now read, that the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) was perfectly in order when she read from a newspaper report as to what the hon. the Minister had said in the Other Place during the present Session.

There are one or two matters I want to deal with. May I start with a very isolated item, before coming to what I really want to say, and that is on page 78 under “General”? There is an item here for allowances to inspectors of anatomy, R500. I suggest that the Minister put it out to tender instead of paying people to carry out that duty. I think he would no doubt have a considerable number of applicants. Why does he pay inspectors for a job like that? Perhaps he will tell us just what the duties are of inspectors of anatomy in his Department.

In regard to the question of education, in the list we have before us there are something like 2,000 male and female teachers in the Department in the technical, special, commercial and housecraft high schools. We are in this difficulty now in the Republic that we have the schools under the Department of Education with its personnel of 2,000, apart from the inspectors, etc. We have the various provinces with their educational systems and their teachers. There are the teachers in the Department of Coloured Affairs, jn the Department of Indian Affairs, and in the Department of Bantu Administration. In the case of the non-White teaching services, it is true that a latge number of White teachers remain until such time, I take it, as there may be a complete changeover in the years to come. I believe that the system still remains whereby the various provinces and the Departments, under the leadership of the Minister of Education, have a system whereby there is an agreement that salaries will be dealt with on a basis common to all, and that that has been devised as a means of preventing the bidding of one province against another for teachers, trying to take advantage of the limited number of personnel available. Tint particular agreement of course has had the effect probably of stabilizing salaries and conditions of service, and the basis is presumably the basis laid down by the Minister in his own Department. I want to ask the Minister whether he does not think the time has come for the whole position to be reviewed, because a review of the position in his Department will lead to a review throughout the teaching services. South Africa is short of teachers. If the Minister can tell us that he is not short of teachers, we must look elsewhere for the cause of the trouble, but I believe there is a shortage of teachers, because by and large these teachers are interchangeable. While it is true that there is special training and certain degrees, they are mostly interchangeable, and it seems to me that here is the keystone of the whole educational arch. So I want to ask the Minister whether he does not think that the whole matter should be reviewed with a view to lifting the scale of teachers’ salaries in his own Department, because that will trigger the rising of these salaries throughout, or whether some investigation should not be made to see whether we cannot make the teaching profession more attractive, to bring in people to train our young folk, and nowhere is it more necessary than it is in these departments of technical, special and commercial schools. These schools cater for an enormous number of our youngsters who cannot proceed with more formal training for all sorts of reasons. In many cases they live under such economic circumstances that the chance of getting technical training, with the future which a technically trained man can view to-day with a great deal of confidence, is impossible. That would be a great attraction to the boys concerned and for the girls in the housecraft high schools. This is an opening which in the past was not open to them because they just had to go through the curriculum of formal training, and these avenues were closed to them. I noticed in the Press that the Minister of Transport has stated that he was prepared to pay a locality allowance in regard to staff who are transferred to areas where for some reason or other there is difficulty in getting staff to willingly agree to perform their duties in those areas. It is undoubtedly the case that where you move teachers to areas where they would not wish to go under normal conditions, because people have a preference for certain areas …

It is only in Natal that they move teachers around. In the rest of the country teachers apply for posts.

I am grateful for that statement. In the main, elsewhere I think they use the school committee system, which we do not have in Natal, and that places a certain responsibility on the Education Department in Natal which is carried by the teachers’ committees, or rather the school committees in the other provinces. May I ask the Minister whether his Department is not short of teachers?

We are not moving them about.

Well, I accept that the Minister’s Department is short of teachers. Generally, there is a shortage of teachers. If the Minister is short to-day, he cannot fill up his shortages in his Department without taking them from somewhere else. There is no reservoir of unemployed teachers in South Africa. The Minister cannot get teachers unless he takes them out of another job. If the Minister can make his conditions of service so attractive that teachers will come to him, he will be taking them from some place where the teachers deem the conditions of service to be less attractive. The overall picture is that teachers are interchangeable and there are so many Government Departments employing teachers that they can move to and fro. Fortunately for us they do not. They do not take jobs continually where they think they will derive a little extra benefit, and they stick to their jobs. I agree with the hon. member for Wynberg that we must go very much further into the question of women teachers to see what role they can play. But so many of the men teachers are leaving. Male teachers, particularly of certain categories, are going out into commerce and private enterprise, and there is a tendency to leave the women behind. I am quite sure the Minister finds that in his Department, the same as everyone else finds it, and I think the time has come when the issue is of such importance to the rising generation that if we are going to produce the scientists and the technicians—the scientist is hopeless without the technically trained man. Unless he has a technically trained man he is without his hands. If we are to have those people we have to start training them in the early stages, in the Minister’s Department. That is where the training has to take place. We must have the teachers if they are to be trained in their youthful years. We cannot start training these people when they go to the university. In fact, these particular people do not go to the university. I have pointed out what a big enticement it is to so many of our boys and girls from the platteland to go to a technical high school or to one of the training schools for girls. They are getting a technical training which will stand them in good stead for the rest of their lives, but they must be trained as youngsters. I think definite steps must be taken to investigate the whole position of the teaching staff which will train those youngsters. We are hopelessly under-staffed throughout South Africa and if we fail in the teaching of our children we will fail hopelessly in the teaching of our men and women and we will produce people who are ill fitted to meet the needs of this hard world we are living in. I can only appeal to the Minister as Minister of Education to grapple with this problem because there is nobody else who occupies the precise post he holds. I say I speak for the whole of South Africa when I say to the Minister that we are grievously worried about the inadequacy of the teaching and the training of our children which is staring us in the face at present through the inadequacy of the teaching staff.

I want to emphasize that the question of grading as well as the salary scales of the teachers in question should have been discussed under the Public Service Commission Vote. Hon. members may therefore discuss this matter, but they cannot discuss the question of salaries and grading.

I have very little time and it will not be possible for me to deal with everything that was said by the hon. members for South Coast and Wynberg. One or two things have been said here, however, to which I propose to refer in the course of my remarks.

Sir, the outstanding principle in which I believe in the sphere of education is the education of the whole man. We place too much emphasis just on training, training for certain specific vocations and I am afraid that in the hurry in which the hon. member for Wynberg spoke here this afternoon, with great earnestness, she covered a field which was rather too wide for the time at her disposal. This hurry to train manpower for posts because the State needs their services, carries the danger with it that we may entirely neglect the golden rule of educating the whole man. In other words, in many cases, vocational training does not pay sufficient attention to the academic schooling of the pupil, and in the academic schooling of our pupils special attention is not given to vocational training. What we get in academic schooling, in the provincial schools, is not vocational training. Pupils are taught a little needlework and woodwork and things of that kind so as to fit in one practical subject with the purely academic training, but those subjects which are taught in the provincial schools by no means provide vocational training. That is why I am terribly concerned about a phenomenon which has been manifesting itself all too frequently in recent times, and that is the fact that irresponsible people, as well as certain bodies which ought to know better, are urging in season and out of season that all secondary education should fall under the Provinces; in other words, there are people in this country to-day who advocate the breaking down of the Department of Education, Arts and Science, and if that does happen it will be the greatest disaster for our education that we have ever experienced. In spite of the opposition that we often encountered from the Opposition, we instituted a complete, co-ordinated system of education for the Bantu, for the Coloureds and for the Indians, but we bluntly refuse to introduce it for Whites. Why? Because we are thwarted by the Chauvinistic, parochial spirit that prevails in certain provinces. I think the time has come for the Government to intervene in no uncertain way and to let the Provinces know that we are sick and tired of these various systems of education which in many cases are conflicting, which do not correspond where they ought to correspond, which detract from one another and which are responsible for lack of co-ordination between the provinces and the Department of Education, Arts and Science. Sir, provision has been made for the co-ordination and planning referred to by the hon. member for Wynberg. There are two things which are mentioned all too frequently by people who are carried away by their own arguments. The one is differentiation and the other is the comprehensive school. There are people who still walk around with the idea that the provinces should also give vocational education to children in the comprehensive schools, but there are one or two things which they have never taken into account; they overlook the equipment that would be needed in every small township where there is a reasonably good academic school and where a vocational school cannot be established except at very great expense. They do not take into account the extra staff that would be needed to train children for a vocation, and here I am not talking about teaching subjects, but preparing the children for some vocation. Sir, there are few people perhaps who know that 30 years ago in the vocational schools of the Department of Education, Arts and Science I introduced full differentiation, without turning a hair or without adverse comments from others. We had it in all our schools. Take snelskrif and shorthand, for example. We did not have big classes; we had classes of 20 and 30 pupils. We had small classes of four, and these classes were kept at different shorthand speeds; their speeds were worked up and the weaker pupils were always helped by the teacher by means of individual tuition. Sir, that method of differentiation is only one of the various methods. Differentiation does not simply mean that one says: “I am going to take this group of children this way, and that group of children that way.” Let me say here in parenthesis—and hon. members may ridicule me if they like—that I no longer believe very much in clinging to the intelligence quotient. It is a system which has already landed us in a terrible mess in the sphere of education. There are educationists who adopt the attitude that a child with a low I.Q. should go to a vocational school, or, as they call it, to the trade school, which no longer exists, and that a child with a high I.Q. should follow an academic course and study the so-called humanities which are taught at our universities. That is an entirely wrong conception. What about the skill of the child? If members of the Opposition want to put forward criticism then they must not discuss this matter in the hurry in which the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) did. They should say to us: “Start with the aptitude test and determine the skill of the child; study the personality of the child: adopt a psychological approach towards the child and thereafter you can come along with your mechanical I.Q. test.” The intelligence quotient test is a comparative thing which should be used only in conjunction with other processes in the determination of the child’s capabilities but by itself it is no indication. But the provinces believe in the intelligence quotient and they cling to it. [Time limit.)

The hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Mostert) who has sat down has forward certain points of view on the comprehensive school. I do not know who the hon. member for Witbank is opposing on this side as far as the comprehensive school is concerned because as far as we are concerned we have not mentioned this point. As far as differentiation in education is concerned, I would say to the hon. member for Witbank that he knows that there is, of course, differentiation in the shape of streaming. Whereas we have a three-stream school differentiation here, I want to ask the hon. member for Witbank whether he would not agree with me that overseas where they have differentiation, where they have up to ten streams, the closed circuit television would assist us in streaming in the schools.

I was putting my own case.

The hon. the Minister knows that under this vote I have a particular interest in advocating the mobilization of the talents of gifted young students of South Africa who wish to go to university, and I am particularly interested in the science and technology courses. At this stage I should like to say that I regret that we only have the 1963 report before us and not the 1964 figures. This is the first time in four years, as far as I can recollect, that this has happened, and I would like to ask the hon. the Minister and his Department why we could not be presented in this debate with the latest figures. According to this 1963 report which has the 1962 figures that I want to quote, 8,718 students enrolled in the White universities, with the exception of the University of South Africa, in 1962; 5,355 were promoted, i.e., 61.4 per cent and 38.6 per cent failed. In the sciences 1,433 students were enrolled and there were 584 failures, 40.8 per cent. Sir, we have different systems of education for the university students and different systems to encourage students in the different countries. In the United Kingdom you have a comparatively small group who are selected from those qualified to attend a university, and there they concentrate on that group. In the United States of America you have a degree course rather like an obstacle race. It is open to all competitors who want to enter for it and many of those competitors fall by the wayside. We in South Africa are in rather the same position. Sir, the effect of this failure rate is felt far beyond the universities; it is felt throughout South Africa as a whole. I feel that there is general agreement on both sides of the House that there is a shortage of trained, skilled manpower. We know that the provision of trained scientists and technologists is one of the most important requirements in building up the modern industrial structure of South Africa, and what is required, as well as an up-to-date university education, is active encouragement of every talented young man, and every talented young woman, who wants to go to university with the aid of a bursary or a loan. I feel that South Africa is far behind even the United Kingdom with this small group that I mentioned. In the Robbins Report which appeared in the United Kingdom in November 1964, it is stated that 87 per cent of university graduates in Great Britain are helped by State bursaries, loans and grants. In South Africa we have barely 5 per cent of the students who receive Government aid. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to investigate this because unless this grave omission is very swiftly remedied, the increase in fees which universities will be forced to make from time to time will mean an additional tax on those parents who want to send their children to university. This is contrary to the belief expressed by the hon. the Minister last year when he said on the Education Vote that no talented student need want for assistance to go to university. But there are large numbers of good potential university entrants who are lost to South Africa because their parents cannot afford to send them to university. Sir, in support of what I am saying I wish to quote Professor Malherbe who is the principal and vice-chancellor of the Natal University. In Optima of December 1964 he says—

Many of these are financial factors. One of the senior professors at one of our largest White universities said to me that when universities are forced to raise their fees because of the decrease in the value of money and also because of rising costs, this is an added imposition on certain classes of parents who cannot afford to send their children to universities, and in this way we also lose valuable students, students whose talents could benefit South Africa. I wish to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the Bill which was passed here last year, the National Study Loan and Bursary Act. Last year the hon. the Minister said that he expected great things from the National Study Fund. I wish to quote from Hansard what the Minister said on this Vote. He said (col. 5992) that every person who needed it would be able to obtain funds to go to a university, and than he went on to say—

That is to say, in respect of donations made to this Fund—

Sir, we agree with the hon. the Minister, but when I asked on 19 February of this year how much money had accrued to this Fund I was given the answer that no funds had been given to it, which was corroborated by the Minister of Finance when speaking on the Budget. I feel that this is the result of shifting the responsibility of providing adequate funds for bursaries and loans on to the companies. Here I want to ask the hon. the Minister and his Department very seriously to negotiate with the hon. the Minister of Finance for an adequate bursary fund, not for a mythical R500,0U0, which was supposed to accrue to this Fund and which has not been forthcoming, Put a substantial R3,000,000 increase over and above the R246,000 which is available to-day under one of seven heads in this Budget. The total under seven heads is R2,100,000 for bursaries. The hon. the Minister must surely agree that when the Government produces the gigantic surplus which has been declared this year, an allocation of R3,000,000 for higher education bursaries will not cause a galloping inflation in South Africa. Sir, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider a scheme that I wish to put up for the betterment of the first-year failure rate at the universities. I would ask that the Government should meet the urgent need for scientists and technologists by the training of talented youth through systematic selection and also by the provision of adequate teaching staff, through helping the talented but under-privileged students to take scientific and technological training at the university with stipends based on a university entrance examination, and also to encourage students to accept a one-year preparatory university course in science and technology and to lengthen the course from three to four years; to pay a stipend and to guarantee free tuition to all students who pass the first-year preparatory examination. [Time limit.]

I agree with the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) where she pleads for the training of scientists and technologists. I agree that with the development that is taking place in South Africa there is undoubtedly much room for future technologists and scientists. In this modern world in which we are living, with the development of our industries, etc., I foresee a great shortage of technologists and scientists in the future. But I do not think it will help us much if we only concentrate on technologists and scientists. After all, a nation cannot survive if it has technologists and scientists only. There is another matter which is much nearer and dearer to me, and it is in that connection in particular that I want to address one or two words to the hon. the Minister. I refer to the role that can be played by the Department of Education, Arts and Science in combating Communism in South Africa. Let me say at once that I think that if there is one Department in our Public Service that can do something in connection with the combating of Communism it is the Department of Education, Arts and Science. I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate on the dangers of Communism to this country. I think we are all agreed that if we lose the struggle against Communism, we will be losing everything we have. When we talk in general terms about combating Communism and the dangers of Communism, I do not think that the average person realizes the true significance of article 24 of the Russian Constitution in which the church is entirely divorced from education and in which the complete destruction of the human spirit and the human soul is envisaged, in the sphere of education as well. The question is what we are doing in South Africa to combat Communism. I do not want to enlarge upon this because this Vote in any case is not the proper place to do so but I want to mention just two points: In the first place we allow ordinary individuals and associations, etc., to make propaganda to the best of their ability in publications and from public platforms in an effort to combat Communism. In the second place—and this is what we concentrate upon in the main—we try to combat Communism by punishing people who are already communists. We convict these people, we imprison them perhaps and we place restrictions upon them, but we do not convert them. They are communists already and even if we should hang them we cannot convert them from their communist aim and guide them back on to the right paths. It is not my intention at all this evening to plead for the introduction of some course or other at our schools with a view to combating Communism. I think, in any event, that Communism is beyond the understanding of the average scholar and also beyond the understanding of the average student, and that is why it is not my intention to put forward a plea in this connection. But I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister what is being done in communist countries, for example, to combat the Western ideology and how the educational system in those countries is specially used towards that end. Here I have in mind the Africa Institute, for example, which is linked up with the Lumumba University in Moscow. That Institute is used to gear the educational system to the combating of the Western ideology, not only Russia itself but also in other parts of the world. They employ the brains of the universities; they discuss plans; they work out ideas and from time to time they hold congresses and symposiums which are all designed to combat the Western ideology. I want to put forward the plea this evening that the Department of Education, Arts and Science in South Africa should also take the lead in this direction, because I think this is a matter which properly falls under that Department, and that it is the only Department that can take the initiative in establishing and equipping some Institute or other, with the special object of concentrating the brains of this country on the combating of Communism in South Africa. Sir, we have eminent scientists in this sphere in South Africa. I have in mind a man like Professor A. H. Murray of the University of Cape Town, for example, who is regarded throughout the world as an expert in this field;

I have in mind a man like Professor Gey van Pittius of Pretoria who is a great expert, indeed one of the greatest experts in South Africa in this particular field. But we are not making use of the services of those people. Nor do we have any funds. In other words, what I should like to see is the establishment of a division or an institute, in co-operation with one of the universities of South Africa— and I prefer the University of Pretoria because it is situated in Pretoria, our main administrative centre—a division or institute which will be supported financially or otherwise by the Department of Education, Arts and Science, an institute which can give a lead in connection with the combating of Communism. Sir, when we take steps against Communism, we take the valuable pamphlets and the literature that we take away from these experts on Communism; they are then filed in Police files and in terms of the Archives Act they have to be kept there for 50 years. They are filed away and nobody may touch them until 50 years have elapsed by which time it is too late perhaps. I should like to see that documents of that kind, which can provide very interesting study material in connection with the combating of Communism, are forwarded by the police or by the various Government Departments to this institute, for the establishment of which I am pleading, so that we can study these underground methods. They should also be able to hold symposiums and invite the opinions of other experts in this sphere in South Africa and work out programmes in connection with the combating of Communism in South Africa. I should like to see that they make a minute study of this whole problem. They could then perhaps submit proposals to the Department of Education, Arts and Science as to how Communism can be combated successfully and effectively at our universities and in other spheres. This institute, the establishment of which I suggest, could also serve as a body to co-ordinate the efforts of various Western countries in this connection. We could invite other countries such as America and France and other Western nations to participate and South Africa could then develop into one of the main centres for the combating of Communism. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Middelland (Mr. van der Merwe) will forgive me if I do not pursue this interesting theme that he put forward to the hon. the Minister about combating Communism. If I may, I would like to get back to the scheme that I was putting forward for a university entrance examination and a first-year, a preparatory year, at the universities for the study of science and technology. I have asked that in both cases students whose parents’ income falls below a certain level, should be given stipends of up to R400 per annum and also free tuition by way of encouragement. Sir, I wish to improve university teaching by the provision of better qualified staff, by more tutorial supervision, by the breaking-down of the very large classes of first-year students, by modernizing the technique of university teaching, by the very careful selection of lecturers, by training lecturers in modern methods of teaching their subjects, and then I wish to advocate closed circuit television with two-way telecommunication between one top brain lecturing to, say, 20 or 40 classes at a time instead of one large class of 300, with a professor or a lecturer in charge of it, who over the year seldom gets to know those 300 students apart from knowing their names. In support of my proposal that a preparatory year should be instituted at the universities, I wish to say that this is a project which is already being considered, as the hon. the Minister knows, by the Committee of University Principals. They have been considering it for some time because they are very concerned at the excessive number of failures in the first year compared with the failures at overseas universities. We were told very recently by Professor Cilliers of Stellenbosch University that universities were getting like factories. He declared that it was impossible for a lecturer to instruct more than a limited number of pupils, day after day, year in and year out. Sir, we may in the future increase the number of our universities but I am asking for immediate action. I am asking that we should use closed circuit television in the universities. With the introduction of first-year preparatory classes, one professor could lecture to 20 to 40 classes simultaneously and he could have two-way telecommunication direct with the junior lecturers who run these classes, and also with any student in that class who could ask questions immediately. This is what is done in America, in the Pennsylvania State University and in the Miami University, where this system was instituted in 1962. This system is inexpensive to install, and I would like the hon. the Minister to give it his very serious consideration.

Instead of attending many lectures, the students should be doing more reading, more seminar work, more essay writing, and they should also be doing more practical work in the laboratories. This stimulates them to think for themselves and it will also help us in the future to produce the type of citizens we are looking for. A common foundation, shared between all courses, as advocated by Professor Malherbe, would, I feel be impracticable. It would be better to have the foundation here for science and technology by itself. I feel that our first aim should be to establish which students should take degree courses and how we can encourage them to take those courses; how to get them over the first- and second-year hurdles. I feel that they should encourage by way of bursaries, not only the type of bursary that would be given ordinarily but by way of the type of stipend for which I have asked here. [Time limit.]

I think we all have cause for expressing our great appreciation of the high level of education that we have had in this country hitherto. There are one or two matters, however, that I should like to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister on this occasion. When I say that we greatly appreciate the education and the instruction that we have been enjoying in South Africa, I want to add that it is also necessary for us to place our education in South Africa at a very high level, because I do not think that we in South Africa can make a better investment than to invest in knowledge for our children.

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. Mostert). We have made provision in this House for a national educational policy for all colour groups in this country except for the White group. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what progress has been made with the report of the National Education Advisory Council. I want to know whether this report is not yet available. I do think that our education suffers in this respect, and I do not think it is a salutary thing for our education to have a divided policy and to have divided control over education for Whites in South Africa. I would urge very strongly therefore that we be given a report with regard to the work that has been done hitherto and that we institute a national educational policy for Whites in South Africa. We cannot afford to play around or to experiment or to gamble with the education of the White man in South Africa. In saying that, I am not alleging that we are doing so, but what I am asking is that very serious attention be given to this matter.

The hon. member for Middelland (Mr. van der Merwe) made the observation at the beginning of his speech that we cannot survive if we have scientists and technologists only. Sir, nobody suggests that we can. We all have a very high regard for academic training and for academic knowledge, but I want to put forward an ardent plea here this afternoon for more and better facilities for the training at our higher technical schools of technicians whose services we need in this country. It is costing South Africa millions to bring immigrants here—and nobody quarrels with that idea—in order to keep our great industrial development in South Africa going and to expand it. My plea, however, is that we should remove the stigma which has always attached to trade schools or vocational schools and that rather than have I.Q. tests we should institute tests of skill. The manual skills displayed by boys should be developed in those higher technical colleges to the maximum degree. We should take steps to encourage parents and to encourage students to attend those schools. And when pupils are recruited for those schools, the necessary facilities should be available. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to take cognizance of one thing and that is this: One of the great deficiencies at these schools, as far as my knowledge goes, is the lack of halls. Such halls are urgently needed for boys who attend these higher technical schools. While I am on this subject I want to put forward a plea at the same time for the higher technical school at Wolmaransstad. Is it not possible to expedite this matter so that that school can have a hall? It is absolutely essential for the education of our children to have halls attached to these schools.

I also want to put forward a plea that consideration be given to the establishment of a training college where we can train teachers and instructors for higher technical schools. I would urge that we start thinking along the lines of establishing a training college, even if we start with one only, where we can specifically train people for the purpose of giving instruction to boys who display manual skills. Along these lines we will then be helping to solve the problem of the shortage of technicians in South Africa.

The hon. the Minister will remember that there was a motion before the House in 1962 dealing with scientific training.

It was my motion.

That is correct; the hon. member is right for the first time in his life! Hon. members on all sides of the House supported that motion unanimously. I want now to ask the hon. the Minister, because his Department was also in agreement with that motion, what he has done in connection with the recommendations which were adopted then and with which he agreed. Has anything been done in this regard? You see, Mr. Chairman, an authority like Lehman who has investigated 2,500 cases, came to the conclusion that scientists are at their peak at an early stage of their lives. He discovered, for example, that in chemistry the best work is done by chemists between the ages of 26 and 30 years; in the case of physics, between the ages of 30 and 34 years and in the case of mathematics, between the ages of 30 and 34 years as well. What is the Department of the hon. the Minister doing to enable future scientists to obtain the highest qualifications as soon as possible? It was suggested at the time that those schools which had the facilities should institute a post-matriculation course. One school has already done so. As the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) said, when one considers the wastage of first- and second-year students at university—in many cases it is as high as 40 per cent or 50 per cent—one wonders whether the time has not come for those schools which have the facilities to institute a post-matriculation class. That course can even count as the first year at university. I am speaking now about scientific subjects. It will make the task of the universities themselves so much easier.

Scientists attached to universities tell me that the position is simply impossible. I am informed that the proportion of lecturers to students in South Africa is 1 to 80, while the recognized norms in overseas countries is 1 to 10 or, at the outside, 1 to 20. When one considers that the standard of civilization of a nation can be gauged not only according to the number but also to the quality of its scientists, then I think that we have reason to give serious consideration to this matter. When one considers that South Africa spends less on scientific training than other young countries such as Israel and Australia, then one realizes how little we are actually doing in regard to this tremendous task which faces us.

One of the reasons why the proportion is so one-sided, namely, 1 to 80, is because we simply do not have sufficient professors at our universities to do the work.

Where do you get those statistics?

I obtained them from a group of university professors who have to deal with this position daily.

You say, one lecturer per 80 students?

Yes.

That is not true.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) has just pointed out to me that in “Science and Education: A Challenge to South Africa”, by Dr. D. B. Holt, he reflects the ratio, in the case of the University of the Witwatersrand, not as 1 to 80 but as 1 to 100! He says—

That is not right.

I do not want to argue about this matter. If the hon. the Minister is not in agreement with the principle that the ratio should be reduced, then I do not want to argue about the matter at all. What difference does it make if it is 1 to 100 or 1 to 80?

The ratio is 1 to 16.

And in regard to mathematics at the University of Cape Town? Is it the same?

Yes. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about.

It is as well that we know that the ratio is 1 to 16 at the University of Cape Town in the case of mathematics and the other sciences.

The average is 1 to 16. This is the average ratio at universities generally.

The information I have given is from people who are concerned with these matters.

I deal with all the universities.

I am speaking about the universities I know—Stellenbosch and Cape Town. If the hon. the Minister tells me that the professors do not know what they are talking about, that they cannot count, that is his affair.

There is another point and that is that lecturers complain that they have little time for research; that they do not have adequate equipment for research; that they are saddled with administrative work and that they have to give many more lectures than is the case overseas. If this is so, is the hon. the Minister not prepared to assist these people? Perhaps they are also wrong in this regard. I do not know. The hon. the Minister is always right —at least, so he says. Because the hon. the Minister is always so right, let us discuss a matter about which both he and I know something—the scientific associations. I understand that the hon. the Minister made a statement in which he said that because of his sympathy for the Coloured scientists in the country, he was going to establish organizations especially for them; that they were so harshly treated in the past that of the 12,000 members of these scientific associations—his figures are wrong here too; the number should be 14,000—only eight were Coloureds. In the first place, let me tell the hon. the Minister this. Neither he nor I know how many Coloureds belong to those scientific associations. This time I know what I am talking about; this time the hon. the Minister cannot bluff me. Neither of us knows because, as far as I know, not one of the constitutions of these associations provides that an applicant has to indicate the race group to which he belongs. Why is the hon. the Minister doing this? Is it out of pettiness or out of pride? He now wants to make us believe that he is doing it out of affection for the Coloureds but he knows and I know that the background to this matter was a circular which was sent to the scientific associations in which the hon. the Minister asked them to amend their constitutions to exclude Coloureds. The hon. the Minister is not listening. Is what I am saying the truth?

I have heard everything you have said.

The hon. the Minister wanted to compel those associations to expel the Coloureds from their organizations. The hon. the Minister threatened to withhold their allowances unless they did what he asked. Not one of these organizations, that I know of, was willing to take the slightest notice of the hon. the Minister’s threat. All of them gave the hon. the Minister to understand, in one way or the other, that he could keep the allowance, which is, in any event, of no consequence.

That is not true.

What is the allowance? Some of these organizations receive less than R100. They said that they would rather increase their subscriptions than yield to the threat of the hon. the Minister. What disturbs me is this: The hon. the Minister is now giving us to understand that he is going to organize the Coloureds separately because of his affection for them. It is not out of his affection for them that he is going to do this, Sir. It is on account of his pettiness because he was not able to have his way with these scientific associations. Is the hon. the Minister aware of the fact that he can do untold damage to the good name of South Africa and to scientific standards as a result of his action in this regard? Was he warned about this? What became of the promise which he made in this House to discuss this matter with two leading scientists, Drs. Ampie Roux and Pitt? Did he discuss it with them? Has this been done with their approval? Has it been done with the approval of Dr. Meiring Naude, who is at present the chairman of that association? [Time limit.]

I should like to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. members for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg) and Witbank (Mr. Mostert) in connection with the national education policy in South Africa. I do so because I understand that although the report of the advisory council is not yet available, a little bird has told me that it is stated, inter alia, in that report that there should be a further dismantling of central control over White education.

What report are you talking about?

I understand that that report indicates that they are thinking along these lines.

You know more about that than I do.

I should like to know whether this is true or not because it is causing great concern at the moment, particularly because there was a commission appointed by one of the provinces, a commission which not only recommended it but which actively advocated it. I mention the matter here because the provinces are members of the advisory council. This fact is causing great disquiet in the country. We want a national education policy and when we have it we do not want to experience a further fragmentation of our education under the guise of so-called differentiation.

I want actually to deal with our higher education system which falls under this Department and which is relevant to this Vote.

I am also disturbed in regard to the few universities we have in South Africa. Some years ago I moved a motion in this House in regard to technological and technical education—not only technical education, but both technical and technological education. As a result of this fact a technical high school will now be established in the Vaal triangle, but this does not solve my problem. My problem is that technologists have to study at a university full-time in order to become technologists or scientifically trained persons. There are men in the Vaal triangle and also on the Rand, in the mines and also in many industrial institutions, who want to qualify as technologists but who cannot do so because they will then have to give up their work in order to study full-time at a university. I should like to see the establishment of a technological institute, either at a university or somewhere else, where a person can qualify as a technologist without giving up his work. The position today is that a person may work as an operator in a factory. He becomes qualified and becomes a technician; while this person is working he attends a technical school and he qualifies as a technician, but to become a technologist he has to study somewhere fulltime. I should like to see the establishment of an institution where that person can also study part-time. Hon. members will understand that he cannot study part-time at the moment because he is expected to do a certain amount of research. He has to do research and thus he is compelled to attend university full-time. I say that he can do that research at the institution to which he is attached. Take Sasol as an example. The research which a man has to do in order to graduate as a technologist can be done at the Sasol factory. It is not necessary for that person to attend university in this connection. He need not attend university full-time. There are numbers of our own sons and daughters who wish to qualify as technologists and we must make this possible for them without their being required to give up their work. Many of these people are married; they are the breadwinners and they cannot give up their work in order to study further. We do not as yet have the necessary funds in South Africa to enable us to grant bursaries to these people. I am making a plea for these people, and for this reason I am advocating not only a technical institute but a technological institute, an institute at which those people can bridge the gap between a technician and a technologist.

I come now to the question of the increase in the number of universities. I think that a good case has already been made out for the fact that we must have more universities in South Africa. The newspapers are full of this fact nowadays and many professors have expressed themselves in this regard. I want to sound the warning that if we do not give our attention to this matter now, we shall again be caught in five or ten years time as we were caught in the past and as we have been caught at present in regard to technical colleges. This is not the only thing I want to advocate; I think too that we can increase the number of faculties at the various universities. I want to mention one faculty to which I think we should give attention and that is the faculty of medicine. At the moment we have two medical faculties in the Transvaal, two in the Cape Province and one at the University of Natal. I think it is necessary that a medical faculty be established in the Orange Free State. Let me say this, Mr. Chairman. At the medical faculty in Pretoria the medical students taking physics as a subject have to sit in a classroom containing 500 first year students. There are 500 students in one hall; they do not know whether they are coming or going. I am speaking now from the experience which I had there as a young man; this was my bitter experience. There were 500 in one class. We hear so much about the high failure figure in regard to first-year students and I submit that this ought not to be the case. I want to ask the hon. the Minister in all earnestness whether he is satisfied that all the students at the universities who fail are themselves to blame for this fact or whether this position is due to the state of affairs which prevails at our universities to-day. I feel that there is a great wastage of our manpower taking place there to-day. I could almost say that the universities in South Africa to-day think that they are almighty in their sphere and that they can deal with the students as they please. I see the position as I experienced it. They want to maintain a high standard. They are not concerned about the number of people whom they are going to train in the service of South Africa but about the standard of their institution; that is how far they have come at the moment. I express this criticism of our universities because of this fact. I think that there ought to be far more personal contact between lecturer and student. The figure given by the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) is not as ridiculous as it may seem. The average is 1 to 16 throughout the country but it is the small universities of Grahamstown, Potchefstroom and Bloemfontein which provide us with that average figure as against the large universities, but it is the large universities which provide technological training in South Africa. The lecturers at the smaller universities only teach academic subjects; they do not teach scientific subjects, and so the figure given by the hon. member for Sea Point is not as silly as it sounds. It is true that the average ratio is 1 to 16 but this is not the case in regard to certain subjects. Take the subjects of physics and zoology. Where are these subjects taught? [Time limit.]

When my time expired I was reminding the hon. the Minister that last year when he granted a one-year extension to scientific organizations he told us that he would discuss the matter with Drs. Pitt and Ampie Roux. Because the hon. the Minister mentioned their names I want to ask him whether these two gentlemen are in agreement in regard to the actions which the hon. the Minister now wants to take. Did he consult Dr. Meiring Naude?

I shall reply.

The hon. the Minister need only say yes or no. I should like to know something else from the hon. the Minister. Does his statement mean that he is going to insist that the existing scientific organizations amend their constitutions so as to prevent Coloureds and non-Whites becoming members of those organizations in the future? Did I understand the hon. the Minister correctly in this regard?

Make your speech; I shall reply.

The hon. the Minister does not want to reply. [Interjections.] I do not care if the hon. the Minister interrupts me. I just want to know whether this is his intention because, if it is, then I say here and now that apartheid has gone completely mad. The hon. the Minister himself says that there are only eight Coloureds among the 12,000 members belonging to these scientific organizations. If the hon. the Minister thinks that he can organize the Coloured, the non-White scientists, as he said at the time, on the same basis as the football or soccer players have been organized, then I am sorry but I must come to the conclusion that the hon. the Minister is not in earnest in regard to this matter and is simply being petty. How can a physicist discuss physics with a geologist or with a chemist? I do not think that the hon. the Minister is in earnest in regard to this whole matter. At the same time he runs the risk whereby these scientific organizations may find themselves isolated in the world and, if this happens, the blame for it must rest squarely on the shoulders of this Minister and this Government. The hon. the Minister knows what this will mean. It is only by means of these organizations that South Africa still has contact with the rest of the scientific world to-day. Any scientist will be able to make it very clear to the hon. the Minister that they are not willing to take the risk of becoming isolated in this world.

Talk is cheap.

It is the chairman of the farming group who says that; the Deputy Minister of Agriculture! The future Minister of Agriculture!

I hope that the actions of the hon. the Minister will not result in these scientists finding themselves isolated in a hostile world. There must be some place where scientists can meet one another. If the hon. the Minister tells me that representatives of the Coloured organizations can meet representatives of the White organizations at a high level, what is wrong in giving eight—this is his figure—-out of 12,000 the opportunity to participate in the knowledge of, if I may put it in this way, their betters, the Whites? Are we going to have no contact at all between the races in this country, not even on a scientific plane, not even at high level? Is this the direction which the Government is taking? I think that the hon. the Minister must tell us what the position is so that we may know what he is doing. I have discussed this matter with many scientists, scientists of both political parties. I want to give the hon. the Minister my word of honour that I have not come across a single confirmed Nationalist scientist who has not condemned this action of the hon. the Minister. Does this make no difference? I know that there are hon. members sitting on those benches who agree with every word I have said and who have told me as much.

Nonsense!

Yes, there are. I am speaking of scientists, not butchers!

Who is your butcher?

This is a serious matter. There are people, including Nationalists, who are sincere in their intentions towards South Africa. That hon. member who has just interjected was, so I understand, a teacher and the principal of a school in his time. He is aware of the fact that scientists are worried that if action is taken against them by overseas bodies they will experience the difficulty in the future of no longer being able to place South African students overseas for doctors’ degrees, honours’ degrees and so forth, because all those placements are usually done by way of personal contact between professors here and overseas. This will be one of the results. There are, of course, some people who believe that we do not need the outside world; that we do not need the scientific assistance of the world; that we are big enough to do everything on our own! But the hon. the Minister and I know that this is not so.

If the hon. the Minister can prove that things have gone wrong on social occasions, for example, on an occasion when one Coloured attended the meeting of the Astronomers’ Association—-there could not have been more than one—and that this constituted a social evil, I may perhaps agree with the hon. the Minister. But if nothing went wrong, what has happened to the hon. the Minister? In dealing with serious matters such as these I hope that we will not indulge in politics as the hon. the Minister is doing now. He is indulging in petty politics. While we have evidence from both sides of the House in regard to the shortage of scientists, in regard to the necessity for scientists being trained, in regard to the absolute necessity for obtaining scientists from overseas, and while we have evidence that there is nothing more harmful to a scientist than isolation, one is surprised that this hon. Minister of Education, Arts and Science is taking steps which can only lead to the isolation of scientists in South Africa.

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

I should like to reply to the debate we have had so far, and I want to begin with the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor), who was the main speaker on the Opposition side. The hon. member started off by discussing the manpower shortage. I must say, however, that this matter of manpower shortage has already become a slogan to a large extent. It is blazoned abroad everywhere that there is tremendous shortage of manpower, but without a proper survey being conducted it is very difficult to establish precisely where there is a shortage. We all know that there is a shortage of engineers and of language, mathematics and science teachers. We see this in the schools. There is also a shortage of artisans, technicians, medical men, and so forth. But there is a shortage in a great many other fields as well, a shortage of which we are not even aware in some cases. There are complaints in the private sector. At this juncture I just want to say that in a growing country such as ours we shall have to fix priorities. We shall also have to realize that we cannot solve all our problems with a mere snap of the fingers. We shall have to take into account the fact that we only have a certain quantity of human material which we can use to make good any shortages, and we shall have to make the best possible use of that human material. For that reason, and the hon. member for Wynberg also referred to this matter, a proper survey is essential, and the Research Bureau has in fact launched its large “Operation Talent” to find out precisely what talent we have at our disposal as far as our school population is concerned, as far as our graduates are concerned, and so forth. I may just mention that under this survey a register of the approximately 100,000 graduates in our country has almost been completed, the object being to determine precisely what these people do and in what fields they are engaged, and the provisional finding is that only about 50 per cent of the potential of these people is being utilized. Many of these graduates are employed in positions, particularly in the economic field, in which only 50 per cent of their work bears any relation whatsoever to the tasks for which they have been trained. Our manpower resources are being utilized quite incorrectly in that people are not employed in the right positions and in the right way.

The accusation has been made that too little has been done, that far too little has been done by the Government, and that the Government has not planned ahead. In passing I just want to try to show what has been done over a period of ten years. I want to take the figures for 1954 and compare them with those for 1964. In 1954 we had 285 high schools in the Republic and in 1963, ten years later, we had 513. As far as the number of pupils is concerned, it appears that there were 139,683 in the high schools in 1954, as compared with 215,898 in 1963. In other words, the number doubled itself.

Are those figures for Whites only?

Yes, I am only referring to Whites, because it is impossible for us to make a survey of talent in respect of the other races at this stage, but when the work in respect of the Whites has been completed, the talent survey will be extended to include the non-White groups as well.

In other words, the high school population figure doubled itself over a period of ten years. And we saw to it that the facilities to accommodate the increase were available. Let us now come to the field of vocational education. We find that in 1954 there were 27 vocational schools, accommodating 5,000 pupils, and that by 1963 the number had increased to 77 schools, accommodating 30,025 pupils. The number of pupils had increased six-fold over a period of ten years. I admit, of course, that the higher technical sections were still included with the technical colleges in 1954. The Government took over these sections as from 1956. But this increase is nevertheless a tremendous one. The hon. member for Wynberg also stated that much too little money was being spent. If she will look at Loan Vote M, she will notice that under the Loan Estimates for this year R 1,660,000 is provided for the building of two new technical schools and a school of industries, and more than R3,000,000 for extensions of and additions to existing schools. In addition the Department of Education has granted an amount of R3,960,500 in respect of loans to educational institutions for inter alia, the following services: The erection of a technical school for the Vaal Triangle, the erection of a commercial and technical high school at Vanderbijlpark, the erection of a technical high school and hostels at Springs and a commercial school and a technical high school at Germiston, the erection and extension of State-aided schools, and extensions and additions to the four large technical colleges. In my opinion these are enormous amounts, totalling approximately R9,000,000 in one year, for capital expenditure only. I certainly think that these amounts do not justify the criticism that nothing is being done or that too little is being done. It is simply impossible to do more. As far as future planning is concerned, expansion to the value of nearly R23,000,000 is already being contemplated, with an additional R 16,000,000 for future expansion at schools. For new schools and expansion an amount of R9,270,000 will therefore be required this year, and an additional R33,000,000 for 1966-7 and thereafter. I am mentioning this because it proves exactly the opposite of what was suggested by the hon. member for Wynberg.

I now come to the four large technical colleges in our country, which are situated in Johannesburg, Pretoria, Cape Town and Durban. During the past seven years or so these colleges have undergone a marked transformation. To-day the sole purpose of these technical colleges is to provide higher education — they no longer provide high-school education. They do not provide technical training only, but also do some work in the technological field, and I want to point out that the advanced work is aimed more particularly at the training of technicians, who are so badly needed to-day. One simply cannot have too many of them. The Government is quite prepared to spend tremendously large amounts. As a matter of fact, another large technical college, to be situated in Port Elizabeth, is being planned at the moment, and work on it will commence either this year or next year. We only introduced the courses for technicians as recently as 1958. It was difficult to plan in advance in this regard, and it is interesting to know that, although the courses extend over a period of three to four years, 6,125 students had already obtained their technical certificates by the end of 1963, while no fewer than 4,514 enrolled for the various courses in 1964.

Much more still has to be done.

Yes, but Rome was not built in a day, and this phenomenal expansion that has taken place under a good Government has come as such a surprise to the hon. members on the opposite side that all they can do now as far as expansion is concerned is to ask for the impossible. I want to point out to the hon. member that there is an increasing demand for these facilities. I do not want to go into details, but there are large numbers of people who want to receive technical training, and whenever representations are made in regard to any particular need existing in the private sector or anywhere, a new course is immediately introduced at the technical college. I repeat that there is an increasing demand for these facilities, and therefore we lost no time in proceeding to establish the two new technical colleges which are to be built, the one in the Vaal Triangle and the other at Port Elizabeth.

The hon. member for Wynberg also complained about the training of teachers. I know that that is a sore point. One would have liked to have had a different position in this regard already. However, hon. members will recall that I referred to this matter last year, and in its report of last year the National Advisory Education Council also stated very clearly what field was covered by the investigation regarding the teacher and his needs. But what has already been done? In 1954 there were 13 teachers’ colleges, and now we have 15. In 1954 there were 4,606 students at the teachers’ colleges, as compared with 9,567 to-day. That is to say, the number of trainee teachers has been more than doubled. So there has been advance planning. The provinces have rendered assistance in this regard, our own training colleges have been expanded, and teachers are being trained, thoroughly trained, on a large scale. Here I must break a lance for the married women who have come forward and have rendered assistance in this emergency. We in our turn, have also treated them well, and we are now giving them temporary posts for a fixed period of three years, so that they will have more security. But an emergency does exist. The assertion is made that the largest shortage is in respect of mathematics teachers and natural science teachers. According to the investigation that has been made, that is not the case, and the main shortage is in respect of language teachers, in both languages. We are faced with these shortages. By means of short courses we are trying to help the weaker teachers and those teachers who are not properly qualified for teaching the subjects which they have to teach, and at the moment a course is being introduced to enable them to write further examinations, and bursaries are being granted to them to assist them to write these examinations.

The hon. member for Wynberg also spoke about the universities, which topic also formed the main theme of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss). Professor A. C. Cilliers and others, including myself, have already stated that the number of students attending university has in some cases increased to such an extent that the position has become uncontrollable, and on the occasion of the graduation ceremony of the University of South Africa Professor A. C. Cilliers said that in his opinion the number of students attending any particular university should not exceed 6,000. I agree with him. The classes get too large and become uncontrollable, student life suffers and there are also many other disadvantages in having too large a number of students at any particular university. We have not yet found any means of controlling the number, but we will most definitely have to seek ways of doing so. We cannot use compulsion, but we will have to do something in some way or another. When expressing criticism in regard to the universities hon. members must always remember that they themselves are the people who become angry whenever we interfere with the autonomy of any university. We are as jealous of university autonomy. We regard these institutions as being autonomous, and we cannot impose any form of control upon them and tell them that they may not do this and may not do that. And now I want to tell the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) immediately what my advice to her is. She made a very interesting speech, as she also did last year. I agree with many of the statements she made. But I do not think this is the place where we can solve the problem. She is in actual fact submitting her representations to the wrong quarter. It is no use to tell the Minister of Education that he should introduce an extra year of training, particularly for the technological students. He cannot do that. She must submit those representations to the respective university councils. She may just as well begin with the Witwatersrand, and discuss the matter with Pretoria as well. The representations must be submitted to them. They are autonomous institutions.

Does the Minister have no influence?

I have not tried to test my influence, but I do not think it would be appropriate to test my influence in the case of these institutions, because we regard them as autonomous institutions and we have to treat them as such.

The hon. member for Wynberg raised another point here in connection with which I just want to put her right. I think that in dealing with this point the hon. member went a little too far, and I should like to eliminate any misunderstanding in this regard. The point at issue here is the percentage increase in our expenditure on education. During the Budget debate the statement was made that we are one of the weaker countries and that we spend approximately 2 per cent of our national income on education, while a country such as America spends much more on it.

I did not say that.

Yes, I said that.

Well, it is kind of the hon. member to display his ignorance even further. It is splendid of him. The hon. member said that in our case the figure was 2 per cent, as compared with 4.6 per cent in America. A very interesting comparison is the one in connection with the percentage increase in expenditure in our case. I shall take the figure for the year 1940 as being 100, and then I shall compare it with the years 1950, 1960 and 1963. As compared with 1940, the expenditure on education in 1950 had increased by 215.3 per cent, while the national income had increased by 134.7 per cent. In 1960, as compared with 1940, the expenditure on education had increased by 579.3 per cent, while the national income had increased by 410.7 per cent. In 1963, as compared with 1940, the expenditure on education had increased by 579.3 per cent, while the national income had increased by 591.9 per cent.

That does not prove anything.

If you took 1893 the percentage would be even higher.

I shall never be able to explain these figures to the hon. member for Turffontein. He has now become an authority on education, and he grabs a few scraps of paper together and knocks up a speech and then he knows all about it. I want to tell the hon. member for Turffontein that the figures given by lïarveston and Myers in their book Education, Manpower and Economic Growth, which appeared last year, show that, as far as all races are concerned, South Africa spends 3.1 per cent of its national income on education. But the statement was made here that this figure was 2 per cent. In the book I have mentioned it is stated that South Africa’s percentage compares with 3.2 per cent in Sweden, 4.6 per cent in the United States, 5.5 per cent in Norway and 7.1 per cent in Russia. But this study took no account of what precisely was included in these percentages and of the methods employed by the various countries in arriving at these percentages. The Research Bureau—not just people who do not know what they are doing—has calculated that Government expenditure on all forms of education for all races in the Republic totalled R27,000,000 in 1940, R85,000,000 in 1950, R 184,000,000 in 1960, and R230,000,000 in 1963. These figures are in respect of all forms of education.

What is the percentage basis?

The national income for those years was R795,000,000, R 1,866,000,000, R4,060,000,000 and R5,103,000,000 respectively. The expenditure on education in respect of all races in South Africa expressed in percentages of the national income, was therefore 3.4 per cent in 1940, 4.6 per cent in 1950, 4.5 per cent in 1960 and 4.5 per cent in 1962. These percentages compare favourably with those of countries such as Sweden, with 3.2 per cent, and the United States, with 4.6 per cent.

May I ask a question? What would the percentage figure be if only Whites were taken into account?

It would be much higher still.

Much lower.

No, higher.

The hon. member for Wynberg raised a few more points which I want to deal with. As far as the training of teachers and salary increases are concerned, the hon. member for South Coast was very concerned about teachers’ salaries. I may just say that hon. members know that the salaries of all teachers were increased in 1963. Besides, I do not know what the hon. members mean by the expression “salary increase”. Adjustments are continually being made. The Public Service Commission is still constantly seeking to eliminate any irregularities, and where justice is not being done to people, the matter is put right. I must honestly say that I am not aware of any dissatisfaction among teachers and teachers’ associations. I have received no requests for a general increase in salaries. Must dissatisfaction then be initiated in this House? Is it the idea to see whether one cannot stir up a little dissatisfaction? The number of students in the teachers’ colleges has doubled itself. It is no longer a question of people not wanting to choose the teaching profession. The teachers’ colleges will all tell you, Sir, that the men and women who apply to enter the teaching profession are of a very good type, that the teaching profession is now attracting a good type of person, because it offers prospects of promotion and security. There is no dissatisfaction over the salaries.

Did it not attract a good type of person before?

The hon. member must please not adopt a sickly attitude again! I am saying that the people offering their services in this time of manpower shortage are of a wonderfully high calibre. They themselves feel that teaching is a profession which offers them a future, and I do not know of any requests such as those which hon. members have alleged have been made. The teachers are satisfied and the Government knows its duty. When salaries have to be increased, the Government will know its duty and the salaries will again be adjusted in accordance with the rise in the cost of living.

May I ask a question?

No, because the hon. member knows nothing about education.

I myself was in education until I resigned.

The hon. member will just have to take part in the debate. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) asked further questions in connection with the amount provided in respect of inspectors of anatomy, and he wanted to know why so much money was being spent in this respect. I want to advise the hon. member to look up Act No. 20 of 1959, the Anatomy Act. Then he will see what functions these inspectors have to carry out, absolutely essential functions. These functions are in connection with the medical schools.

I come to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den Berg). He asked a question in connection with school halls. I may just say that the policy is that halls will be built at all new schools which are erected. In the case of the older schools where there are no halls, they are being provided gradually. You will understand that this cannot be done all at once, but halls are being built at a number of these schools every year. The hon. member also asked questions in connection with the training of vocational teachers. Vocational teachers for workshops are being trained systematically at the Pretoria Technical College. I am aware of the position. I have already come across vocational teachers who, although they possess expert knowledge, do not really have any educational qualifications. That position must also be attributed to this phenomenal expansion, but we should like to see that all these people are trained.

Now I come to the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson). He asked what precisely we have done to train more scientists. Well, in respect of the past two years capital expenditure amounting to R8,000,000 in respect of the universities has been approved of for the training of scientists. The subsidies in respect of current expenditure have also been increased by more than R4,000,000 with a view to the appointment of additional staff. The large technical colleges have been expanded, while two new ones are also being established for the purpose of training scientists. Special courses for enabling, inter alia, mathematics teachers and science teachers to become better qualified are being arranged throughout the country. I have already told the hon. member across the floor that the average number of students per lecturer at the universities is 16. In saying that I do not want to suggest that there is no lecturer who has a smaller or a larger number of students. I know that at the large universities some classes consist of a few hundred students, but the average works out at 16 students per lecturer.

I was referring to the training of scientists.

The hon. member asked how any lecturer could cope with 80 students?

In the case of scientists.

That is not the position everywhere as far as scientists are concerned. I can give the hon. member the assurance that at some places where scientists are being trained there are far fewer than 16 students per lecturer.

That must be at places that are unknown to me.

The hon. member must travel around a little and must not think that the world ends at the Hex River Mountains. The hon. member made a big fuss here about these scientific societies. How strange! The hon. member came to me in the lobby last year and said, “Look, do not withhold your subsidies from the scientific societies; I want to warn you that that will not be the right thing to do.” But this evening, before we adjourned, he said here that these people take no notice of these little subsidies, which are only very small. He is now saying exactly the opposite to what he said last year. I stated in the House at the time that I would pay these subsidies for another year, pending the negotiations I was going to conduct with the executive committees of the two factions concerned in this matter. I have now made a statement in the Press. Apparently the hon. member has read an incomplete version of that statement. Perhaps I should read out my statement, because it is a very clear one and contains a reply to the whole of this question. I stated (translation)—

I hope the hon. member will not tell me that this is the first time he has heard that.

No, I have heard it before.

Then I may accuse the hon. member of having made a real soap-box speech here which was quite irrelevant. As regards these relations which have now been built up, I shall simply not allow myself to be put off by that hon. member’s politicking. He exclaimed that if this were apartheid, woe betide us, and that we were finished. I want to tell the hon. member that agreement has been reached with scientific people and that I do not need party politicians here. They do not come into the matter at all, and I am perfectly satisfied that these scientific societies will carry on and will develop along the right lines. We shall not withhold the subsidy from them; we have granted them this co-operation, and eventually we shall have non-White scientific societies. We shall encourage them and support them financially. These two large Afrikaans and English bodies are going to help and the Government will grant financial assistance, and we shall see to it that justice is done to the non-Whites in those societies; we shall not merely grant them a nominal say, such as they had before when they had only eight members out of 12,000 and one tried to convince oneself that one had done justice to them.

Will that mean that the existing organizations will be forced to get rid of their Coloured members and to amend their constitutions in such a way that non-Whites will no longer be allowed to become members of those organizations? Secondly, seeing that the Minister promised on a previous occasion that Dr. Ampie Roux and Dr. Pitt would be consulted, will he tell us what are the views of the respective scientific societies of those two gentlemen, and of that of Dr. Meiring Naudé? And will the Minister also tell me whether any organizations supported this separation, and, if so, whether he is also going to apply it in the case of the Medical Association?

The first reply is that everybody supported it. Dr. Meiring Naudé and Dr. Ampie Roux came to see me together and submitted a memorandum to me on behalf of the Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns. Dr. Pitt is from the Associated Scientific and Technical Societies and he also agreed. The question is what we are going to do once the alternative facilities for non-Whites have been provided. It will be possible for their interests to be served properly in their own way with the necessary liaison higher up. The liaison will be there, whatever form it may take, but these people will not be allowed to remain members of White societies.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). I think we must first understand clearly what the difference between technological training and technical training is. A technologist is one who specializes in applied science, such as a university-trained engineer, a medical doctor, a dentist, a geologist, etc. A technician is one who has received slightly less training and who specializes more in the practical side of things. They are the ones who assist the technologists by performing the work of draughtsmen and so forth. A technological institute, as advocated by the hon. member, is therefore a body having university status, such as the University of Delft in the Netherlands, where engineers are trained, and the technological Hochschule in Germany; on the other hand, technical colleges for advanced technical training, such as the college at Buffalo in the U.S.A. and similar institutions in the United Kingdom, train technicians. In other words, what the hon. member asked was that a university with certain limitations should be established at a factory such as Sasol to provide certain training facilities. I must say that the training that would be provided would be very one-sided. There would only be certain fields in which a person could be trained. If the Government started with that, it would have to establish similar technological institutes at all our large institutions, such as Iscor and Phalaborwa and General Motors. With our population and with the heavy costs involved the solution is the establishment of universities where necessary, with the necessary faculties to provide that training. Such universities must be established in areas where the human material is available for them to draw upon. Take the case of the establishment of the new university in Port Elizabeth. A proper investigation was made in that area to find out how many high school pupils there were, how many matriculands become available annually, and what percentage of those matriculants went to university. If it appears from such an investigation that there is a tremendous wastage of human material in that many people who should go to university do not do so, then a university is established. The hon. member also said that we should take care that we are not taken unawares again as far as the establishment of further universities is concerned. I agree with him. Prof. A. C. Cilliers, the Chairman of the A.U.K., has stated that we must realize at this stage already that in 15 to 20 years’ time we are going to have an additional 35,000 university students. We have now started with the university in Port Elizabeth. Another is being planned for the Witwatersrand. The arrangements have not yet been finalized, but have already reached an advanced stage, and it is going to be established. The establishment of additional universities will have to be planned, but they will have to be situated where the students are at hand. I therefore feel that we have to be careful. It is good that everyone pleads for his own area, but I think it is right that the Government, which carries the responsibility, should decide what the best places for establishing universities are, due regard being had to restricting transport costs and the building of hostels to the minimum, attracting day-students, etc.

Another disappointing thing I have heard is in connection with the National Advisory Education Council. I think it is premature for us to criticize it at this stage already. I am very sorry that the Reports of the Department of Education and the National Advisory Education Council were not laid upon the Table before this Vote came up for discussion, and I offer my apologies to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) in particular. We pressed everyone to get these Reports tabled in time, but unfortunately the Reports were delayed at the Government Printer. We expect to get them perhaps by the end of this week. I am very sorry that these Reports are late. We as a Department are known for the early tabling of our reports, but this year they have been delayed. However, I have a copy of the Report of the Advisory Education Council here, and I want to read out the relevant portion. I think it will serve to set people’s minds at rest, so that the spectres of further division and fragmentation of education and of it being impossible to develop a national education policy will be driven away.

I shall read the following paragraph (translation)—

I do not think it can be stated more clearly, and this report concludes with the following statement—

I feel very happy about this, and I may just add that some hard work is being done, and I do not think we should at this stage take any notice of interpretations as to what this actually means. I want to give this House the assurance to-day that divided control must be terminated and that a national education policy must be established, and if the Advisory Council should advise otherwise, I shall most certainly be the last man to accept that advice.

I should like to ask whether the hon. the Minister can reply to my question in connection with the National Study Loan Fund, which has provided no amount for study loans this year, and whether the Minister will grant the amount of R500,000.

The Government has given us R500,000 to pay into the National Bursary and Study Loan Fund. The Government first regarded that as a loan, but we urged that the Government should be the first to set an example. Legislation will be introduced next year, and we have already been told that this amount of R500,000 will be a donation by the Government and will form the nest-egg in that fund. This donation will be authorized when the legislation is introduced, but it is not necessary to do so this year; it can be done next year. I also want to avail myself of this opportunity to say that I cannot understand why our industries and commercial people are not making use of this opportunity. They are the ones that always complain the most about the shortage of manpower. Here they are being offered an opportunity of contributing 1 per cent of their taxable income to this good cause, not as a donation, but as an investment by which they themselves will ultimately benefit. With all the earnestness at my command I want to make an urgent appeal to commerce and industry to make use of this opportunity and to invest some of their taxable income in this, which will be to their own benefit, because it will help to grant the poor student who cannot afford to study an opportunity to study, and will help to increase our university population.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister how soon we can expect a report by the National Advisory Education Council in connection with doing away with divided secondary education.

I cannot give the precise date, but, as is stated in the report which I hope will be laid upon the Table before the end of this week, they expect to make the recommendations in the course of 1965. I think it will be during the latter half of 1965.

We have listened attentively to the hon. the Minister in reply to what has been said by hon. members on this side of the House. The hon. the Minister also told us that there is a shortage of manpower and that the Government has therefore decided that a talent survey will be made in this country in order to find out precisely what is lacking. But this is not the first time that the manpower shortage has been brought to the attention of this Government. As in the case of so many matters dealt with by the Government, it has always done too little too late, and the same thing holds good in regard to this manpower shortage. A few years ago the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said that we were going to be saddled with a manpower shortage and he asked the Government to institute a crash programme in order to relieve this manpower shortage. Now, in 1965, when scientists tell us that in a few years time we shall have a shortage of 2,000 doctors and when industrialists tell us that we shall have a tremendous shortage of technicians and managers, the hon. the Minister tells us that he wants to make a talent survey—again too late and again too little when South Africa has really to give serious attention to this manpower shortage in order to overcome it. The Government should have given more attention to this matter and it should already in many respects have permitted non-Whites to be employed to do work previously done by Whites.

What we have asked the hon. the Minister in this debate to-day is whether what they are doing at this stage is sufficient. The hon. the Minister told us to compare the figures in regard to the amount of mony spent on education over the past few years and to see what we are doing to-day in comparison with what was being done a few years ago. We do not doubt that more money is being spent to-day but what we do doubt is whether what is being done to-day is sufficient to overcome the problem. I just want to mention one figure in order to prove to the hon. the Minister that the figures which he has mentioned here do not constitute such a wonderful achievement on the nart of the Government. I want to quote to him from the report of the Committee of Inquiry into University Subsidy Formulae, page 67. Table 11 of the Report of Professor A. C. Cilliers. I want to mention the fact that in 1911 the State subsidy to universities was 68.23 per cent; this was the contribution of the State towards the expenditure of the universities. In 1961, 50 years later, the State’s share was 66.51 per cent.

That is correct; they are autonomous institutions.

We know that the State spends about 75 per cent per annum on university education. When we compare what has happened since 1911 when we had hardly any such institutions, and when we consider the fact that the number of universities has increased, we find that the subsidy has fallen from 68.23 per cent to 66.51 per cent, and then the Government tells us that it is proud of what it is doing for education and casts doubt on the figures mentioned by this side of the House in regard to what is being spent in other countries! I should just like to quote a few lines from page 7 of a paper entitled “Science and Education”, by Dr D. B. Holt.

Is that your new chairman?

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) (Mr. J. F. Nel) is not a chairman of anything! Dr. D. B. Holt states—

As the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) said, Britain is spending about 80 per cent of her education budget to assist students at the universities, people who cannot afford to study otherwise. In South Africa the amount made available to assist those students who cannot afford to study is 5 per cent, and then the Government says that it is doing a great deal for education and the hon. the Minister tells the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) that she is wrong; that she must not address her remarks to him but to the universities in regard to the number of students who fail in their first year.

I did not say that. I was speaking about the representations which she made in connection with a further year’s study.

Very well, I am prepared to withdraw my remark if I understood the hon. the Minister incorrectly. It is obvious from the hon. the Minister’s attitude that he wants to hide behind the fact that the universities are autonomous bodies and that we must expect more from them, while we know that they do not have sufficient lecturers and professors available to provide for considerable expansion. The hon. the Minister also doubted the remarks of the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson). I want to make the following quotation out of this same paper by Dr. Holt. The hon. the Minister said that the ratio of students to lecturers is 16 to one in South Africa; that we should investigate the position at the University of Cape Town—that it is the same there. This paper by Dr. Holt states—

I admit that this was written in 1962 but this is the position. How can we, as a Parliament, say that those universities are autonomous bodies and expect them to render this necessary service to South Africa themselves when (they have to obtain 70 per cent of their expenditure from the State? Of course, we then have authority to say what ought to be done. We have every right to appeal to the hon. the Minister to ensure that these people are given further assistance. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) has just made a comparison, but I credited him with more sense than to make a comparison of that nature. He compared the subsidy given by the State to universities in 1911 with that given in 1961, on a percentage basis, and he pointed out that the percentage had dropped by 2 per cent. His strongest argument was that, although so many additional institutions have come into being, and, although there are so many more students, that percentage has fallen by 2 per cent over a period of 50 years. But the hon. member was comparing percentages and not actual figures. How can he say that there is retrogression? The original allowance could have been £5, while this one is £80,000, and so the percentage difference would still be very small. That is no argument. The hon. the Minister has already quoted figures, and I do not want to do the same. I just want to mention a few statistics to show that more money is being spent to-day than years ago in respect of education per student and in relation to the number of students. From 1945 to 1962—these are the figures which I want to compare because the Opposition was still in power in 1945, and we were in power in 1962. The 1962 figure is the latest figure I have been able to obtain from the statistical Year Book. There were 443,847 scholars in 1945 and, by 1962, that number had increased to 718,620. It had not even doubled itself. [Interjection.] Although the number of school-going children had not even doubled itself, expenditure on education in respect of the same institutions rose from R38,248,000 to R188,390,000, almost five times as much. But the hon. member continues to harp on the fact that we are not spending sufficient on education.

I do not want to argue with the hon. member, but want to discuss another matter. I should like to express the theme of my remarks in this way: Our education in South Africa must be more national.

What?

I do not mean party-politically national, but pro-South African and pro-Republican. South Africa became a Republic, and this fact gave us constitutional maturity. The things which caused difficulties previously were removed when we became a Republic. The old era of fear lest we give offence to this or that group, the old period when we were concerned about certain things from the past and did not want to offend one another in that regard, disappeared, and we entered a new era in which everyone in South Africa was proud to live under a Republic. We are living in a new era, and we ask this evening for a new spirit in our education and in our schools. The first thing I ask is that we should make more use in our schools of the symbols of our constitutional independence such as our flag, a photograph of the State President and our National Anthem. There is an American flag in every classroom in America, and there is a flag in every Government office. We in South Africa do not know what to do with a flag. We are satisfied if it hangs on a flagpole and that is all. It is time for us to make our school-children aware of the South African flag. That is my first point.

I know that I cannot advocate expenditure but I ask that an inquiry be made to see whether an amount of money cannot be made available on the Estimates next year, either to the provinces or whoever it may be, to enable schools to purchase the South African flag on a large scale on a rand-for-rand basis or whatever basis it may be, in order to make our children more flag-conscious.

The Coloured children as well?

Yes, the hon. member can get one himself. I want to go further and suggest that there should be a flag-raising ceremony every day at every school; that a request or a decree should be issued by the education authorities in regard to this flag-raising ceremony to ensure that half-an-hour is devoted to the Republic of South Africa. The children can stand there at attention and as one voice say: “Ons sal lewe, ons sal sterwe, ons vir jou, Suid-Afrika!” They will then not grow up to be men who will flee when danger threatens. Our education must be shaded in that way. The time when we were afraid that we might give offence has passed. Afrikaans- and English-speaking people accept the Republic of South Africa and we must colour our education in that way. Our educational curricula are in many cases still drawn up in the spirit of the pre-Republican era when we were still afraid to give offence to this or that population group. We ask that the Advisory Education Council should give its attention immediately to the drawing up of fundamental curricula in which the South African spirit will be clearly reflected—in our Geography syllabus, in our History syllabus and in every syllabus—so that attention will be given to South Africa; that this will be our aim and that the curricula will be changed in that spirit. I should like to make another plea in connection with research. Pleas have been made here this evening for the sciences and I agree with what has been said. But the words of the Bible remain true—that we may not do one thing and neglect to do the other. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned about the fact that the spiritual sciences are not being given sufficient attention. They are certainly not being given sufficient attention. According to figures which I have been able to obtain—I speak subject to correction—it appears that 20 times as much as is being spent by the Department which does research into spiritual sciences is being spent by the C.S.I.R. which is responsible for research in the direction of natural sciences. Sir, I do not think that that is a fair distribution and indeed I think that it is something which merits our attention.

I should also like to make a plea for History. I know that it is an unpopular subject and is becoming more unpopular and this is so because the child wonders how History will help him once he has mastered it. What must he do with it? Where can he go with it? These are the questions he asks. As far as I am concerned, I do not ask myself what the child should do with History but what History does to the child. This to my mind is the crux of the matter.

I have a few figures here which may shock hon. members. In 1953, only 63.6 per cent of the matriculants in the Transvaal took History as a subject. In 1963 this figure had dropped to 52.1 per cent. The figure in the Cape was fairly high in about 1940 when History was still a compulsory subject at school. At that time the percentage of matriculants taking History as a subject was 82.8 per cent while by 1963 the number had fallen to 54 per cent. In 1963, the figure in the Orange Free State fas 56 per cent while in Natal it was 45 per cent. In South West Africa the figure was a mere 37 per cent. These figures, Mr. Chairman, indicate the tremendous drop in interest in regard to this extremely necessary subject. To my mind History is such a formative subject, a subject which gives the child what he needs.

But I do not want this evening to discuss purely academic education. I want to deal specifically with our vocational and technical education. I know that the aim of a technical school is to develop the pupil technically but in my opinion Afrikaans, English, Religious Instruction and History are basic tenets, tenets in which every person should receive instruction, irrespective of whether he is seeking to qualify technically, technologically, scientifically or in some other direction. If he wants to be a citizen of the Republic of South Africa he must take History as a subject, or at least civics or something of this nature, so that he will know his rights and duties as a citizen. I think that this is a matter to which the Department of Education, Arts and Science should give its attention so that the necessary changes can be effected.

I know that the immediate practical objection is that the Joint Matriculation Board requires the two official languages plus Mathematics, or a third language, and a science, as subjects for admission to a university. But is it necessary that this system should continue? Is it necessary? I realize that if History is included there will be five compulsory subjects which will mean that the pupil will be able to choose only one other subject. I want to ask this question: Should we really give the children such a free choice? In the days when we attended school, Sir, we did not have the free choice which the children of to-day have. Still, we got through our curricula and I do not think that we are any the worse for it.

Bearing in mind the assault which is at present being made by communism and liberalism upon Sie soul of South Africa, upon the spirit of our youth, upon the character of our young people, and having regard to the subtle way in which this assault is being made, inter alia, through the medium of books which are written and films which are shown, films which poison our children’s minds in that direction in an extremely subtle manner, I want to say here that, in order to combat this assault, our education has to be radical, positive and revolutionary in order to enable our South African citizens to grow up pro-South African and to ensure that their outlook on life will be so strongly South African that they will be able to offer the necessary resistance to this attack from outside. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Randfontein referred to the costs of education 20 years ago as compared to the costs to-day. Whenever we make that comparison, we should never forget that under this Government the value of money has depreciated by more than half. As a matter of fact, money to-day is worth about one-third of what it was 30 years ago. Therefore the figures are valueless. That was the first point made by the hon. member.

The second point made by the hon. member was that, as we are living in a new era, therefore we must reform our system. The hon. member also referred to our national flag and our anthem, matters which are of an emotional nature. Well, Sir, I am not an emotional person. The hon. member said that people did not know what to do with our flag. But it seems that he knows: he says we must wave it! [Laughter.] The hon. member is a flag wagger. But the hon. member should never forget that it is not necessary to adopt those methods mentioned by him as a means of showing respect for our flag. South Africans have fought a war under that flag; South Africans have died and been buried under that flag in foreign lands. That flag means a great deal to South Africans. It is not necessary to teach them to respect their flag.

As regards our anthem, I wish to state that I have one great regret, namely, that when Langenhoven wrote that inspired Stem van Suid-Afrika, he did not write it in English as well. He could have done it as he was one of those great bilingual South Africans who had the gift of expression in both languages. The English translation is in stilted language and is without the fire and the inspiration of the original. That is my regret. But in time we will get a satisfactory translation. At some time in the future an inspired writer will give us an inspired translation. In the meantime, whenever I have been asked for advice, I have always told English-speaking pupils in our schools to sing the anthem in Afrikaans. Mr. Chairman, the anthem is wonderful verse in Afrikaans! I must admit, however, that I am not stirred by the tune, but that is by the way. I like a tune that has the inspiration of the Marsellaise or the American The Starspangled banner—“Oh say, can you see?”, tunes that have some life in them. But the tune of our anthem is, in my view, as dead as the tune of God Saye the King. [Laughter.]

Finally, Sir, the hon. member made a plea for the more extensive teaching of History in our schools. Well, the difficulty about teaching history is that the child does not have historical perspective. That is the reason why they went over to social studies. I remember asking children at school: “Kinders, het Oom Paul Napolean geken?” and the answer was: “Ja, meneer, hy het hom goed geken”! I can quote other examples. The fact is that often children just cannot distinguish between 1800 and 1900. They do not have the necessary perspective. That is the reason why they went over to these other subjects.

Hower, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say something else to the hon. the Minister, something which was not referred to by the hon. member for Randfontein. I wish to talk about a newspaper cutting I happened to see the other day. I want to refer to something which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) spoke about, i.e. the selection of students for our universities and the necessity of making provision for them by means of scholarships and bursaries. It is an old Cape custom, Mr. Chairman, to publish the photographs of boys who have done well in the matriculation examinations, etc. I do not know what the hon. Minister thinks of this custom, but it is very interesting in many ways. I wish to refer to a report concerning three boys from Cape Town who were amongst the first ten in the Cape Province matriculation examination—a very creditable achievement, to say the least. These three lads are all good at mathematics, science and languages, the type of youth therefore we are looking for. Two of these boys are going to university, and I think they will have very fine careers. But I want to speak about the third boy, a boy who is known to his friends as Kosie. Kosie is also going to university, but before doing so he is going to serve in the South African Navy as part of his citizen force training. Now, I do not know Kosie, and he has never met me. But, nevertheless, he is a friend of mine and I am going to say a few words on his behalf. When Kosie has completed his service I should like the hon. the Minister of Education to discuss his case with the hon. the Minister of Defence. When Kosie has completed his training he is going to Stellenbosch University, and I want him to have his first-year university expenses paid as a bursary. He will have given a year of his life to his country, and I want the country to give a year back to him. If Kosie does well in his first year, at university, I want the Minister to pay for his second year. If he passes his second year, I want him to pay for this third year also, etc. until he has completed his university training.

I make this plea not only on behalf of Kosie but on behalf of every lad who serves in our citizen force units.

What is the position to-day, Mr. Chairman? We hear of this wonderful word “deferment.” If a boy is an apprentice application is made and it is decided to defer his training until such time as he has completed his apprenticeship. If he works on a farm his father complains that he cannot get on without him and asks for his training to be deferred for three or four years. Another parent comes along)and says that his son is going to attend university. He is going to study medicine or engineering, and a request is made for deferment of his citizen force training. I want to say that if a medical student’s service is deferred, he can only be called up six years later. But by that time it will all have been forgotten. In the meantime, though, Kosie has given his year in the service of his country, and I want Kosie to be looked after by the Hon. the Minister in consultation with the hon. the Minister of Defence. As the Americans say, you must “get together” and do something for these young fellows. I am pleading their case here to-night. This is my first point.

The second point I should like to make is that in many instances we send young people to the university who should not be there. We are, in fact, trying to make silk purses out of sows’ ears. It is not only in this country that we find this state of affairs. I am not going to quote what is happening in this country—we all know what is happening. We have all seen reports by the universities regarding students who fail their first-year examinations, etc. I am now going to quote from the German Tribune, that information publication that we receive in our post. In the issue which I received yesterday there appears a report concerning research that had been undertaken in Germany on what was happening in that country’s universities. It is a problem that is experienced in every country. The research officer, a professor, cited the results of an investigation carried out at Tübingen. A Tübingen sociologist had undertaken research at a certain German university. The investigation showed that 70 per cent of the female and 40 per cent of the male students had broken off their studies before taking a degree. I think the hon. the Minister should cause an investigation to be undertaken in South Africa to ascertain to what extent the same sort of thing is happening in South Africa. Are our students breaking off their courses of study? Are we sending people to university for a year or two, spending millions of rands on them, without their taking their degree? But, on the other hand, if we have the right type of student, students like Kosie, students like those mentioned by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West), we should support them. We should give them the training and all the support they need. By means of selection we must get the right people, and when we have them we should make sure they will receive the best education.

I should now like to tell the hon. the Minister about the problem that Afrikaans-speaking teachers and parents are having in regard to the standard of English taught at their schools. I know they are very worried about it. I have read a good deal in the Press about their misgivings. (Time limit)

I should like to deal further with the plea for increased university training facilities made by previous speakers. In pursuance of a reply which the hon. the Minister gave to a question in this House recently, and in the light of an announcement which he made the day before yesterday in the Other Place, we know that the removal to Johannesburg of the University of South Africa as a residential university is at present being considered by the Cabinet. Accordingly, I take it that the provision of additional university education facilities has become an urgent question of practical policy for the Government. This is something about which I as well as thousands of other people in the country am overjoyed. As one who has been most closely connected with the organized effort to bring an Afrikaans university institution into being on the Rand, I take it as being almost obvious that, according to the requirements which exist on the Rand and the circumstances which prevail there, the envisaged university will be primarily an Afrikaans institution with Afrikaans as the language medium, although it will obviously not be indifferent to the requirements of people of other language groups who wish to enroll as students at the university, or who wish to follow the university’s correspondence courses. It is also obvious to my mind that under the policy of the present Government there can be no question of an educational institution coming into being there on a multi-racial basis. I mention this point specifically because this is something about which letter-writers in the newspapers recently have had a great deal to say with reference to the University of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I want not only in my personal capacity but also as member of the Rand University Committee to express my sincere appreciation to the Council of the University of South Africa, its Rector and both its teaching and administrative staff for the fact that they are prepared to move to the Rand of their own volition in order to serve an important purpose there. I want to assure them that if they come in the same spirit as that in which we shall welcome them there, they will experience nothing but support and goodwill. In addition to all the fundamental and other implications about which the Government itself must decide I should like to mention the particular requirement existing on the Rand in respect of part time or extra-mural studies, and I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister in this connection. I fear that the hon. the Minister will be tempted to say that this is a matter about which the university itself will have to decide if and when it moves to the Rand. But, Mr. Chairman, I feel so strongly about this matter, because the need is so great, that I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not lay down as a condition for the removal that when the university moves to the Rand, it will provide facilities not only for full-time day students but also for part-time or extra-mural students. But if the hon. the Minister feels that I am going too far in my request, I should like to ask him whether he will not convey this to the university as an urgent recommendation.

The Witwatersrand and its environs contains the largest concentration of employers’ organizations and employees. I am sure it is not necessary for me to quote figures in support of this statement. Sober-minded and farsighted employers, employers on a national scale such as the South African Railways, the Public Service and so forth—and I can mention many others—adopt the attitude to-day that their staff is their most important and most valuable asset. They also believe that their staff must be trained to the maximum in order by so doing to maintain the highest standards of efficiency. On the other hand, there are many of these employees who will grasp the opportunity of pursuing part-time studies because they have not had the opportunity of attending university full-time. Now that their employers are giving them these opportunities—and, let me add, opportunities which were previously unheard of—they would like to make use of these opportunities to do part-time degree study while in full-time and productive employment.

The existing university on the Rand cannot meat these requirements. The reason is that it has for some years now had a waiting list for new courses. It is unable particularly to meet the great demand for extra-mural or part-time studies. I should like to mention an example to indicate the great possibilities there are and the great need that exists at present for part-time or extra-mural training on the Rand. I want to deal with the question of clerks articled to registered accountants. They are expected during their training to do a course prescribed by law. On the Rand, articled clerks have the choice of doing this course either at the University of the Witwatersrand or through the medium of a correspondence course with the University of South Africa. We find that practising Afrikaans accountants testify that neither of these two alternatives is acceptable to prospective Afrikaans clerks and that for this reason they prefer other employment.

What do you suggest in this respect?

They quote the following figures: In 1963 there were 903 clerks articled to Johannesburg accounting firms. Of these, 854 were English-speaking and only 49 Afrikaans-speaking. Of the 36 articled clerks elsewhere on the Rand, 27 were English-speaking and only nine were Afrikaans-speaking. When we consider how important the accounting profession is to commerce, industry and finance, these figures ought to convince the hon. the Minister of the necessity for establishing a university for these people, a university which not only provides study facilities for full-time day students, but which can also make the necessary provision for part-time or extra-mural students.

I may also mention here that the S.A.R. is going out of its way to make it possible for people who have not followed a degree course to pursue their degree studies while they are employed. Over and above the large amounts which the S.A.R. makes available annually for full-time study, it also makes an amount of up to R400 per course available annually to employees who wish to pursue their degree studies either on a part-time basis or by way of correspondence. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the two examples I have mentioned are clear indications of the great need that exists.

In the few minutes left to me I should like to revert to the question of the National Study Loans and Bursary Fund. With reference to what was said by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) and others, I want to say that it is a pity that those who occupy influential positions and have many good contacts in the industrial world have not made their influence felt. I am convinced that if everyone who complains so regularly about our manpower shortage were to exert the influence which he or she has with companies, the position of this study loan fund would not be what it is.

Who are they?

I do not want to mention names, but I am thinking now of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) a man who has many good friends in mining circles. [Time limit.]

I await with interest the reply of the hon. the Minister to the representations which the hon. member for Westdene has made to him in connection with the removal to Johannesburg of the University of South Africa. I think the hon. member has made out a case for the expansion of university facilities in Johannesburg, but whether he has made out a case for the removal of an existing university, namely the University of South Africa, to Johannesburg, is a very different matter. If time permits, I shall deal with this matter later on, in greater detail.

While the Minister is still sitting on the fence—and I may mention that I have asked two questions in this regard in the last few months—certain Pretoria organizations have stated their objections to the removal of what they consider to be their university, publicly and loudly. They include the Pretoria Chamber of Commerce, the Northern Transvaal Chamber of Industries, the Pretoria Ratepayers Association, the Pretoria City Council, and the mayor—although I know nobody takes much notice of a mayor—and the Pretoria Publicity Association. I shall not elaborate on the matter now, but I sincerely hope the hon. the Minister, who has up to now indicated that he is considering this question of the removal of the university—according to him, at the request of the University of South Africa—to Johannes burg, will make a statement in the House tonight, a statement with which I can subsequently deal.

The subject which I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister is one about which he has been forewarned—and, therefore, forearmed— i.e. the National Film Board. The hon. the Minister will remember that when I had already stated certain facts about this matter a couple of weeks ago, the Chairman ruled me out of order and said I would have to raise it under another Vote.

The National Film Board, which falls under the jurisdiction of the hon. the Minister, was formed as a result of legislation—the relevant Act was promulgated early in July, 1963, that is some 22 months ago. It appears that since that date it has virtually gone underground. One would, in my view, have to be a James Bond to find out what goes on there. All that one knows at this stage—and I think this Committee knows precious little about the National Film Board—is, inter alia, that the Board was appointed; that it envisages a staff consisting of 110 persons with an annual payroll of R246,482; that, according to replies I obtained from the hon. the Minister last year, it had entered into rental obligations amounting to R30,000 per annum; that apparently the money that has been made available to the Board up to now in the form of loans is of the order of R962,000; and so on and so forth. The data I have now supplied puts this Board, in comparison with South African film companies, in the Daryl F. Zanuck class—it puts the hon. the Minister in the Daryl F. Zanuck class, and the board in the 20th Century-Fox class! But, Mr. Chairman, what has the board been doing? This is something about which we have never been informed, and accordingly I hope the hon. the Minister will in due course give us some information on this matter. What is known, however, is that, apart from being granted exemption from certain provisions of the Publications and Entertainments Act resulting in the Board being able to show films without having them censored, there has been a great deal of difficulty in getting the board running, as it were, because of staff and other problems. It is said—in film circles, at any rate—that the position is virtually chaotic. I do hope the hon. the Minister will deny that, and will adduce some evidence to show that that view is wrong. One of the reasons for the unsatisfactory state of affairs would seem to be that staff were engaged without regard being had to their qualifications as film-makers, or as people knowing something about the film industry. It would appear that in most cases the staff consists—unfortunately—of low-paid civil servants and many new recruits who have had virtually no experience of films. It appears that this Board is now soaking up a large sum of money, being the R962,000 without any prospect of the board being placed on a profit-making basis, notwithstanding the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister envisaged its operating on a profit-making basis in due course, at the time the board was to be formed in pursuance of legislation that was passed in this House. In fact, the hon. the Deputy-Minister claimed that because the purpose of the board was to co-ordinate the film activities of the various State Departments, being their productions, and to foster the development of the film industry in South Africa, therefore the board would be able to pay its way. This is a very interesting consideration, in-as-much as the film industry is, in the nature of things, a very speculative one, and here we have a board which has as ready-made clients all the State Departments whose activities it is supposed to co-ordinate. Therefore one has to ask these questions: What has the board, as a film producer, in fact produced? What has the board produced since it was set up? What is the nature, the extent, the quality of its output? How is it operating at the present time? What are its plans for the future?

As regards the quality of the board’s productions, it is not a question of whether one has a subjective or an objective opinion. It is difficult to judge, as far as the public is concerned, because the board’s films are not shown very widely. For instance, films made for the Department of Education are shown at schools only. Films made for the Department of Information are in many cases shown overseas only. I have a lot of information about films made in South Africa by that Department which have up to now not seen the light of day because they cannot get what is called “playing time” on the screens of cinemas in South Africa. Accordingly, it is difficult to judge the quality of the films produced by the board in the way that an individual would judge a commercial film exhibited in the cinemas.

It is nevertheless important, Mr. Chairman, to point to the fact that where you have a Government-appointed board, where you have a Department set up with a large staff—there may be vacancies, of course—involving a very large annual running cost, that some sort of result must be expected by the hon. the Minister. He should therefore be in a position to tell the Committee that all the fears that have so far been expressed as to the lack of success to date of the National Film Board, are, in fact, not well-founded. I sincerely hope he will be able to do so.

I should like to point out that it would be surprising if the board did make an outstanding success of the film business. I have here a photograph of the gentlemen who go to make up this board, bearing their names and qualifications. Their educational qualifications are quite impressive: They range from a M.Sc. degree, to a Higher Diploma in Education, B.A., B.Ed. One of them has 26 years’ experience as a teacher, as an inspector of schools, as a Secretary for Bantu Education. They are highly-qualified gentlemen, but their qualifications have nothing to do with the efficiency or success of a film-producing unit or organization, whatever bearing film-making might have on the Department of Bantu Education, for example. Under the circumstances, Sir, it will be a welcome surprise if the operation of this board and the Department was highly successful. On the other hand, if the hon. the Minister is not satisfied that it is likely to be successful in the near future, he will be obliged to do one of two things. He will have to begin at the beginning with the idea of eventually establishing a Department under his control, with a board supervising that Department, to co-ordinate and to make films, etc.—buit meanwhile allowing private industry, which is organized for it, to tender in the usual way for such a service to the State, knowing the penalty that will be paid by the successful tenderer if the film turns out to be unsuccessful, or a flop. The second alternative is for the Minister to reorganize this entire organization and to get into the board, and the Department itself, personnel who know something about film-making. He should make use of people who know something about the technical as well as the commercial side of the production of films. The hon. the Minister will no doubt be the first to admit that it is not a field in which everybody knows his way around. There are famous people who struggled for years to make a success of a film studio, but they failed.

You could be used as a good actor.

Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, but if I were put in charge of the film board, they might even make a profit some day! I am not offering the hon. the Minister my services. It is his problem. I merely want to tell him that at the time the legislation was discussed in the House, all these fears were expressed by myself and also by various of file hon. members on this side. We said to the hon. the Deputy Minister at the time that this is not the sort of thing that you plunge into very hastily because it is a very costly and expensive venture. He was told that he must make quite sure that it was absolutely necessary to set up a film unit and a film department, with a board, that he could afford to do it and take hard knocks year after year, until such time as the miracle happened—and he turned the comer. Unfortunately events up to now have borne out our misgivings as expressed at the time.

I have a great deal of information that points to this conclusion, which is hardly flattering to the judgment of the Government in this matter, in its decision to set up this board and the film department. It is hardly flattering, Mr. Chairman—and I am being as courteous as I usually am. Since this is the position, I sincerely hope that somebody …

They will take you on as a clown in the circus.

… Now here is another offer. The offer is being improved upon all the time. First I was offered a job as an actor in a film studio, and now as a clown in the circus! I am grateful to the courteous and hon. member. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not know what has possessed the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) to cast suspicion upon a body which is at present doing a great deal of good work. The hon. member referred here to the board which has now apparently gone underground. He contends that nobody knows anything about the work of the board, that the position in certain film circles is described as chaotic, that there is no report on the activities of the board, and he made various other veiled remarks. The hon. member referred to an amount of R962,000 as being an amount which has been poured into this undertaking.

I want to say firstly that this amount is not correct. Originally, an amount of R500,000 was allocated to the board as a starting sum. At a later stage an amount of R442,000 was made available to the board by way of an additional amount. There is an amount of R20,000 on these Estimates, but this is the balance of the amount of R442,000 because all of it has not been used, and it is now being asked that this balance be used in the coming year for the purchase of material.

The Government and the Film Board have nothing to hide in connection with the activities of the Film Board. The first annual report of the Film Board will be available shortly. This report covers the period 1 April 1964 to 31 March 1965. It is obvious that the report cannot be made available immediately but it will probably be made available shortly. The hon. member will therefore have a full opportunity either during the Budget debate or under the relevant Vote to deal with the details of these activities next year. Because suspicion has been sown in connection with the activities of the Board, as though it were something sinister and as though the board had gone underground, as the hon. member said, I think that it will be in the public interest for me to give the Committee certain information in connection with the board’s activities. It is true, Mr. Chairman, that this Film Board experienced difficulty when it started operating last year. It experienced the difficulty that it had to deal with old and obsolete laboratory equipment. The members of the board realized that while this Film Board would have to operate as a profitable business undertaking, it would be very difficult for it to start operating with such old and unservicable laboratory equipment. It was because of this fact that the adjustments which the board had to make were very comprehensive indeed. I really think that the metamorphosis of the board from its previous form into a business undertaking is quite remarkable and is something which merits the admiration of all.

After the Film Board had been in operation for three months, it realized that there were certain shortcomings throughout its organization, in its laboratory set-up and so forth. The Board itself investigated the shortcomings which it experienced. It appointed a one man commission; it obtained the services of O. & M. officials and it even obtained advice from outside individuals. A certain Mr. Otto was one of them. That is why it is so unfair of the hon. member to say that he will be surprised if the board operates at all because it is only people like a former Secretary of the Department of Bantu Education and so forth who serve on the board. He mentioned other names as being those who had apparently no knowledge of these matters.

I did not mention names; I merely spoke of the degrees.

Very well, the degrees then. He spoke of them as though they had no common sense. These people are advised by technical experts and do at least have sufficient judgment to be able to take the right decisions.

As a result of the investigations which the board instituted of its own volition decided to effect certain drastic changes. In the first place it decided to effect certain staff changes. One of the staff changes effected by the board resulted in its having to ask a number of its officials to resign. These were people who were able to hold their own under the old regime but simply could not adapt themselves to the swift tempo required by a business undertaking. Secondly, the board decided to replace all its old equipment. As a result of these far-reaching changes effected by the board itself both in the staff sphere and in the laboratory sphere I can tell the Committee this evening that the board is now getting into its stride. I should like to mention certain facts in order to show how the board is getting into its stride. The extent to which the board is enjoying the cooperation of State Departments may be obvious from this one single fact—that the Treasury has already approved departmental requisitions to an amount in excess of R 1,000,000 for the making of films during the current financial year. As hon. members know, Departments must make provision in their own estimates for the films they want made. They have sent in their requisitions and, as I have said, the amount involved is in excess of R 1,000,000. The Departments can now start having the necessary scenarios written. The Film Board can assist in this regard. I may also state that the production division is already well under way. When one considers that this amount of R 1,000,000 actually excludes to a large extent the work of the Department of Information, because that Department is at the moment still meeting its own requirements in this connection, this fact speaks volumes for the sound co-operation which exists between State Departments and the Film Board.

Amazingly good progress has been made over the past year in regard to production itself. When the Board took over, the old film production unit was busy with 18 films. This board completed those 18 films. Apart from this, over the past year the board has also received orders for 45 new films to an amount of R450,000, and of these 45 new orders, 30 have already been completed. I think I should also give the Committee some information as far as the question of income is concerned, to show how this board is getting into its stride. The total amount for which payment has already been claimed in respect of the past year amounts at the moment to R275,000.

In connection with the 45 new orders?

No, this amount represents the income for the past year.

As a result of the problems to which I have referred, the board suffered a heavy loss in its first nine months of operating. It suffered a loss of R95,000 in these first nine months. What is of great importance is the fact that after it had got into its stride and had carried out its re-organization, it placed itself on such a sound footing that it was able to operate at a profit over the last three months; it was able to operate on such a profitable basis that it was able to reduce that loss of R95,000 to R 83,000.

In regard to the question of co-operation with the trade and the way in which the trade is utilized for the making of films. I should just like to mention that when the Bill was introduced we said that the aim of the Board would also be to stimulate the private film industry. This has been done over the past year. Over the past year the Film Board has made 11 films available to the private film industry to an amount of R 148,000. So in this way provision is also being made to ensure that the private film industry receives its quota and is thus given the necessary stimulus.

I may perhaps just add that the co-operation between the private film industry and the Film Board is of the very best. [Time limit].

We have had a very wide discussion to-day on many aspects of university life including the problem of additional facilities, more funds for the universities, more bursaries, educational loans and the failure rate amongst the students. But I want to discuss another aspect which I think has a bearing on all these matters which have been discussed and that is the question of the use of vacations by university students.

The syndic of the Council of Education produced an annual report for the year ended 30 September 1964 where they dealt very fully with this topic under the heading “The Use of Vacations by University Students”. Closely allied with the question of vacations is the amount of time the students spend at university. The less time they have on vacation the more time at university; and conversely, the more time on vacation the less time at the university. Dealing with this question the report said the following—

If you look at the calendar for the University of Cape Town, Sir, you find a similar position. For approximately seven months of the year the students are at university and for approximately five months of the year they are on vacation. Therefore, taking a broad picture of the universities in South Africa, I think we will find that this is the general picture: Anything from 6½ to 7 months at university and anything from 5 to 5½ months on vacation. The report goes on to deal with this aspect and says—

I think we have all found that this is correct—

spect of a test and in fact little or no academic work is done. Quite a number in the science and allied faculties are expected to do limited periods of, say, two months in work associated with their courses. The rest either do nothing at all or get vacation jobs in order to earn pocket money.

The report goes on to deal with the use of the university per se and this has a great bearing on what we have been discussing this afternoon—

They go on to deal with the question of staff and they point out, quite rightly, that the staff is concerned with other things such as research projects, correction work, preparation of teaching etc. etc. and then they make this remark—

That, I think, is the crux of this matter, Mr. Chairman,—

This is no new problem. This problem of university vacations and what the students do during their vacations. In England a commission was appointed under the chairmanship of Sir Edward Hale and this was what they said in their interim report to the University Grants Committee—

In the United States of America this whole question of vacational work for students is as important as any other single faculty at the university. In the larger universities in the United States they have departments, which are almost as big as any other department, whose sole objective is to deal with vacational work for students. Flowing from that, is the very point raised by the hon. the Minister when he said that in the case of students who had degrees in economics, less than 50 per cent were employed in the profession in which they had qualified. What happens in the United States? By arrangement with large organizations the student, in his vacational period, goes to different firms, It is a two-sided bargain. The student goes there for experience and the firm takes him to give him experience and to vet him. I think experience has shown that a large number of students who go to different organizations or large industrial firms during their vacations end up with jobs with those firms. So they have the practical experience in finding a future for themselves and they are occupied in their chosen professions. There they do not have the situation which we have here, according to the Minister, where 50 per cent of a particular profession are not employed in their particular profession for some reason or other. [Time limit.]

I first want to revert to the remarks made during the course of this debate and in previous debates this Session in regard to the shortage of teachers. It is true that the shortage of teachers to-day is a world phenomenon. I want to read something from a periodical. The title of the article is “Teachers Overworked”, and then they say the following—

The name of this periodical is “The German Tribune”. That shows that where there is a flourishing economy, as is the case in Western Germany, there is also a shortage of teachers.

I should like to mention one reason for this shortage of teachers. It is, however, a reason different form those that have already been mentioned to-night. This reason is that our English-speaking friends in South Africa do not play their full role in regard to supporting the teaching profession. I just want to give a few statistics. In 1963 the position in regard to teachers was as follows: There were 6,525 English-speaking teachers in the Republic and 21,521 Afrikaans-speaking teachers. If this is reduced to a percentage, it means that only 24 per cent of the teachers in all schools were English-speaking. If it is analysed further, it means that 1.2 per cent of the Afrikaans-speaking population were in the teaching profession, as against only 0.5 per cent of English-speaking section of the population. I think since then the position has deteriorated even further. I want to ask that an appeal be made to the English-speaking people, particularly by hon. members opposite. Hon. members should also on suitable occasions make an appeal to the English-speaking people to provide teachers from their ranks. To-day the position is that in the high schools, even in those schools where English is the medium of instruction, English, as a language is being taught by Afrikaans-speaking teachers, and that in English schools many of the principals are Afrikaans-speaking. I just want to emphasize this fact and again ask that hon. members opposite should search their hearts and ask themselves what they have actually done to induce English-speaking people to enter the teaching profession.

I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Muller) in the matter he raised in regard to his request, not only to the Minister but also to the other education authorities, to give history a higher status in our schools. It is quite obvious that in the Republic to-day there is a process of increasing lack of knowledge in regard to the history of our nation in particular and of the world in which we live in general. This lack of knowledge does not exist only in regard to contemporary history and civics, but is also true of the past history of our people. This disquieting lack of knowledge can only be ascribed to the fact that history as a high school subject, particularly after Std. 8, is fast disappearing. I do not want to weary you with many statistics, Sir. The hon. member for Randfontein has already quoted statistics, but I just want to point to this one fact. In 1940 approximately 87 per cent to 90 per cent of the matriculants still took history as an examination subject, whereas in 1963 it had fallen to less than 55 per cent. That was only 20 years later. I must unfortunately say that the most disquieting phenomenon is the fact that such a small number of Afrikaans-speaking pupils take history as a matriculation subject. In the Transvaal in 1963 only 43 per cent of Afrikaans-speaking matriculants took history as a matriculation subject, as against 67 per cent in the English-medium schools. It is a fact that our youth in the high schools, and particularly the Afrikaans-speaking students in this case, abandon history and tend to adopt a materialistic course and take the bread-and-butter subjects, as they are called. This phenomenon which is apparent in the high schools, namely that students push history aside and take other subjects, is confirmed by our universities. From information obtained from eight universities in 1964, it appears that of the 45,864 students enrolled, only 3,249 took history in the first, second and third years. That is only 7 per cent, and those are the ranks from which our national leaders have to come! I say it is absolutely essential that history should be given a higher status and enjoy greater preference.

In this regard I want to say that the youth who grows up with a lack of knowledge of history is without an anchor. The consciousness among the youth of a nation of their own identity and their own national characteristics is awakened only by a knowledge of the past history of their nation. In other civilized countries the study of history is compulsory. I want to mention the example of Russia. In Russia it is compulsory in all schools and other educational institutions for the students also to acquire a knowledge of Russian history, and particularly a knowledge of the teachings of Marx and Lenin. I should like to say that an intimate knowledge of the past history of the nation results in a better understanding of present conditions in the Republic, and that on the basis of that knowledge a better future can be planned. In making this plea I am supported by many well-known persons in our country. I want to mention Prof. Thom, the Rector of the University of Stellenbosch, in this regard. I also want to refer to the Professor of History at the University of Pretoria, Professor Pelzer. I do not want to refer to them only, Sir, but also to other bodies and organizations which have discussed this subject at conferences. They emphasize that not only a knowledge of the past as such, but the use of that knowledge to protect the youth against liberalism and Communism is essential.

Whereas the Christian religion may be regarded as the strongest bulwark against liberalism and Communism, the value of history as a second bulwark should be emphasized. In this regard I want to refer to a resolution adopted last year at a congress of the biggest teachers’ organization in the country, the Transvaal Teachers’ Association. Reference has repeatedly been made in speeches to this important teachers’ organization. This teachers’ organization last year passed the following resolution at their congress—

[Time limit.]

I do not intend replying to the points raised by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat apart from saying that in the province of Natal every effort is made to encourage the English speaking people and the English-speaking youth to follow the teaching profession. Every effort will continue to be made to encourage those youngsters who are inclined to take that profession to do so.

I wish to deal with another specific matter. It follows on the plea made by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) who unfortunately is not present at the moment. The hon. member for Heilbron made a very strong plea indeed for the extension of facilities at universities, for a medical faculty at the University of the Free State and also mentioned the difficulties that faced students who wanted to follow the medical profession. The position in Natal is very similar, as far as the difficulties are concerned, to the position pertaining in the Orange Free State. That is why I agree to a very great extent with the various arguments advanced by the hon. member for Heilbron. The position in Natal is that there is a vast potential of prospective medical students that is being wasted. I feel it is a great tragedy for the future of this country that there is this vast potential of keen, intelligent and vocationally-suited students for the medical profession who are not being encouraged to take that profession but are rather being discouraged from doing so by the lack of facilities.

A group of persons from the medical profession, from the university, from business and parents of students, recently formed a committee in Natal which is endeavouring to establish a medical school in Natal for White students. The ultimate aim is to see that facilities are provided in the province of Natal. For various reasons the medical school which does exist in Natal is restricted to non-White students and consequently those White students who are anxious to follow the medical profession have to attend the Witwatersrand University or the University of Cape Town. Here the economic factor is another important factor as far as the parents are concerned. It is estimated that it costs up to R 1,200 per annum for a person to be a student at those universities. These are actual facts given by persons who have sons or daughters taking medicine at a university outside Natal. So over a period of six years an expenditure of some R7,200 is incurred. Although certain bursaries are available to these students it is a factor which has to be taken into consideration when the student wishes to take medicine outside the province of Natal.

The question of there being this vast potential of students is an undeniable fact. A considerable number of these students make application each year to the Witwatersrand University or to the Cape Town University. But, unfortunately, in some instances only about 25 per cent of them are successful in obtaining admission to the faculty of medicine at those universities. Consequently these persons are wasted material as far as the future of this country is concerned and, what is more important, they are being denied the opportunity of fulfilling their own potential. The only alternative left to these people, if their parents can afford it, is to proceed overseas and be trained there. However, the great pity is that facilities do exist in Natal, but are not being utilized. A reconstruction programme at the Addington Hospital in Durban is being carried out which will be completed within three to four years. There will therefore be a hospital for White patients which will be available as a teaching hospital to persons who wish to take medicine. The ultimate aim of having a medical school for White students in Natal still seems a considerable distance away as far as time is concerned. It is felt that at the present time some action should be taken so as to meet the situation. A scheme has been devised which, we believe, will meet the situation to some extent for the immediate future and that is that the first year students who take the various sciences can do so at the Natal University. They can then proceed to one of the other universities for their second and third years. After completing the second and third years at one of the other universities they can undertake the clinical work connected with the fourth, fifth and sixth years, at a hospital such as the Addington Hospital which will be an ideal teaching hospital. The staff at the non-White medical school which is attached to the non-European hospital King Edward VIII is available to that hospital. That same staff could also be used to assist these students in their fourth, fifth and sixth years of clinical work at the teaching hospital. I know that various approaches have already been made in this regard to the universities concerned and also to the Administrator of Natal in order to achieve this object so that prospective medical students will be able to commence their studies in 1966. The position is that every year that passes several hundred more of these students are wasted. It is believed that in the not too distant future the shortage of doctors in the country will run into something like 2,000. It therefore seems absurd that we should allow a situation to exist in which several hundreds of prospective medical students are lost to the country every year. What is perhaps more important is the fact that these persons are being denied the opportunity of trying to fulfill the vocation for which they are most suited.

Surveys have been carried out to show that a large number of these prospective medical students do exist. At only one boys high school alone some 36 of the matriculants have already indicated that they wish to take medicine. However, with the limited intake at the universities available it is highly probable that only about 25 per cent of those matriculants will be admitted. It is felt that by using Addington Hospital as a teaching hospital it will also be possible to accommodate those students who are taking their course at one of the Afrikaans-medium universities. In their case a similar system could perhaps be devised whereby they can take their first year at the University of the Free State. In that way it will be possible to grant that opportunity to a large number of these students who, at the present time, are unable to gain admission at the English-medium universities and also at several of the Afrikaans-medium universities. [Time limit.]

I am sorry that the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) is not here because I should like to deal with his reference to the speech of the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) and his remarks to the effect that the contentions of the hon. member for Randfontein that a child should be taught love for his flag and his national anthem at school, were unnecessary. I just want to point out that the following declaration of allegiance is made every morning in every school in America: “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands; one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.” Six elements from the national culture are mentioned and emphasized, namely, the flag, the republic, national unity, religion, liberty and justice. The Americans make apologies to nobody for following this practice in their schools.

I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Randfontein said—that in the period before the Republic Festival we can do nothing better than to train our children in such a way that it will not be strange to them to express love and affection for the Republic and respect and honour for the State President in a dignified way. This must be inculcated in them. Furthermore, we must also cultivate in them an awareness of the true meaning of our flag and our national anthem. We must also praise and cherish the language medium used in the Afrikaans and English-medium schools, honour the other language expressly and accept mother-tongue education as the basis of all good and sound education.

Business interrupted to report progress.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.