I move—

That the Bill be now read a third time.

We have no objection to the Bill being read a third time, but I would like to say a word or two on it. When this Bill was before the House at the second reading the principle found general acceptance, and in the Committee Stage the Minister of his own accord moved several amendments for the sake of clarity and in order to improve the Bill and he also accepted several amendments moved by hon. members on this side of the House, I believe that to a very large extent he has met the objections that there were to certain clauses of the Bill with one exception and that is the question of the composition of the board, but even there the Minister, as the Bill is now worded, still has the discretionary power to appoint a board in accordance with suggestions that have been made from this side. I have no doubt from what he has said during the debates on this Bill that he will take into account the considerations which have been put to him when he comes to appoint a board.

Sir, this measure is said to be a milestone in the history of the hotel industry in this country, quite rightly, but the major work still remains to be done after the board has been constituted and when it has to grapple with all the problems that will arise. We on this side of the House want to ask the Minister to go forward with this work as rapidly and as quickly as possible and to have the board constituted as soon as possible. As the hon. the Minister knows there has been a long wait to achieve the purposes which have resulted in the passing of this Bill. Once the Bill has gone through the Other Place and has been promulgated, I hope the Minister will get on with the appointment of the board so that the board may get down to work. We support the third reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Sir, when the debate was adjourned last week, hon. members on this side of the House were discussing what appeared to be the totally inadequate financial arrangements that exist so far as Bantu education is concerned. I want to refer particularly to what appears to be an imbalance in the administration of Bantu Education. I believe that an undue emphasis is being placed on the university college aspect of Bantu Education insofar as expenditure is concerned, and I submit that if this present trend continues it will be to the detriment of Bantu Education as a whole because I believe that at the present rate there are not enough students who have passed matriculation to fill the Bantu university colleges. The latest pass figures show a welcome improvement, but out of the total of approximately 1,800,000 scholars only .06 per cent reach Std. X. This year 636 scholars passed the matriculation examination. But what is of great significance is the fact that of the 636 scholars only 109 passed matriculation with mathematics, a mere 17 per cent. Assuming that all 109 matriculants who passed the matriculation examination with mathematics proceeded to university colleges, they would then represent 10 per cent of the total enrolment at the colleges, and from that small proportion of 10 per cent will have to come the engineers, civil, mechanical and electrical, the surveyors, the doctors, the chemists and the architects, all from this small band of 109 students who have passed matriculation this year with mathematics as a subject, because mathematics is an essential subject in order to qualify for those particular professions. I do not believe that this small number of students offering justifies the vast amount of money that has been spent on the university colleges up to the present time. Sir, I want to refer to the report of the Holloway Commission which was appointed by this Government in 1953, a commission consisting of eminent, erudite educationists, who submitted a report, after having been asked to investigate and report on the practicability and the financial implications of providing separate training facilities for non-Europeans at universities. It seems a great pity that the Government did not see fit to implement so many of the commission’s recommendations. Take this recommendation, for example—

this was referring to university education—

The Commission then suggested that financial assistance should be provided for additional travelling costs to centralize education and to eliminate unnecessary expenditure. Instead of that we have three university colleges established at a tremendous cost and, I believe, to the detriment of other sections of Bantu Education. I want to quote one particularly significant paragraph from the Holloway Report, paragraph 109, which says this—

Sir, I propose to deal with the question of State subsidies later; I want to refer now to the brain drain, the self-imposed brain drain, that is taking place from the White to the non-White universities. I believe it is a self-created brain drain purely to satisfy the longing and the ideological concepts of the Minister of Bantu Education. Sir, it is interesting to study the figures. These figures are contained in the Holloway Report, and they indicate that in 1954 there were Bantu students in the universities of Cape Town, Natal and the Witwatersrand and in the University College of Fort Hare totalling 516, of whom 314 were attending Fort Hare University College. But what is the position 11 years later? We find that the enrolment at Fort Hare is 312, as against 314 eleven years ago, at the University of the North, 391, Zululand 343, making a total of 946 enrolled at the three university colleges. Sir, what is also of interest is the fact that only 700 of these students are matriculated. But what about the staff position? For the 946 students at the three university colleges we find that we have a staff numbering 234. The academic staff numbers 177, of whom only 26 are non-Whites. It gives us a ratio of 5 non-White students to one lecturer. Sir, earlier this Session the Minister of Education, Arts and Science indicated that insofar as the European universities were concerned, the ratio of students to staff was 16 to 1. It is interesting to speculate on where the lecturers might have come from. I believe that they came from the White universities and from the technical colleges and I believe that they accepted these positions because they offered them several advantages. I believe that the salary position was perfectly satisfactory, and by virtue of the fact that they had so few students to whom to lecture, they had greater opportunities to indulge in research and further study themselves. It seems to me therefore that in disregarding the recommendation of the Holloway Commission, the Minister has acted to the detriment of the White universities, and I believe that he has made provision which will not be fully required for a long time as far as the number of matriculants coming forward to attend non-White universities is concerned. But, Sir, what about the question of expense? As far as expense is concerned we find that the financial costs during these five years during which these university colleges have been in operation has amounted to R6,500,000. We find that this year a sum of Rl,750,000 has been set aside for 946 university college students. It is interesting to compare that figure with the assistance granted by the State to the White universities. For this year an amount of R15,500,000 is being allocated for 33,526 White students. I believe that this imbalance of expenditure is definitely to the detriment of Bantu Education as a whole, because I believe that the primary and secondary schools are the seed-beds for the candidates who will eventually go to the university colleges, and I believe that this lopsided extravagance means a gradual draining of facilities as far as the primary and secondary schools are concerned. I believe too that the provision of teachers has suffered as a result of this policy. When one refers to an article which appeared in Lantern some time ago, one finds that the Department’s own edict in regard to Bantu teachers seems to have been contradicted by the actions of this Minister, because there we find the following remarks—

But, Sir, if one wants trained and qualified teachers one must offer some incentive, and I believe that the salary incentive offered to Bantu teachers is totally inadequate. The salaries offered to Bantu teachers do not compare favourably with the wages offered to unskilled Bantu labourers in many types of industry, and I believe that as long as that position exists, so long will there be a shortage of satisfactory Bantu teachers. [Time limit.]

I think I can say without fear of contradiction that it has been amply proved that there has been a steady growth and development of Bantu Education, both in its scope and its efficiency, since the taking over of Bantu Education in 1954. Various hon. members on this side have emphasized this point and I do not propose to enlarge upon it. I contend that the quality and the level of education for the Bantu in general is by no means inferior. I think an examination of the curricula of Bantu Education will bear out this statement. Perhaps I might just point out this interesting phenomenon as far as the curricula are concerned, that altough the Transkeian Government had decided after a debate last year to depart from the Bantu Education curricula and to revert to the curricula of the Cape Provincial Administration, their Minister of Education admitted this year, after an investigation by the Transkeian Parliament, that the Bantu Education curricula were better than the curricula of the Cape Provincial Administration, and they therefore decided to adhere in the main to the Bantu Education curricula. An examination of the Bantu Education curricula proves that Bantu Education, far from being inferior, is of a high quality. Similarly, I think the examination results prove that the scholastic achievements of the pupils are quite satisfactory. Sir, I do not intend to enlarge upon this. I admit that there is a retardation or deterioration at certain levels in respect of certain aspects, as indeed one finds in every education department or in every educational institution, and I admit that as a result of this and as a result of other factors it is necessary to take remedial steps from time to time. I concede that there is room for improvement; I concede that the tempo can be accelerated if the circumstances require it. I am not suggesting that Bantu Education is perfect in every respect; I admit that the last word has not been said as far as these various aspects are concerned, but the main debate, as far as the Opposition is concerned, did not centre around the question as to whether there has been any retardation or deterioration; hon. members opposite dealt with certain issues which are not really related to this question. I want to confine myself in my reply therefore to the specific issues that they raised here. The first matter which was raised by various members concerned the developmental process of the Bantu. They asked that the developmental process of the Bantu be accelerated through the medium of education. Sir, I contend that the developmental rate of the Bantu of South Africa over the past decade has been absolutely phenomenal. But in this connection we must remember that sometimes it is almost physically impossible to develop at the same rate all the components that form part and parcel of the evolution of a population group. The question is whether the rate of educational development of the Bantu should be artificially accelerated without taking into account the other components which also form part of the overall development of the Bantu community; whether their education can be divorced from the rest of their development. After all, the development of a community, if it is to be sound, must be a general, comprehensive and balanced development. In other words, educational development must keep pace with development in other spheres such as the agricultural sphere, the economic and the social spheres. Unless there is a balanced development, an unduly rapid educational development will only lead to frustration and disruption, and indeed we have already had that experience in the past in respect of the Bantu. Other African countries in the north, in the first years of their freedom, set impossible targets for themselves under the slogan of “universal education”; but I think after their experience over a very short period they are already becoming much more careful in fixing a date for the realization of their ideals; they are already beginning to extend the target date by 20 years. I am prepared to accept that in the general process of development, educational development, since education is fundamental, must certainly set the pace and give the lead, but it cannot and should not be entirely divorced from the development of the other components which necessarily form part of the overall development of the community; it should go hand in hand with the development of the other components but it must not break away from it entirely. This approach is constantly borne in mind by Bantu Education. The Department of Bantu Education, like any education department, is idealistic, but it does not allow its idealism to force it off the path of realism.

This brings me to the particular aspects mentioned by hon. members in this connection—the question of literacy, for example. Sir, is it necessary for us to engage in this hair-splitting with regard to the meaning of this word? Is it necessary for us in South Africa to attach precisely the same interpretation to it as the United States? The standard applied by Unesco, for example, is entirely different from that applied by the United States. The United States regards functional literacy as education for a period of six years; Unesco regards functional literacy as education for a period of four years. Literacy in its functional form is a relative concept. The meaning of the term depends on the community in respect of which it is used; it depends on the circumstances in which the community lives and the period in which it lives. May I mention an example? A hundred years ago our forebears, generally speaking judging by present-day standards, would have been described as illiterate, but bearing in mind the period in which they lived and their circumstances, they were not illiterate. They could read and write their own language reasonably well. Let me mention the example of Louis Trichardt who hardly had any schooling. In spite of that fact he nevertheless left posterity that remarkable Dagboek (diary) of his. Would we describe him as illiterate to-day? For the period in which he lived he was not illiterate. That is why one can never lay down a fixed norm to determine literacy.

What would you regard as literacy in the case of the Bantu?

As far as the Bantu in South Africa are concerned I regard functional literacy as the ability to read and write their own language sufficiently well to give them the key to the written word. That is what I regard as literacy.

In their own vernacular?

Yes. That does not mean that they will be limited just to their own language for all time to come because, after all, once a person has learned the art of reading and writing it does not stop there; he broadens his education himself. Let me mention the example of our domestic servant. She was at school for a very short period. She learned at school to read and write in her own language, but within five years after starting to work for us, she is now able, as a result of the fact that she has come into closer contact with English and Afrikaans, to read English and Afrikaans quite fluently and to write in both languages. In other words, it is not a question of the length of time that one attends school; the question is whether one has mastered the methods which give one the key to the written word. If we make our calculations on that basis then I say that 80 per cent of the Bantu in South Africa in the age group from seven to 20 can be regarded as literate. Sir, let me analyse the position a little further: If we take the 1960 census figures as our basis and make allowance for the average growth of the population, we find that in 1963 there were approximately 3.425.000 Bantu in the age group from seven to 20. Of these 3,425,000 something like 2.100.000 or 61 per cent had received education for at least four years, and a further ±650,000, bringing the total to 80 per cent, had received education for a shorter or longer period.

The hon. member for Houghton also referred to the ratio of pupils in the secondary schools to the total number of pupils. She takes exception to the fact that since 1955 the ratio of teachers in secondary schools to the total number of pupils has remained practically constant. Sir, we must remember that there has been a phenomenal increase in the total number of pupils since 1955. The fact that the ratio has remained constant means that on a percentage basis there has been a much greater expansion in the secondary schools. Let us look at the numbers who actually received secondary education. In 1955 the total number in the secondary schools was 35,000; in 1964 it was 51,000. But the hon. member must also remember that it was in the initial years, as a result of our policy to bring literacy to the masses, that we had the great influx of pupils into the lower primary schools. Let me give the hon. member the following figures: Of the 1,259,000 pupils at school in 1957, 72.93 per cent were in the lower primary schools and 22.19 per cent in the higher primary classes. In 1961 there were 71.9 per cent in the lower primary schools and 24.73 per cent in the higher primary schools. In 1963 there were 71.47 per cent in the lower primary schools and 25.16 per cent in the higher primary schools. In other words, in spite of the enormous increase in the lower primary schools during the first few years, the percentage of pupils who remained at school longer, who progressed to the higher primary classes, increased considerably. This means that eventually the stream will also work its way through to the secondary schools; it means that eventually the percentage in the secondary schools will also rise. But the hon. member must remember that there are very real problems connected with this. We cannot simply say that we want to increase the percentage of children in the secondary schools. Not only do we have to provide the schools but we also have to provide the teachers, and in the secondary schools in particular it is no easy matter to provide teachers. That is why we first have to broaden the stream of pupils who work their way up from the bottom and who remain longer at school before we can have a larger number who finish secondary school and who can then be trained as teachers. In the circumstances in which we find ourselves in South Africa at the present time, particularly as far as the Whites are concerned, we are having difficulty in retaining the services of White teachers who are employed in Bantu Education; we are simply unable to keep them because of the tremendous attractions offered both in the field of White education, where there are also shortages, and in the private sector. It is only really those who are imbued with a missionary spirit whose services we are able to retain, and it is because of this problem that we are unable to draw more teachers from the ranks of the Whites to supplement the teaching staff for Bantu secondary education; we therefore have to draw them from the ranks of the Bantu themselves. For secondary education we need people with university training or at least postmatriculation training, and it is not very easy to get them. With the establishment of the university colleges we started with specific planning in this connection and it is because of this that during the past year we have been able to maintain at the same level the percentage of pupils who go on to the secondary schools, in spite of the tremendous increase in the number of pupils in the lower primary schools. I think in the circumstances this was a tremendous achievement.

The hon. members for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) and Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood) referred to the question of university training. The attitudes adopted by these two hon. members were diametrically opposed. The hon. member for Berea said that we were placing too much emphasis on university training; the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) said that we were placing too little emphasis on university training. It is true, of course, that the ratio of lecturers to students in the university colleges is entirely wrong at the present time; it is true that the costs per unit are disproportionately high, but that is the price that we have to pay in order to make available facilities to the Bantu in their own communities and in their own areas. It is because of this that we have been able to increase the total number of Bantu students attending university; it is because of this that it is possible for us to do what we are doing to-day. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) asked for a “significant expansion” at our university colleges. I want to point out that when we started with the university colleges in 1960, this was the beginning of a new educational service that we were introducing. In the first place we had to contend with a tremendous amount of suspicion on the part of the Bantu, and hon. members on the other side certainly made their contribution in stirring up that suspicion. But in spite of that, there has been a tremendous expansion at these university colleges, particularly since 1962. Let me give the hon. member the figures. In 1960 the total number of Bantu students at the colleges was 366; in 1961, 417, in 1962, 483, in 1963, 608, in 1964, 761 and in 1965, 956. In other words, the growth rate from 1960 to 1965 was 22.74 per cent per annum. But hon. members must remember that these are not the only Bantu in South Africa who are receiving university training. There is also the non-White medical school. Then there are the Bantu students who are studying at the University of Cape Town and at the University of the Witwatersrand; there are also those who are studying through the University of South Africa. The total enrolment of Bantu students at all the universities in South Africa in 1964 was 1,897; in 1965 the number was 2,685. We have really completed the first stage of development at the university colleges and we are already examining and planning a second phase with a view to doubling the existing facilities.

Let me first deal now with the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore.) The hon. member says that they have been arguing against Bantu Education for years; that they rejected it, and he is going to prove that the Bantu themselves reject Bantu Education. He then refers to the so-called Cingo Report and proceeds to quote from it to prove that the Cingo Commission rejected Bantu Education. This is what he said—

He was referring here to the Cingo report—

That is the conclusion to which the hon. member came and those are the words that he used in this House with reference to the finding of the Cingo Commission. Sir, I contend that an hon. member who draws such a conclusion from the Cingo report is capable of drawing any conclusion from any report, any conclusion that suits him, without taking into account the true facts. Sir, let me quote one or two passages to you from the Cingo Report. You must remember that two of the most important points made by the hon. member in the course of his speech were that the Bantu themselves reject Bantu Education because they reject mother tongue instruction as applied in Bantu Education and because they are making such poor progress in learning the official languages. Apart from what he said about schools boards, a matter that I also propose to deal with, these are the things to which he confined himself mainly in quoting from the report. Let me quote to you, Sir, what the Cingo Commission itself says with regard to mother-tongue instruction—

The hon. member contended that it was because of the Bantu Education system that the Bantu had a weak knowledge of the official languages. What does the Cingo Commission say?—

The hon. member created the impression that the Bantu themselves entirely rejected Bantu Education. As I said a moment ago, the Transkeian Minister of Education admitted in the Transkeian Parliament this year that the Bantu Education curricula were better than those of the Cape provincial system.

I want to deal one by one with the arguments used by the hon. member. He spoke about school boards. The basic idea of community schools is to place Bantu education in the hands of the Bantu themselves and to make the Bantu responsible for the education of their own children. This right of controlling the education of one’s own children oneself is a fundamental right which must be assumed by every nation at some stage or other. In the initial stages one will of course find that the Bantu, like any other community, will fall short in many respects in this task. One cannot expect them to act impeccably right from the very start. Throughout Africa we see how new governments are faced with problems, but these very problems which are experienced by them are an important schooling for the community; they provide important schooling in citizenship and the responsibilities entailed by citizenship. Time and experience alone can give them the requisite knowledge and skill. That is precisely what we have experienced in the case of Bantu education. In the beginning mistakes were made by some school boards. Admittedly there may have been cases of bribery, of nepotism and of embezzlement of funds. We thoroughly investigated each case that was complained about. There have been a few such cases, but not as many as the hon. member wanted to make out. Even though there have been such cases, that is the price which has to be paid for the privilege of controlling one’s own education. That is the price which has to be paid for the training in good and responsible citizenship which the Bantu are getting by this means.

The fact that in that way approximately 56,000 Bantu to-day actively participating in the management of their schools and the control of their education is an extremely important preliminary to the granting of further governmental functions to the Bantu community. That is what the hon. member does not want, that is why he is protesting against it so much. When the Transkei assumed self-government this principle which has been advocated by Bantu Education, the principle that the school was in the service of the people and that the people themselves should have control over the schools, was not rejected, but was developed. That principle has not been rejected by the Transkei; they have simply developed and perpetuated it. What do we have in the Transkei to-day? We have education for the people of the Transkei being controlled by the Bantu Government of the Transkei. That is precisely what the whole of our system was aimed at; it is precisely what we were striving to attain, but which we could not develop to that final stage ourselves; it could only be developed to that final stage by the Bantu themselves. It is the logical conclusion of the policy adopted by us. In the same way we shall gradually integrate the Bantu school boards with the system of Bantu authorities in the other parts of the Republic—we are already doing so; we shall gradually allow Bantu authorities, Bantu regional or other authorities, to take over responsibility.

In spite of what the hon. member for Kensington said, I repeat that the Transkeian Government has not rejected the principle of education being in the hands of the Bantu themselves, but has developed it to its logical conclusion. In spite of the hon. member’s assertion that the Transkeian Government has abolished the principle of mother-tongue instruction, I maintain that that is not the position. They have retained mother-tongue instruction, but they have only decided to introduce the official language as a medium of instruction at an earlier stage than we are doing elsewhere. I do not agree with them in that respect. I do not think they are right in doing that, but they are entitled to do that. They are entitled to shape their own education according to their own will and taste. If they make mistakes they will simply have to learn by experience. I do not agree with them, and I am not the only one who does not agree with them. I want to refer to the conclusion reached by Unesco in their recent report on ‘‘The Use of the Vernacular Languages in Education”. They write as follows—

That is what Unesco says; that is precisely what we are saying. In another report, one on. “African Languages and English Education”, Unesco actually goes a step further and says the following—

Elsewhere in the previous report which I quoted they said the following—

Those are not my words; they are Unesco’s. That is what they said after carrying out careful investigations in Africa and throughout the world. And if I agree with that and implement it, then I am attacked by hon. members! That is why I say that in my opinion the Transkeian Government is making a mistake in introducing the second language as a medium of instruction at an earlier stage. But if they think they are right in doing that, then they are entitled to do that. My attitude is that the standard to which the mother tongue should be used as the medium of instruction must be determined by its adequacy alone. It is our task to develop the mother tongue so that it can be used as the medium of instruction up to a further stage. I think I have proved that Unesco whole-heartedly agrees with that attitude. Contrary to what the hon. member for Kensington wanted to suggest, the mother tongue is not being used as the medium of instruction in secondary Bantu schools in the Republic. My attitude is that it would be better if it could be used there, but that it has not yet reached a sufficient stage of development to be used there.

The hon. member also said that the standard of English was alarmingly poor. I maintain that that is not the position at all, and particularly that if the standard of English in the Bantu schools is poor, it is not as a result of the introduction of mother-tongue instruction in the primary schools. Let me give the hon. member some figures to prove what I have said. In 1961, when the last of the pupils who had started off under the old system reached matric, the pass figure in English A was 37.6 per cent and in English B 57.1 per cent. Mr. Chairman, you must bear in mind that these figures are in respect of persons who were not the products of Bantu education. In 1963 the people who had had mother-tongue instruction up to Std. VI reached matric, the people who, according to the hon. member for Kensington, are so seriously handicapped by the system of Bantu education, and in that year not 37.6 per cent but 51.6 per cent passed English A, and not 57.1 per cent but 95.8 per cent passed English B. To show that that was not just one year in which they were lucky I shall now give the figures for 1964: In that year the pass figure in English Higher was 58.4 per cent (even higher than in 1963), and in English Lower it dropped slightly to 90.3 per cent. In other words, I repeat, when the products of mother-tongue instruction reached matric the results were better than ever before, and at that time the standard of English was also much higher than ever before. If all the circumstances are taken into account, the standard which is maintained is quite satisfactory.

Various hon. members spoke about the double sessions and the privately paid teachers. We must bear in mind that when one has to deal with a tremendously rapid increase in the school population, as in the case of the Bantu community, one is faced with certain problems which are attendant upon that. One of the problems one is faced with is the question of availability of teachers. In so far as the provision of school buildings and teaching staff, particularly in the lower primary classes, is concerned, it has been quite impracticable to keep pace with this tremendous increase. The average increase of 100.000 pupils per annum as a result of population growth alone, means that at least 2,000 new classrooms or, converted into schools, 200 large schools per annum and 2,000 additional teachers per annum are required. Even if the funds were available it would be physically almost impossible to carry out such a large building programme from year to year and to increase the production of teachers to an appropriate extent. If this tremendous growth is taken into account, there is in fact no possibility of making up an inherited leeway. Because of these circumstances one has to resort to special measures. Consequently the Department has had to apply various emergency measures, inter alia, the introduction of double sessions in the lower primary classes, and the granting of permission to school boards to employ private teachers temporarily, provided they paid for it themselves. The school boards, which are the same school boards which have been decried here by the hon. member for Kensington, accepted the responsibility and built up the necessary funds in a praiseworthy manner, so that more teachers could be employed in this rapid development programme where the Bantu Education Account was unable to provide all the funds required.

These are emergency measures; they are essential transitional measures. They must be regarded as temporary measures. They do not form a permanent part of the education system. The only alternative was to limit admission to the schools, but if that had been done, the loss, particularly in so far as the literacy of the broad masses is concerned, would have been so much greater. I preferred education for the broad mass of illiterates as the right approach, rather than to provide a fancy education to a privileged minority. As a result the number of schools with double sessions increased during the initial stage, in that we had to make provision for the broad mass of the population, rather than to make luxurious provision for a privileged minority. We are not leaving matters at that. We are past that stage now. On a percentage basis the number of schools with double sessions is decreasing. In 1957, for example, out of a total number of 6,322 schools 64.2 per cent had double sessions. In 1964, out of a total of 7,054 schools, the percentage of schools which had double sessions had dropped from 64.2 to 56.9. We are doing away with double sessions as we become able to do so. We are trying to avoid introducing double sessions at new schools at least.

Does that apply to the higher standards as well?

The double sessions are only for the lower primary schools. There are no double sessions in the higher primary schools. In a few cases where no school buildings are available as yet, we have what is called the “platoon system”. In other words, they make use of the same school building, but have different teachers. One group of teachers teaches in the morning and the other in the afternoon. One sometimes finds that in cases where it is not possible to provide sufficient school accommodation immediately. Double sessions as such, however, are limited to the lower primary classes, and mainly to the sub-standards.

My point is that that is also done as far as the higher standards are concerned.

No, it is not done in the case of the other standards. If it is in fact done, then it is a case of school boards introducing it as a temporary measure until other arrangements can be made. It is not the rule; I know of no such cases. If it is in fact done, then it is purely a temporary measure.

Hon. members also spoke about the number of pupils per teacher. Here, too, we are faced with one of the consequences of the rapid increase in the school population and the physical inability to provide proper facilities immediately. When the Department was faced with the admission of this tremendous number of new children, it tried to stem the flood by laying down a maximum enrolment per classroom on the basis of floor space, but it just was not always possible to adhere to that. Principals simply had to give in to the demands of Bantu parents to enrol their children. As a result the quota per teacher actually rose above what we wanted it to be. Although the pupil /teacher ratio in Bantu education is not as desired, and is one of its weaknesses, I do want to indicate that the ratio is not as poor as hon. members want to make out here. I want to compare it with the ratios for the other race groups in the Republic. In the case of Whites the ratio of pupils to teachers in primary and secondary schools is 21 to 1; in the case of Indians it is 35 to 1; and in the case of Coloureds it is 37 to 1. In the case of the Bantu the average ratio is 34.1 to 1. In the primary schools it is 35 to I if double sessions are taken into account and in the secondary schools it is 23 to 1. This position is of course not a static one. This measure is regarded as a transitional one. It is our object to improve the ratio.

The unqualified teachers were also complained about here and the allegation was made that the Department was trying to economize by appointing unqualified teachers. That is not the reason. It is by no means strange to find unqualified teachers in any system of education which has not yet been properly developed or established. Bantu education was taken over from the provinces and the church denominations with large numbers of unqualified teachers in service. As time goes on these unqualified teachers are continually being replaced by properly qualified teachers. In my opinion it should not take very long for those teachers, as a category, to disappear to a large extent. At present only 4,596 Bantu teachers out of a total of 30,119 are unqualified. Approximately 96.2 per cent of them are at primary community schools and at farm schools. Not only are we systematically replacing the unqualified teachers by qualified teachers, but we are also endeavouring to improve the qualifications of teachers in general. That is why I recently abolished the lower primary teacher’s diploma, and higher qualifications are now required.

Hon. members also referred to the remuneration of teachers. I have often said in the past, and I want to repeat briefly, that the salaries received by a particular group cannot be divorced from the income of the broad mass of the community to which that group belongs. The salaries of teachers should therefore be related to the income of the other members of their own population group. If one did not do that, one would sever and estrange them from their own community by creating an artificial economic barrier in the community. This position is not a static one. As various increased possibilities of employment in various competitive fields are offered to the Bantu as a result of their own independent and autogenous development, and as a result of the conditions prevailing elsewhere in the country, improvements and increases in the salary structure of Bantu teachers will have to be made from time to time. I believe that the gap between the salaries of Bantu teachers on the one hand and White teachers on the other hand will have to narrow in course of time. That cannot happen suddenly. We are paying attention to this problem. At present I am carrying out the preparatory work in connection with the introduction of pension benefits for Bantu teachers. When we shall be able to grant improvements in salary will depend both upon the progress we make in that regard and upon the funds available.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) asked me what the position was in connection with the collection of Bantu tax. She said that although I had referred to it several times, I had not yet supplied the figures. My Department is of course not responsible for the collection of Bantu tax, but I understand from the Department of Bantu Administration and Development that on I April 1964, there were approximately 4,125,000 Bantu who were liable to pay tax. Of this number, 628.000 were citizens of the Transkei. Calculated at R3.50 per taxpayer, the remaining 3.497.000 Bantu in the Republic ought to have paid approximately R 12,289,000 in respect of tax during 1964-5. However, the revenue during 1964-5 was approximately R6,600,000 only. That means that approximately 4,885,714 Bantu paid their general tax, which only represents 53.6 per cent. According to calculations made by the computers the amount of arrear tax to be collected was between R30.000.000 and R40.000.000. In view of this unsatisfactory state of affairs it was decided to appoint an inter-departmental committee—it has already been appointed—consisting of representatives of the Departments of Bantu Administration and Development, Bantu Education, Justice and Inland Revenue and the South African Police. The terms of reference of the committee are to institute a thorough investigation, to submit a report and to make recommendations in regard to methods of improving the collection of arrear and current general tax. As soon as better results are obtained I hope we shall be able to consider the position of the Bantu teachers.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) asked a question in connection with the trade schools. He wanted to know why pupils trained in the trade schools are allowed to work in Umlazi, that is to say, a Bantu area, but are not allowed to work in Soweto. He asked whether the White trade unions approved of the arrangements I had made in this regard. I must make it clear that it is the task and the function of the Department of Bantu Education to provide education to the Bantu, but not to provide, create or arrange employment or avenues of employment for them. The Departments of Bantu Administration and Labour are responsible for the latter. All I can say to the hon. member is that when introducing courses I certainly take into account the possible avenues of employment which exist, and that I make it my special aim to provide opportunities for receiving training which will qualify the Bantu to perform the work which has to be done in their own areas. That is why we have arranged for Bantu who have been trained at those trade schools to be allowed to work in Bantu areas. When they have to work in other areas, they have to satisfy the requirements of the normal labour laws of the country and of labour regulations. That is why we have the arrangement that the certificates of persons who have received that training are valid in the Bantu areas only.

With that I think I have replied to most of the matters raised by hon. members.

When I spoke on this Vote last week, I was careful to explain to you and to the Committee that in the past we have criticized the Administration of Bantu Education from the point of view of members on this side of the House, but that this year I was going to depart from that procedure and was going to quote the Bantu himself. I am sorry I have to repeat two quotations, but I think in repeating two I shall dispose of most of the Minister’s criticism of what I had to say. I was quoting from the Report of the Cingo Commission and from the debates in the Parliament of the Transkei. I regret I have to repeat the following quotation—

That is exactly what we are doing in Bantu Education. That is nothing new.

Here is a second quotation from this Cingo Commission—

I am not going to discuss school boards again at length. I was quoting from the debates in the Transkei Parliament and I said that the Minister of Education of the Transkei, Mr. Mdledle, had described the school-board system as “this hissing viper that is poisoning the people”. I quoted also the Chief Minister of the Transkei, Chief Kaiser Matanzima, who said to the opposition that they must agree to the “crucifixion of this stinking body”. Mine were quotations. I did not give my opinion. I quoted from the Minister’s own Department, from his commission, and I quoted from the Transkei Parliament.

But there is one section that we have not heard, the toad beneath the harrow in this Bantu Education, the teacher. We do not hear from him. He dare not express his views. The reason is that all their salaries are subsidized through the school boards by the Department of Bantu Education. We never hear the frank opinion of the teachers. But the Bantu themselves through their own organizations have been condemnatory in describing the system. There seems to be a new version of the famous dictum of Abraham Lincoln—we are told that “Bantu” means “people”—that you can fool all the Bantu some of the time, and some of the Bantu all the time, but you cannot fool all the Bantu all the time.

I wish to speak about the case of a particular teacher because it illustrates the operation of the disciplinary regulations under which the Bantu Education Department is conducted. I refer to the case of Mr. C. M. C. Ndamse, who was a senior lecturer at the Fort Hare University College. His subjects were Native Administration and Social Anthropology. I am going to state the facts as I have received them in replies to questions that I put to the hon. Minister, from a statement made by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (although that did not help me very much), and from Press reports I have seen. Now I want to say that this man was invited by the University of South Africa, which is the examining body for our university colleges, to lecture to a study group on the subject of African Administration. He appeared and delivered a lecture. I have read the lecture, I have read it more than once. I am familiar with the contents of that lecture.

Did you write it?

I should like to be quite frank. I could not have written anything so erudite. This lecturer appeared at the study group and delivered his lecture. In addition to delivering his lecture he made certain suggestions. The subject of the lecture was “Problems of teaching Native Administration in the new colleges”. He was an African lecturing to young Africans in their own college, and he came to speak about the problems that confronted him. At the end he made suggestions for a change in the syllabus. Well, Sir, that is what you do at a study group of a university; you discuss how the content of the syllabus can be improved, and he finished up by saying—

They were not taken as such. He was charged under the disciplinary regulations with a serious breach of discipline, insubordination, and behaving in a manner academically and professionally reprehensible. Sir, there are certain aspects of this case I should like to pull to the hon. Minister. I hope he will make a complete statement on the subject, because it affects every person employed by his Department. This professional lecturer at the University College was invited to speak at a study group of fellow-academicians, men who are doing the same work as he himself. He spoke frankly and put his problems to them. I think, that was a privileged occasion. That is the first point. The second point I want to make is that when he was charged, his case was investigated by the College Council. Now we on both sides of the House stand for the principle of university autonomy.

The hon. Minister of Education, Arts and Science, speaking in Another Place, this week or last week, stated that principle again as a principle to which the Government subscribes. But the constitution of a university college in South Africa is not the constitution of a university. At Fort Hare there is a university college council and an advisory council, there is a senate and an advisory senate. A professor at Fort Hare who is a Black man may not sit in the senate; a Black man may not sit in the council. The Minister, who is the great Panjandrum, decides, who will be members of the council, who will be members of the advisory council, and who will go to the senate or advisory senate. Therefore I want to say that this investigation was carried out by the members of the university college council who were all nominees of the Minister, all of them. There were no other representatives. I put a question to the hon. Minister and asked him whether in this investigation the advisory council, which is an advisory council of Bantu, had been consulted, whether the position had been put to them. The hon. Minister said: “They were informed.” I was anxious to know where the element of consultation came in. So far as I could find out there was no consultation. That is the story briefly, the story as I have it.

I am not drawing any conclusions because I am hoping for a frank statement from the hon. the Minister. I should like him to lay the papers in regard to this investigation on the Table because it affects every Bantu or Coloured lecturer in any of our university colleges. There is a sequel to this. This university lecturer, who has been dismissed by the council—and he could not have been dismissed without the concurrence of the hon. the Minister—this university lecturer has now been appointed, according to a Press report, as a teacher at a college in the Transkei, Jongilizwe, a college for the sons of chiefs and headmen, where he will wield much greater influence than he could possibly have done at Fort Hare under the control of the Bantu Education Department. I have stated the facts, and I am asking the hon. the Minister for a full complete statement, that he should give us not only the decision, but that he should lay on the Table the report on the investigation. [Time limit.]

At the beginning of his speech this afternoon the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) echoed what he said in ms speech of last week, namely “Abolish the Bantu education system”. That was his cry in his previous speech, and he once again tried to put forward the same proofs in support of his statement that the Bantu education system should be abolished. But what were his arguments based on? What precisely was the force of his whole argument? The force of his argument lay in one single fact which he was able to quote here, which was that in the Transkeian Parliament certain changes had now been made in the Bantu education system, and on account of that the hon. member came to the conclusion that the Bantu themselves did not want that system, and that because they did not want it, we had to reinvestigate and abolish the entire system immediately. The strongest argument that he was able to advance in connection with the whole matter was that the Transkeian Cabinet had altered the system of education and that the entire system therefore had to be abolished. What a completely ridiculous statement! Let me just put right that position. The Transkeian Cabinet has not rejected the Bantu education system, nor has it suggested that it should be abolished; it has made two minor changes in the whole system, which are, firstly, that mother-tongue instruction will be compulsory up to Std. II only and will beyond that be optional along with the other official languages, and secondly, that the school boards will be abolished. Two changes in the system, but they provide the hon. member with his only argument and gives him sufficient reason to say that the entire Bantu education system in South Africa has failed and should be abolished. I credited the hon. member with more logic and a more scientific approach in regard to this highly technical matter.

What is one’s criterion in deciding whether a system is succeeding or failing? Surely one’s criterion is the product of that system, the results achieved by means of it. I want to say at once that we had the beginnings of a system of education here. We had to build on odds and ends which were already in existence as a result of private initiative. The Act was passed in 1953 and this education was actually taken over by the State in 1954. In other words, this system has only been in operation for 11 years; and let us now compare this system and its achievements as regards the number of children of that race who are at present attending school with the position in many African states. I want to refer specifically to African states which have gained independence which have their own systems, which have their own capital, and in which their own people are at liberty to adopt whatever system they like, and then I want to quote some comparative figures to prove that the system we have introduced here compares very favourably with and is in fact better than any in Africa. I am taking the figures in respect of children of school-going age between five and 14 years, children who are actually attending school. The figure for Algeria is only 32 per cent, for the Belgian Congo 49 per cent, for Egypt (one of the highest) 53 per cent, for Ethiopia (one of the countries charging us before the International Court) 4 per cent, for Ghana (which has been independent for many years already) 61 per cent, for Liberia (the other state charging us before the International Court) 20 per cent, for Tanganyika and Tanzania 23 per cent, and for Zambia 52 per cent, and in South Africa (and I am referring specifically to the Bantu alone) the number of Bantu children between the ages of five and 14 years is approximately 2,301,000 and the number actually attending school is 1,700,000, which represents 74 per cent. Added to that there is the fact that in every community there is a large group which is uneducable and which cannot derive any benefit from attending normal schools, but which does form part of the total number, and if we take that group into account I say that, as far as the Bantu are concerned, almost 84 per cent of educable children, who can really derive benefit from education, are attending school to-day. That has been achieved under this system of Bantu education, and purely on the strength of the argument of the Transkeian changes the hon. member says that the system must be abolished. Does that constitute any proof that the system must be abolished?

I want to deal with the next argument. “The proof of the pudding is in the eating” is a favourite expression of the hon. member in his own language; I want to accept the truth of that expression, and then I should like to quote the official examination results in this regard.

Inaudible.

Yes, the hon. member would like to put arsenic in my pudding, and if she were my wife I would have no hesitation in eating it. I am taking the official examination results, and please note that the standard is not one that has been lowered or watered down, but that it is the standard laid down by the Joint Matriculation Board. Here are the exact figures; In 1959—I just want to take two comparative figures—when this system was five years old, the pass figure in the Std. VIII examination was 44.4 per cent; in 1963 it had risen to 78.2 per cent. And 1963 happened to be the year in which the first pupils who had started under this system in 1954 reached Std. VIII: in other words, they had from the start of their school careers up to Std. VIII been educated under and received the benefit of this system which the hon. member for Kensington wants to abolish. The pass figure had risen from 44.4 per cent to 78.2 per cent, and this is the system which has to be abolished. I now come to the matric results. In 1954 the pupils in matric had been under this system for only four years, and the matric pass figure was 29 per cent. In 1964, after the system under which those pupils are educated had been in operation for ten years, the pass figure was 61.5 per cent. Where does the hon. member come in with his arguments to the effect that the system has failed? Here are the proofs, and I want to ask the hon. member to adduce better proofs than he did.

I want to concede at once that many of the pupils in Std. VI do not reach Std. X, but one finds that position in every country and in the case of every nation during the initial stage. Here one also has the position that of the 37,530 pupils who passed Std. VI in 1960, only 636 passed matric in 1964. That is a very rapid decrease, the pyramid is extremely flat, with a broad base, and is very small at the top. But that is precisely what we are complaining about in the case of our White education, and it is true of every system of education that a large mass of pupils starts at the bottom and that only a few reach the top. That is not a strange phenomenon, and in the case of undeveloped nations in the initial stage of their education it manifests itself even more strongly than elsewhere.

Then the hon. member came along with the story that mother-tongue instruction had now been abolished in the Transkei. In the first place I want to make the point that it has not been abolished, but that a concession has been made, and that what has been done there is certainly not something new. Surely the hon. member for Kensington is aware of the fact that there was a time in the distant past when English, his mother tongue, was also not an accepted language amongst his ancestors, and when Anglo-Saxon and Low Saxon were regarded as inferior languages. Through years of development it became the language of Shakespeare and of Milton, a modern language. But if during that initial stage they had adopted the attitude that it was a backward language, that it was simply a hotch-potch of the dialects of certain groups, that language would never have developed into the modern world language which it is to-day. Not so many years ago the Afrikaans language was still being decried as a kitchen language, as an inferior and worthless language, but if a language is used and refined its vocabulary increases and the language itself becomes stronger and more and more suitable for expressing the deepest and profoundest sentiments of man. Who would suggest to-day that the Afrikaans language is an inferior one? It is capable of doing everything that is required of it. And precisely the same will happen with the Bantu languages. If they are not used, if they are not refined, they will deteriorate and fall into disuse, because constant attempts were not made to find words to express certain ideas and sentiments, and if one simply says that a language does not have the potential, it will die out. In all the African territories in which European states held sway, the French-speaking territories, the English-speaking territories, the Portuguese territories and the Belgian territories, the official European language was the language commonly used and the mother tongue of the inhabitants of those territories was pushed into the background. Now that these countries are gaining their liberty and independence the European languages are disappearing and the mother tongue is being brought into prominence and is becoming the official language in the case of each of those nations. English and French are being prohibited, and the mother tongue is being given an opportunity to come to the fore and to be developed. That is what we are doing in the Transkei. In the Transvaal, too, there was a time when the United Party was not in favour of mother-tongue instruction. Perhaps they are not satisfied to-day with mother-tongue instruction in the Transkei either. In the Transvaal they also experimented with doublemedium education, and if the Transkeian authorities now want to follow the same road and are adopting the attitude that the mother tongue cannot quite meet the requirements as yet, it is only one of the phases through which every country, nation and people pass, but the time will come when that language will come into its own.

As the hon. member correctly said, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, but of course a great deal depends on the pudding, and there are many different kinds. What I want to tell the hon. member is that despite the overall increase in the number of children at school (and that is a fact) he must realize that less than half of those children in the sub-standards ever get to st. II.

You get that in more or less every country at the beginning.

It might be so in the under-developed African territories. Does the hon. member for Randfontein honestly wish to compare the modern industrial society that we in South Africa are proud to have, with the primitive undeveloped agrarian economy in the rest of Africa? Sir, South Africa is the country on the Continent of Africa with the most highly developed industrial society and therefore one is not entitled simply to give comparative figures with countries at a vastly different level of development, with a much lower national income, a much lower industrial potential, and generally speaking, far less developed. It is wrong for this country, even if it happens in the rest of Africa, that just about half of the children who start school, do not even get beyond Std. II. Now the hon. Minister queried what I said about literacy, and said it was relative. It might be relative, but one is surely entitled to try and get some definitive standard of what is “literacy”. He quoted the Unesco standard, and I quoted the official American standard of six years attendance at school. Now the hon. Minister has not even given us his definition of “literacy”. All he says is that to his knowledge 80 per cent of the Bantu children between the ages of seven and 20 are literate in this country. I queried that and I query it again, because these children do not get beyond Std. II.

Four years at school, at least. That is the Unesco standard.

But that is not literacy. The Bantu Education Commission when it reported in 1949, made a definite statement about this question of children leaving school at a very low standard, and it said this—

That is the position in South Africa. Literacy is not just being able to read primary readers in the vernacular. It is being able to understand the languages of the country, to be able to qualify for employment in the labour market. and I put it to the hon. member that if an African comes along who is completely illiterate in English or Afrikaans and cannot read beyond the simple primer reader in his own vernacular he is not going to be considered suitable for any form of employment in a modern industrial society. We have a lost generation of African children. More may now be in the lower classes, but there will be less use for them as employees than there was for their fathers, employment in the modern industrial society of South Africa. If they work in a factory, they must be able to read instructions and understand what is going on. The hon. Minister said that when his domestic servant came to him, she was able to read and write in the vernacular and that it took her another five years before she was able to qualify to read in English or Afrikaans. Of course one develops as one grows older, if one knows what a letter of the alphabet means and is in any language, but it took another five years for that person to become literate. Therefore to say that every child between seven and 20 is literate in South Africa simply because half of them have gone up to Std. II, is deceiving ourselves; and I challenge the hon. Minister to get a completely objective educationist comparing South Africa’s so-called literacy with the literacy standard accepted anywhere else in the world, and I am quite sure that his figures will simply not stand up to that objective educationist’s standard.

You do not want to compare us with other African countries, now you want to compare the standard with other European countries.

Let us take a modern industrially developed country that compares with us.

No, what about the Bantu areas?

Well, let us have two standards, one for the urban Africans and one for the tribal African, if you like, and let us look at the two standards of literacy here. Because you have two different societies in South Africa. You cannot compare your urban society with the tribal society. They are in two different stages of development entirely, and therefore I want to tell the hon. Minister that he should stop using these broad figures of 80 per cent literacy. It means nothing at all!

The other thing I wish to say to the hon. member for Randfontein is: Does he really think it creditable that less than 300 African children who started school in 1952 were able to get university passes by 1964? Less than 300 were able to qualify for university entrance out of the total Bantu population in this country. Now we hear a lot of talk about the Africans supplying all their own professional people, their own technicians for their own homelands, for their own societies in the urban townships. I want to know where these technicians and other professional people are coming from if this is the rate of development in respect of the higher standards where these people may be trained. I made a speech last time on the question of concentrating on secondary education and I can assure the hon. Minister that unless he now concentrates on secondary education, he is going to fall hopelessly behind in any endeavour to provide the necessary professional classes—and not only that, but to provide the necessary teachers to teach the growing number of children who have to go to school, to the primary schools to become literate. He is not even going to be able to cope with that problem, because if he does not have enough secondary school students and enough matriculants and enough people who are qualified, he will never be able to provide the teachers, and I understand his problem at the present stage is not having enough material from which to draw.

The hon. Minister did not answer my question about high schools in the cities, and this is one of the reasons why a lot of children do not go on to the high schools. They do not want to have to leave the cities to get their high school training in the rural areas and then possibly be confronted with the difficulty of re-entering the urban areas when they have finished their training because of the pass laws and influx control. They take out their registration books in the rural areas and are not allowed to rejoin their parents in the urban areas. So naturally there is difficulty about sending children to school in the rural areas, and the concentration of high schools has been in rural areas and not in the urban areas where they should be and where the most sophisticated element of the African population resides. I must say to the hon. Minister as well, that this question of again attempting to identify the amount of taxes collected from the Bantu people with the amount available for education and the payment of teachers’ salaries, I think is really disgraceful, and it is time we got away from that. We do not ask the Whites whether they have paid their taxes before they are allowed to send their children to school. We do not identify the payment of salaries of teachers of the White children with the amount of taxation collected from the White community. Surely we should not be attempting to make the poorest section responsible for their education, whereas the more affluent section is not responsible.

The Minister also used the argument that he did not want to remove the Bantu teachers from their own society by paying them higher salaries. Well, this is the first I have heard about an attempt to have an egalitarian society in South Africa where you do not allow the professional and skilled classes to be raised above the rest of the community. I thought they were in any case considered the superior element in the population and therefore certainly entitled to payment of their services in accordance with their skills, and not by way of keeping their so-called social status, as the Minister tells us, on an equal level with the rest of the population. That is surely nonsense.

As far as vocational training is concerned, I think there again we have a disgracefully low figure of Africans in the vocational schools. As far as I can see from the annual report, only 253 passed out of the vocational schools in 1963, to provide the tradesmen and the skilled workers. [Time limit.]

I rise to do two things. The first is to say something in defence of the Cape Province with which I was associated for a number of years. I want to say this. The Minister is in error, and so is any other critic of the Cape Province, when they say, that the system of Bantu education under the Central Government is better than what was offered by the Cape Province. I should like the Minister to know, and to deny if he can, that the allocation from the Central Government to the Cape Provincial Administration was frozen for a number of years. A fixed amount was allocated in spite of the fact that there were natural, normal increases and that schools should have been provided for Bantu children years before they were. This was part of the plan to find a reason for taking away Bantu education from the Cape Provincial Administration, which has a Nationalist Party-controlled Council and a Nationalist Administrator. These people have done a good job. They did such a good job that the Central Government took away the senior official in Bantu education from the Cape Province and made him the top man in Bantu education under the Central Government, and they also took with him all the staff the Cape Provincial Administration had trained. These are facts. In addition to that, when one looks at these Estimates, I am pleased to see the enormous amount of money voted for Bantu education under the Minister, but I say that he is unjust and unfair, to suggest in any way, that the Cape Provincial Administration fell short of its responsibilities, when they had no money and had to go cap-in-hand, which they did regularly, to the Minister of Finance to ask for the necessary money.

That is not what I said.

Well, I would like the Minister to put it on a proper basis and let us have the facts recorded. The Cape Provincial Administration did a first-class job with the funds at their disposal.

No one has denied it.

The last point is this. I speak as a layman; I am no expert on education. I am only one who employs educated people. When I see remarks made and comparisons made with what is happening in other parts of the world, and on the African Continent, I cast my eye onto page 31 of the report of 1963, Table 10. I find that in the secondary classes there is only one in 30 in secondary school, and that in Form V, which we may take as the equivalent of matric, there is only one in 1,700 pupils. I raise this point for one reason. In the calm atmosphere of education, this report and the debate on this Vote, explode the myth that the Bantustans will ever come into existence in 1978. If the Bantustans are to have a highly industrialized society to take care of this enormous flow-back, which is to take place in 1978, the reverse flow of the people from the Republic back to the Bantustans, more educated people will be needed. I say it is quite impossible. I think the Minister should mention this to his colleagues, and say that at the rate that men are being educated in the Bantu schools, with no scientists, no engineers and no entrepreneurs, it cannot happen. The people who will have to provide the muscle and the brains of a highly industrialized state, which the Bantustan will be, are not being turned out. I think we should explode that myth here and now, in the calm atmosphere of this debate, because the figures of the Department prove that this will be impossible. Whatever may be said to the contrary, these are incontrovertible facts which cannot be disputed and they are embodied in the report of the Minister’s Department itself.

I think I have said enough in my earlier remarks about the general training of Bantu and I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat what I have said. Suffice it to say that in the past few years the Government has done more in regard to the development of technical training for Bantu than was done in all history. But the remarks of the hon. member for Karoo with reference to what I said a moment ago in connection with the Cape Provincial Administration make me think that I must really teach him a bit. I never said a word about the services rendered by the Cape Provincial Administration and I never referred to the amount of money spent. I only spoke about the curricula—I repeat curricula—of the Cape Provincial Administration in respect of White teachers and I agree with him that the curricula prescribed by the Department of Bantu Education for its Bantu students are better. I trust the hon. member understands that now.

I do not think I need argue any further with the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). It is clear that we will differ on many of these things because we differ completely in our approach. She wants us to go much faster and do things artificially but we cannot do so in the circumstances. She also spoke about the salaries of teachers. I agree with her that teachers’ salaries need not necessarily be dependent on the amount of money collected from the Bantu in the form of taxation. But the Bantu teachers are in a better position than anybody else to teach their people and to tell them to fulfil their obligations. If there is any indication that the Bantu teachers are doing their share as leaders of their communites in that direction I may be more sympathetic towards them.

The hon. member also raised the question of secondary schools in Bantu residential areas outside White cities. It is our policy to allow a certain limited number of high schools in the White areas-as well. We are indeed extending to some extent but the Bantu areas are, in the first place, the areas where secondary school facilities are being extended and the reason for that is twofold. The first is that it is correct in principle that the facilities for the Bantu should be better in his own areas than they are in the area in which he sells his labour. If they want to undergo higher educational training and those facilities are not provided in the White areas but in the Bantu areas they can go to their own areas which is also to their own benefit. [Interjections.] That is our standpoint on principle. I know the hon. member disagrees with me. Another reason why we are mainly erecting secondary schools in the Bantu areas is because those schools will in due course develop into schools with hostel facilities. Our experience in regard to examination results has been that the results obtained in the schools in White urban areas are much poorer than those obtained in the schools in the Bantu areas where there are hostel facilities. That is why we intend expanding the hostel facilities at schools in the Bantu areas.

Will the Minister at least see to it that those children are allowed to return to their parents?

No difficulty arises if he leaves the urban areas voluntarily to attend school there provided he was entitled to be in the city.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) has again referred to the case of Ndamse, a lecturer at the University College of Fort Hare, and coupled to that the general statement that Bantu teachers were no* all owed to criticize the Department and that if they did they ran the risk of being dismissed. I can tell the hon. member that I have specially created a Bantu Education Advisory Board for the Bantu community so that they can bring all their problems in connection with education. such as the system of education, the subjects and all purely educational matters, to my notice. They have every opportunity to make any representations they wish to make to me through the right channels. I think that is the right way to do it. It is improper for teachers to make public speeches in which they criticize the Department and start an agitation while the machinery does exist for them to bring their complaints to the notice of the Department in a professional manner.

Are the teachers in the Transvaal and in South West agitators?

If those teachers abuse their political freedom in that they criticize their educational departments in public I would say they were agitators.

However, the hon. member has referred to the case of Ndamse. He is not a teacher, of course, and his position differs from that of teachers because he is a lecturer at the University College and is under the control of the laws relating to that institution. Action was not taken against Ndamse because he made a speech or voiced criticism but, in the first place, because he had contravened the academic code, a code which does not only apply to Fort Hare but to all universities, namely, that if a person who is connected with a particular faculty in a subordinate position, wishes to voice criticism anywhere in regard to the curriculi of that faculty or of other faculties of his university he must first consult the head of his faculty or the heads of the other faculties concerned, before he says anything in public. That is the ordinary academic practice followed by all universities.

Did they not invite him to speak?

Yes, but he is not entitled to contravene the academic code. Let me tell the hon. member what happened after he had made his speech. When it came to the notice of the authorities at Fort Hare it was referred to the Faculty of Law because it was in that field that he had offended. It was also referred to the Faculty of Arts and to the Faculty of Commerce. Those three faculties were all directly affected by his remarks and the councils of all those three faculties decided that Mr. Ndamse had acted in a way which could not be tolerated. After that the matter was referred to the Senate of the University College and the Senate decided that he had contravened the disciplinary code of the University College. After that the matter was submitted to the Council of the University College and they decided, unanimously, that a charge should be laid against him. The charge was—

He was invited in that capacity—

Then follow five examples of such allegations. Another charge was—

I just want to ask the Minister one or two simple questions. First of all, was not this lecturer asked in advance to send a copy of his lecture to Pretoria? That is the custom in all these study groups, that members see the lectures in advance.

No, he was not asked to do so in advance.

Well, that is the usual thing. Secondly, was the advisory council or the advisory senate consulted? The Minister said in reply to questions that they were informed, but were they consulted? And, thirdly, does the Minister not think that these lecturers, like White lecturers, should have a measure of academic freedom? We have just had academic freedom week for the universities.

The position is this that Ndamse was not asked beforehand to submit a copy of his speech or lecture but the important point made by the Council of Fort Hare and the senate and the various faculties was that whereas he was moving in a sphere in which he had criticized his own Department and had dragged in other faculties in suggesting changes he should first have submitted it to his head and the heads of the other faculties because he had been invited to represent Fort Hare. The advisory senate was indeed consulted before action was taken against him but not the advisory council because they were not in session. A report will be submitted to them at their next session.

The hon. member also referred to academic freedom. The lecturers at the university colleges enjoy the same measure of academic freedom as that enjoyed by any lecturer at any university in South Africa, except that those in Government posts may not take part in the activities of political parties.

I thank the hon. Minister for the information and if possible I should like to have a look at the copy of the inquiry.

I shall let you have it.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote Q.—“Bantu Education”, Rl,416,000, put and agreed to.

On Revenue Vote No. 26.—“Indian Affairs”, R4,496,000,

Once more we come to this Vote which is a comparatively new Vote, because this Department has not long been established, but I, for one, regret that under the system on which we work with the Votes here, we will not have sufficient time to devote to this Vote, as I believe we could well do this year; because with the taking over of Indian education during this Session by this Minister he now controls every aspect of Indian life and Indian affairs, and the time has come when we should get from this hon. Minister a complete statement of his policy, his pattern for the future of this particular group of people in South Africa and the part they are going to play in South Africa. In the past the question of the future of the Indian people has never been quite faced up to by this Government. Just at the commencement of what I have to say, I should like to read from News Check of 17 January 1964, in which they have an article on the Indian people. I think they summed up the position fairly well when they said this—

This Government has said through the Prime Minister that the Indian community will now be a permanent part of the population of South Africa. We believe that while for two years now the Minister has been fortunate in that he has been allowed to skip over this Vote very quickly without giving any definite ideas of what his policy is regarding this particular group, he must now tell us exactly what his intentions are and what schemes he has devised for the future well-being and the participation of this group of people in the affairs of South Africa, where his Government has accepted that they will stay.

Having said that, I believe that we in the short time available want to know quite a number of things. We want to know what progress this Minister has made in the formation of the Indian Council. In a book published by the Department of Information, “Indian South Africans”, this Minister made a statement in addressing a conference of more than 100 Indians from all walks of life and said he was interested in what way and how the Indian Council could ultimately be developed into an elected council with powers to legislate and administrate on matters pertaining to the Indian community. Here was an undertaking given to the Indian people that this was the line of thinking of the Government, which was confirmed by the hon. the Prime Minister, and that this Council was to be formed and would develop until such time as it would be a body which could handle legislatively and administratively all the affairs of the Indian people. We want to know how far the Minister has got in his planning and how far he has got in taking the Indians along with him on the lines he indicated to them. Then we want to know also what progress the Minister has made in so far as employment for Indians is concerned. The Indian group in South Africa has perhaps suffered more than any other single group, proportionately, from unemployment, and that will probably be dealt with later. But during the debate in 1963 on the Indian Vote, in Column 6378 of Hansard, the Minister did give us this bit of information. He said—

The hon. the Minister has said that he has nothing whatever to do with Group Areas. But we do know that a huge Indian area called Chatsworth is being developed in Durban. In the same article in this book on the Indians of South Africa, the hon. the Minister said that the ultimate population there would be 170,000. We would like to know what channels of employment will be open to these people and what hopes of employment will be available to them. We would also like to know —I cannot go into this too deeply because of the time factor—if this Minister is satisfied with the provision that is being made in this area and in other areas for Indians. We would like to hear from him because it is obvious that the Indians are not satisfied, and I quote from an article in the Natal Mercury of 17 May 1965, in which the Indian housing scheme at Chatsworth came under fire from the Indian ratepayers’ association in that area. This is part of the quotation—

We would like to know what the hon. the Minister’s opinion is of the type of housing that is being provided and whether he is in fact satisfied that these areas will not become slums and that they are suitable and are suitably developed for the proper housing of these people.

Then, Sir, we want information on another very important point, and that is the question of border industry plans for Indians in Natal. Sir, a statement was made in Pretoria—and it was published in the Daily News of 2 February 1965—by Professor S. P. du Toit Viljoen, who said that border industry areas for Indians and Coloureds were going to be created—

I do not want to read out the whole of the quotation; I will let the hon. the Minister have it if he wants it. But the point is that here in Durban where the bulk of the Indians are— and that is why the hon. the Prime Minister said that he had appointed a Natal man who understood the Indian problem because it was essentially a Natal problem—we are now a border industrial area for the purposes of the Bantu; we are now going to become a border industrial area in regard to the Indian population if this report is correct, and we want to know what the position is.

You are wrong in both respects.

It would appear that we might well become a border industry area in regard to the Coloured people. In other words, anyone who employs people in these three groups is now going to be subsidized in certain ways and is going to be assisted with loans at low interest rates, with income-tax allowances and low-cost power, water and transport services. These are some of the things which this paper says are going to be provided to encourage the employment of these people. Sir, what is going to happen? Each of these various groups is going to be subsidized to compete against the other, and where is it going to end? The only group which is not mentioned as a group that is going to be subsidized to compete against other groups is the White group. Where is it going to end? We want a statement from the hon. the Minister on this whole question of border industry plans for the Indians in Natal. [Time limit.]

I do not know why the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) complains that they usually do not have sufficient time to discuss this Vote. After all it depends on them entirely how much time they devote to this Vote. I do not think they are anxious to discuss it. If anybody limits their time it is not the Minister or this side of the House who does so; they themselves do so. We know the Whips agree amongst themselves how much time shall be devoted to the various Votes. Sir, nobody objected to the total number of hours set aside for the discussion in Committee of Supply; that side agreed to it and how they are going to allocate that time is a matter on which the Whips have to come to an agreement. It depends on them how much time is devoted to this Vote. They can get more time if they want it; we shall welcome it.

The hon. member wants the hon. the Minister to tell the Committee what pattern he has in mind for the Indians now that they have been accepted as a permanent part of the population of South Africa. That is accepted by all sides of the House. The previous Government has accepted it and this Government accepts that the repatriation of the Indians is impraticable. [Interjections.]. Sir, repatriation has always been the policy of all parties in this country; it was the policy of General Smuts and it was the policy of the National Party. But repatriation appears to be impossible and that was why the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs announced a long time ago that the Indians were now regarded as a permanent section of the South African nation. The hon. member now wants the Minister to explain for the umpteenth time, what his policy is in regard to the Indians, what the political set-up is in regard to the Indians. But if I am not mistaken the hon. Minister already told us what it was last year and the year before. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever as to what the Government has in mind for the Indians in the political sphere. In the first place the Government does not intend giving the Indians any representation in this House; that has been stated very clearly.

Why not?

Those hon. members do not have the courage to say what they intend doing with the Indians politically. We have had no indication whatsoever from them as to what representation they want to give the Indians; we only get vague statements from them; they do not tell us how many representatives the Indians will have in Parliament or whether they will be Whites or Indians. It is the intention of this Government to expand the political rights of the Indians at a totally different level. The hon. the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs have stated time and again that the pattern which was beginning to take shape for the Coloureds, was the pattern we were trying to develop for the Indians, with this difference, that whereas the Coloureds, as a result of historical developments, would have representation in this Parliament, the Indians would not. [Interjections.] I do not know why the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is so perturbed. I do not want to argue with her because she has only one plan, only one pattern for the entire South Africa and that is that this Parliament and the whole of South Africa must be taken over by the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians. I have no quarrel with her, therefore; my quarrel is with the members of the United Party. The Minister has already succeeded in constituting an extremely representative Indian Council, in spite of the opposition on the part of White agitators amongst the Indians, agitators who, in the first place, incited the Indians at that time not to accept the representation in this House which General Smuts had accorded them. When that Indian representation was abolished those same agitators started to incite the Indians to refuse the Indian Council of the Minister. The Minister struggled and he struggled for a long time but I want to say this, to the credit of the Minister, that he has succeeded in constituting a strong, responsible and extremely representative Indian Council. That Indian Council still functions in an advisory capacity at the moment; at the moment it is still an appointed body because the whole process of converting it into a partly elected body will obviously be a long process when you think of it that voters’ lists will have to be compiled, that constituencies will have to be demarcated and that sort of thing. It is a process which will very clearly take a number of years. While I pay tribute to the hon. Minister for the manner in which he has succeeded in getting this excellent and general co-operation on the part of the Indians, I also want to express my appreciation to the Indian people of South Africa because ever since the agitators amongst them have been silenced the Indian community has been one of the most peaceful racial groups in South Africa, except for a number of Progressive propagandists amongst the Indians of Natal. In Vereeniging where we have the greatest concentration of Indians in the Transvaal the Progressive Party has been expelled and they no longer exercise any influence over the Indians. Those Indians are beginning to co-operate in the most wonderful way with the Government. The intention is, as it is in the case of the Coloured Council, to expand this Indian Council until you will practically have an Indian Parliament which will deal with Indian Education, Indian health and so forth. Then you will have Indian local authorities, practically an Indian Parliament with an Indian Prime Minister and an Indian Cabinet, as is envisaged in the case of the Coloureds. That, Sir, is the political pattern which this Minister and the Government have in mind for the Indians. I now hope some member or other on that side will have the courage to get up and tell us what political pattern they envisage for the Indians.

Why does the Minister not tell us what his political pattern is for the Indian?

The Minister said what it was last year already. He also said what it was when he addressed the Indian Council for the first time. He has explained this pattern ad nauseam and if the hon. member cannot understand it, or if he does not want to listen, he must not blame us. That is the political pattern the Minister has explained to the Indians and I think it holds out in prospect to the Indians many more actual rights, a far greater extent of real human dignity and many more human rights than the United Party is willing to accord them because we simply cannot find out what they are willing to offer the Indians, except some promises of a number of theoretical rights. Not only will the Indians progress in the political field, so much so that there will practically be an Indian Parliament, but their interests in the educational field, in the field of health services and in other fields are being promoted. As far as the economic position of the Indians are concerned, I cannot speak on behalf of Natal, because I am not au fait with the position there, but in southern Transvaal the Indians have made considerable economic progress. Certain Indian businessmen in Vereeniging are at the moment negotiating with the Minister of Planning to create an Indian Industrial area there where the Indians will have their own industries. It is part of the policy of the Government to set areas aside, where it can be done, for Indian industries, that they can develop their own industries and employ Indians. The Indians will then no longer be dependent only on the trade for their livelihood. We are making wonderful progress along this road. Take the question of Indian housing. Sir, I do not know whether I am allowed to discuss the question of housing because Indian housing falls under the Department of Community Development. We shall most assuredly, under the Vote of the Minister of Community Development, indicate, amongst others, what this Government has done for Indian housing. I just want to say to that hon. member that two-thirds of all the houses built for the Indians since 1910 were built since this Government came into power. It does not behove hon. members on that side of the House, therefore, to accuse this Government of not having done its duty as far as Indian housing is concerned. Indian housing, Coloured housing and the housing of the other groups are continually receiving the attention of the Minister of Community Development. It is not relevant under this Vote but I am convinced that, when the figures are submitted to hon. members, they will have no reason to complain, on the contrary, I think they will pay tribute to the Minister for the remarkable way in which he has already extended the housing facilities available to the Indians.

I would like to deal briefly with one or two points which have been raised by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). The hon. member seems to take exception to the statement made by my colleague, the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis), in regard to this change of Government policy in so far as the acceptance of the Indian community as a permanent part of the population of South Africa is concerned. He seemed to indicate that this has been an arrangement of long standing and that it is something that has been accepted by everybody; I think he said that it had been accepted by all sections in South Africa, as far back as the days of General Smuts. But, of course, the hon. member did not listen to what my hon. friend was saying. My hon. friend was not quoting at random; he was quoting from an official document. Here I have a booklet published in 1965; it says that it was printed in the Republic of South Africa by Dagbreek on behalf of the Government Printer, Pretoria, for the Department of Information. It then goes on to say that “the material here can be used without acknowledgment”. Sir, what does this booklet, which is called “The Indian South Africans” say on this point? I quote from it at page 46—

That was published officially in a document printed in 1965.

What are you quarrelling about?

I am not quarelling with anything except the hon. member’s ignorance of the policy of his own party, which had been to repatriate the Indians until the recent acceptance by him and his party of the policy of accepting the Indians as a part of the permanent population of South Africa. It is in that context then that we move forward to the next point which the hon. member who has just sat down has emphasized. I was going to ask the hon. the Minister to emphasize it. I refer to a speech made by the hon. the Minister in this House previously and which appears in this same document. Let me quote what it says here—

Here, Sir, is the crux of the question. What we want to know from the Minister is what his plans are in developing the Indian Council to the stage where it can legislate, never mind about the administration. This is the crux of the matter. I am not going to follow up and repeat the questions put by my hon. friend to the Minister; they are on record and I noticed that the Minister was making notes. When my hon. friend said that it appeared that Durban was now a border industry area for Bantu industries and apparently for Indian industries . . .

Both incorrect.

When my hon. friend made that statement the Minister shook his head and said, “Both statements are incorrect.” In other words, that area of Durban around Chatsworth is not a border area so far as Bantu industries are concerned, so far as Bantu areas are concerned, and it is not a border area so far as Indian industries are concerned. Now, let us proceed from that point because the Minister said that it was not a border area for industries associated with Bantu areas or industries associated with the Indians. The Minister has stated that the Chatsworth area will hold approximately 120,000 Indians; that that is the number it was designed for. I want to put it to him, Sir, that he cannot prevent it from holding 250,000, and already it is well on the way to having that number within its boundaries. Sir, is this area for the industrial development of the Indians that the hon. member for Vereeniging was talking about just now?

I was talking about Vereeniging.

Sir, I hope that the hon. the Minister will tell us in connection with Chatsworth and the employment of the Indians who are at present residing and will be residing in Chatsworth, where they are to be employed. What avenues of employment will be available to them as their numbers continue to grow. We on this side expressed the strong opinion that by logical processes will burst the boundaries of areas like Chatsworth. We are well aware of the fact that there must be some avenues of employment. The hon. the Minister sees the Indian Council developing into a body which will legislate for the Indians. The Indians must have an outlet for industrial development, as admitted by the hon. member for Vereeniging. Where, as far as Chatsworth is concerned, are those Indians to find employment? On the northern side of Durban, right up towards Verulam, the whole of that area which has now been demarcated as an Indian area. Where will the Indians find a suitable industrial area which will come under their purview? In passing, Sir, I would like to say this to the hon. the Minister and perhaps he will give it his attention: He is no doubt aware of the long-standing embargo on Indians entering Zululand proper except under special permit and in a special manner. That embargo seems to be breaking down. It was alleged the other day during the election that it was the Sappe who had done that. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what the position is with regard to that barrier. Is he permitting Indians to go into Zululand without any special permit provided they have employment there? What is his policy in regard to the entry of Asiatics into Zululand at the present time? Will he tell us precisely what his policy is in regard to that barrier which has existed ever since the establishment of Union. If Indians are being allowed to go in there, and schools are being built under the Minister’s jurisdiction, is it the intention then that they shall be allowed to settle there permanently and to build schools there for their children? I want to tell the hon. the Minister that when I was Administrator I prevented that. He is well aware of that whole history. Sir, when is this legislative body going to come into existence and what is to be the future of Chatsworth? When I was in India a few years ago Nehru told us that the biggest difficulty he had was the White-collar worker who had become a white-collar worker because of his education and for whom there was no employment. Sir, that was the problem of India and it is going to be the problem of South Africa. Unless we are going to find employment for these people as they become educated we are storing up trouble for ourselves, and the whole of this responsibility rests on the shoulders of the Minister. Whether we are going to have this trouble depends on what the Minister’s plans are and whether the Indian Council, when they legislate, will pass the necessary legislative enactments so that suitable activities for the development of commerce and industry, particularly industry, will be available. If that is not forthcoming then we are simply making confusion worse confounded. On this point, before we move on to the next, I would like the hon. the Minister to give us his policy. We shall then be able to see the picture more clearly as far as his administration is concerned.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) put a number of questions to the hon. the Minister to which the Minister will surely reply when he has his turn. The hon. member also referred to repatriation. I shall come back to that during the course of my speech. But I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that under this Vote provision is made for a certain amount of money for Indians who want to make use of the repatriation scheme.

The history and the background of the Indian problem in South Africa is a sad tale of goodwill, helpfulness and concessions on the part of the Government, but on the other hand it is also a pathetic tale of a stimulated and unbroken opposition and of suspicion on the part of a large section of the Indian population in South Africa. The sincere attempts on the part of the Government in establishing the Department of Indian Affairs was received with suspicion and even with contempt. Surely the object of the establishment of that Department was to be able to deal better with Indian affairs and to build up better relations for the benefit of the Indians. This suspicion and opposition which was often experienced, and which was mainly incited by the self-appointed leading figures in the ranks of the Indians, is even sometimes artificially stimulated from outside, even by India and Pakistan, and moreover it is incited even by a section of the English language Press. There are unfortunately still sections of the Indian population which consider that India and Pakistan should handle their case at UN, and that is why regularly every year during the past 15 years this matter has been put on the agenda at UN and the complaint has continuously been made there that South Africa discriminated against the Indians in South Africa. Even during the time of the late Mr. Nehru, he made the bitterest outbursts against South Africa; but that happened not only during the régime of this Government; it even happened during the régime of the previous Government when General Smuts represented South Africa at UN. There are still kindred spirits of that section of the Indian population in South Africa. They are not satisfied with the Indian Council. They accuse those who cooperate with the Government in the Indian Council as being the so-called stooges of the Government, as satellites used by the Government. It is more particularly the congress groups and their kindred spirits who make that accusation. These groups evidently want to have nothing to do with the Consultative Committees appointed in the Indian townships, in spite of the fact that the Indians in those Indian townships have the opportunity by means of these Consultative Committees of handling their own local affairs.

With the establishment of the Indian Council, which is intended to be a channel of continuous consultation, those sections opposed it or remained neutral. But, Sir, the position could not be otherwise because a newspaper like the Rand Daily Mail, for example, said on 11 December 1963, before the establishment of the Indian Council, that this was a pistol being held at the head of the Indian community by this Government. This newspaper said that the Indians found themselves in the position where “they must take it or . . .”. We had the same opposition when the Department of Indian Affairs tried to take over Indian education, and from the same ranks—the only section from which there was opposition—and again it was a section of the English language Press which incited them. It was particularly the Progressive Party in this House and the United Party which stimulated that opposition. Sir, these self-appointed so-called Indian leaders, who are filled with cynicism, and suspicion against the Government, and who oppose the laudable attempts of the Government, should by this time have had second thoughts in regard to the matter.

I now want to show what the position of the Indians is in other parts of the world. I first want to show what their position is in other parts of Africa. I want to read a report which appeared in one of the newspapers yesterday under the heading: “Asiatics in Kenya must be expelled.” This report emanates from Nairobi and reads as follows—

That is what happens in Africa. That is how Indians in Africa are discriminated against. Let us now see what happens in countries nearer to India. What happens in Burma? In Burma the Government has taken a final step in their long campaign of exploiting the population of Indian descent, thereby forcing them to return to India. I read—

May I say that the Indians there just like in South Africa, practically dominate the small shop industry—

I now come to the numbers who were forced to return to India. Up to June 1964 40,000 ruined Indians returned to India, and a stream of 2,000 per month followed. The Indians who were driven out of Burma to India, as refugees who were forced to leave, were granted the concession of taking with them, in our money, only R 11.20 per adult and R2.25 per child. If they could lay their hands on it, they could take with them gold, or gold objects, to the value of R47.40. They could not take their own possessions with them. Those were confiscated by the Burmese Government.

I now want to compare that position with the position in South Africa. All these years the offer has been open to the Indians to go back to India. The Government is still keeping the channel open for them. What are they offered?

They are offered a free passage to India, an amount of R40 per adult and R20 per child as pocket money. Moreover, they receive a free ticket from their port of landing in India to their destination. The Indians do not make use of this, and the reason for it is obvious. South Africa is a land of milk and honey for them. It is a paradise where they can make a living, with enough to eat and to live on, and with a Government which acts very fairly and honestly towards them. It is a country where some of them even become millionaires. Those are the reasons why the Indians do not want to leave South Africa. There is another reason why they do not want to leave this country, and that is the tremendous shortage of food which prevails in India. I just want to quote a few headlines which have appeared in the Press in recent months: “270,000,000 Indians dying of hunger.” “Hungry Indians descend on Warehouses.” “Hungry Indians plunder Warehouses.” The South African Indians know precisely what is going on in Pakistan and in India and that is why they do not wish to go back. It is particularly the kindred spirits of the Transvaal Indian Congress and the Natal Indian Congress who still do not want to cooperate and who are always organizing against the Government. It is their representatives, like Dr. Daddo, who support the Anti-Apartheid Movement in Britain in their agitation against South Africa. [Time limit.]

I do not know what the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) thinks he proved by his peroration. As far as I am concerned all he has proved is that there are nasty racialists in other parts of Africa and the world as well as in this country. He has also proved that countries have to face natural disasters, but what he has not shown is that people tend to compare their own living conditions with those of the other inhabitants of the country in which they live and where they have resided for many generations.

The same old story!

Yes, because I get the same old story from hon. members on the other side. I have to make the same old reply, Sir. If they were to give me some new arguments I would be able to think of some new ones myself. Anyway, the hon. member has proved nothing as far as I am concerned; nor has the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). The hon. member for Vereeniging, of course, has adopted some new tactics in this House recently. He becomes apoplectic in his efforts to show that he is the best Nationalist in this House. Why he does that I am not quite sure. Whether he is really getting a bit depressed about the fact that his promotion has not yet come through or what it is, I would not know. But he no longer argues on merit.

What are you doing now?

I am paying him in his own coin and it is high time somebody did so in this House.

Did I insult you? Did I attack you personally?

Order! The hon. member must discuss the Vote.

Yes, Sir. The hon. member is constantly attacking me and I was just replying to him.

He made the statement, for instance, that the only reason why the Indians in this country were not contented was because there were agitators among them or various other ill-meaning persons who tried to point out to them that the Government was not doing everything it should for the Indians. I want to say at once that this Government may very well have built more houses for Indians Coloureds and Africans than previous Governments . . .

What about education?

No, not education; certainly not as far as the amount of money spent on their education pro rata is concerned. But the building of more houses is certainly not an achievement of apartheid. That is the normal duty of a modern Government. Its normal duty is to provide housing, education and other amenities for its population, particularly for the under-privileged section. I think the Government is doing no more than its duty when it builds houses. I do not think this is any achievement on the part of the Government’s apartheid policy.

The Minister of Housing will reply to that.

You see, Sir, this is one of my difficulties with this Minister of Indian Affairs; he is never answerable for anything. If one tackles the issue of Indian housing he passes the buck on to his colleague; if one tackles the issue of group areas he tells us that falls under the Minister of Community Development . . .

Silly little girl.

I am a very old lady to be called a little girl, but I do not mind.

Sir, on a point of order is that hon. member entitled to refer to the hon. member for Houghton as a silly little girl?

Mr Chairman, I do not pay any attention to remarks by silly old men.

I want to raise some other matters with the hon. Minister but I am never sure whether, as Minister of Indian Affairs, he will be able to reply to me. Before I come to that I just want to say to the hon. member for Vereeniging that I do not think agitators have been the cause of the various cuttings I have headed “Indians must get out after 30 years”, “Plea for Group Areas Moratorium”, “Plea by 40,000 Indians in Cato Manor”, “5.000 Fordsburg Indians get Apartheid Shock”, “Group Areas Act Robbing Indians of their Living”, “Indians told they must Quit”, “Indians who have been living in Waterval Boven for 100 years told they must get out” . . .

You must have been reading the English-language Press.

I read it frequently; I even occasionally read the Afrikaans-language Press. I must say that gives me no comfort either. “Cape Indians fear Ruin in Separation”. These are the effects of Government policy on the lives of thousands upon thousands of people. Indians will be moved out of their businesses or they live under the shadow of permits. Permits may be removed at any time; there are one-year permits, two-year permits and so forth. When those permits expire they will have to leave businesses they may have occupied for decades. I put it to the hon. member for Vereeniging, if he can for one moment imagine himself in the guise of an Indian—a frightening thought I must say—if he can, does he imagine he would need an agitator to tell him that he had a feeling of insecurity if he knew he would have to quit a business he had lawfully occupied for many years, a business which his father might have occupied before him, simply because a proclamation under the Group Areas Act had been issued in terms of which he had to get out.

Can you bring me one Indian businessman who has been ruined?

I can bring you . . .

Where!

Good gracious. Sir, you get them on the Witwatersrand, in the Cape, in Natal; there are those who have to move out of established business areas in Durban, in Johannesburg etc. The Johannesburg City Council put up the strongest possible arguments against the Group Area proclamations for Indians.

The question was whether there is an Indian who has been ruined.

The minute the permit is removed the man is ruined.

Give us an instance.

They cannot plan for the future; they cannot improve their properties. The very minute the permit is removed, the man is ruined.

Give me one instance where that has happened.

Would the hon. Minister like me to produce the facts and figures and cases for him?

Yes.

I shall do that. I cannot do it at the moment but I shall.

You will never be able to because there are none.

Are you now going to do away with the permit system? I am hoping the hon. Minister is never going to remove the permits. If he means that he is going to continue to give permits I would, for one, be delighted, although I do not think anybody should have to depend on a permit to earn a lawful living. If this implies that permits are not going to be withdrawn then I will be the first to admit that I was wrong and that Indians will not be ruined under this system.

I want to bring two small matters to the Minister’s attention, matters which may come under his purview; I am not sure, as I have said, because his portfolio is such an extraordinary one. He has a title without any specific responsibility. Would the Minister tell us whether he would consider removing the ban on Indian inter-provincial travel? It seems to me absurd that, in a country which has admitted that the Indians belong to this country, that they are citizens of this country, that the Indians are not going to be repatriated, the Indians should not enjoy the right of inter-provincial travel. I cannot understand why they cannot live where they want to; but that is a different matter. I don’t even go as far as to ask for that here. I know the 25 cent fee they had to pay has been done away with but that was not the real thing that worried the Indians; it was the necessity of getting a permit and the feeling of being unable to travel in the country in which many of them have lived for generations. Does the hon. Minister not think it will be an excellent thing for race relations in this country if the inter-provincial travel ban were removed?

I read an article about a South African Indian woman—I have unfortunately mislaid the cutting but I am sure hon. members would also have read it—whose child was born in India and who is not allowed to bring that child back. I know there is a law to this effect but I think there is also Ministerial discretion. Incidents like these do a great deal of harm to race relations in this country. If I can bring this specific case to the hon. Minister’s notice and ask him to use his discretion and allow this woman to bring her child to this country, I think he will be doing something to justify the position he holds of trying to improve the relations between the Indian community in South Africa and the Government itself. [Time limit.]

I am sorry that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Hen-wood) is not here because I was looking forward to hear what he had in mind for the Indians in Pietermaritzburg. I know he had a great deal to say about his activities for the Bantu and what he had done to have a special area developed for them. I know in United Party circles his nickname is Captain Horn-blower. What he did not explain, and what I am raising now, is why he established the Bantu housing at the extreme end of Pietermaritzburg with the new hospital at the other extreme end. One is at the east end and the other at the west end. Whenever the ambulance has to go to or from the hospital it has to tear through the town to pick up the Native patients. One realizes that that was the sort of planning that was envisaged by the United Party. What plans indeed have they got at all for the Indians in Natal and what plans have they got at all for the Indians of Pietermaritzburg? They did have a plan in 1948 and that was for a multi-racial Provincial Council.

And you supported it.

No, I did not. I believe that it was there where the not set in. That was where the United Party got on the skids of multi-racialism. Looking back, Mr. Chairman, I can say thank goodness that the National Party came into power. That not only saved South Africa but saved Natal. South Africa has, in fact, since rejected every policy and plan put forward by the United Party. I am very happy indeed to be on this side where positive planning is done and where positive action is taken. I am happy to know that the Indians are better housed and better cared for under this Government than they have ever been before. I know that the Indians can look forward to a brighter future. It is that hope of reward that sweetens his labour. The Indians in Pietermaritzburg are indeed fortunate because the planning there has gone forward in a correct manner.

I would like to refer again to the Mountain Rise area about which I spoke last year because the change-over has taken place. The Indians have taken over the complete area in a very smooth manner. I do not know of anybody on either side, whether he be Indian or European, who is dissatisfied with the deal that he got. It is to the benefit of the European and to the Indian. It is a pleasure to see them living in such pleasant surroundings. There was a private school for Europeans in that area and the buildings are still there. I want to ask the hon. Minister whether it would be possible for this school to be run on private lines for the Indians, private lines similar to some of the private schools we have in Natal. I would like to see this established on a Christian basis.

Furthermore, I want to ask the hon. Minister whether there is any possibility of getting a hospital established in this area. It is an entirely Indian area and I am sure that if a hospital were built there they would be able to staff it, look after it and do everything themselves. I believe the Indian will show great talent in this field. Separate development will indeed bring the best out of them.

I want to report on the industrial progress of this particular area. One of the most modern factories in the world is in the course of construction there. It is completely air-conditioned and it is to produce spinning thread. It has modern machinery. I believe Swiss technicians are spending a considerable time there to get the Indians well into the way of management and the technicalities of this process. They will eventually move off and the Indians will take over entirely. I believe this is the only kind of spinning mill of this type in the whole of South Africa. To my knowledge it has cost well over R100,000. It is owned by Indians, built in an Indian area and it will save many thousands of rand in imports. It will not only benefit the Indians, therefore, but it will benefit the whole of the Republic.

Once again I say that Pietermaritzburg is leading in the way of planning par excellence. All this, I might say, has been brought about with but a handful of National Party members to represent them. I can say with the greatest confidence that we now have four additional Provincial Councillors and that Natal can look forward with great confidence to the future to see what the additional National Party members can do.

The Indian is a very enterprising individual and I believe the Indians in Durban have bought a goat. This is a very special goat—I do not know whether they bought it on the South Coast. It is used to march the sheep to the slaughter house. Looking across at some of the sheepish faces I wonder what the future is going to hold for that side. Are they being marched to the slaughter.

I see no particular reason why I should answer the eulogies of the Nationalist Party policy which have come from the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Mr. Odell). What I want to do is to elicit from the hon. the Minister the help for the Indians with which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) has credited him. I agree with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) that the hon. Minister is actuated by the highest motives towards the interests of the Indian people. He feels that that is his duty, not only his duty but his pleasurable duty, because he wishes to help those people. I ask his assistance in the case of hospitals as was done by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) who has just sat down.

In this instance I refer to the Indian hospital in Durban. It is a semi-private hospital; it receives some assistance from the Province, but in general it is a private hospital. It had its origin in about 1930 odd in a small cottage in the Indian quarters of Durban. It was started by an Anglican mission. It had a tie-up with Guys Hospital in London; they supplied the nurses. After a time the Indians became hospital-minded and began to take an interest in this hospital which served them and their families. In the course of time the hospital passed largely into the care of the Indians themselves although one of the Anglican clerics is usually chairman of the hospital board. It is largely run by the Indians themselves as regards the management and it is financed by them. It was also built by them. The land was granted by the Municipality of Durban. By a misfortune the land was not given to the Indian people; it was a grant to the Diocese of Durban. In other words, the Anglican Church received the grant of the land. That has produced the peculiar anomaly that, although this land is used entirely by Indians —except one area which I shall deal with later —it is in the name of a White person.

When this new hospital was built the funds were not sufficient to enable them to build all the buildings and the nurses’ home was consequently not built. This is an important building because this is the only hospital in the country where Indians in any number are trained as nurses. It is a recognized training school and recognized by the South African Nursing Council. The authority of the Nursing Council goes so far that it protects the housing of the nurses. Because of the absence of other accommodation the nurses at this hospital are housed in part of the hospital. Twenty four nurses occupy 12 rooms which are really part of the hospital. There is land in possession of the hospital but they cannot get a permit to build. The Province has granted them some money and the Kahn Foundation has made a grant. I believe the board has been able to raise the funds for this nurses’ home. This home will house 60 pupil nurses and eight trained nurses. It will have a lounge and dining room both of which are lacking to-day. What is more the present position forces the hospital to work short-staffed. The Nursing Council will not allow nurses to be housed badly and that limits the number . . .

Order! The hon. member is now discussing something which has nothing to do with this Vote.

No, Sir, I am sorry; I am discussing the Indian hospital which is a private hospital, with due respect. The Province happens to subsidize it.

Order! That has nothing to do with this Minister.

I am asking the Minister what his policy is in this regard. The hon. member who has just sat down spoke on hospitals and he was not interrupted.

That was why I gave the hon. member an opportunity of saying something about hospitals.

Very well, Sir, I will just say this that the Indian people who look to this hon. Minister hope that he will intervene on their behalf to make the training of nurses possible. I want to point out, if I may, that this is the finest example of separate development in this country and this should please the hon. Minister, the hon. member who has just sat down and the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto). Here is a hospital which is entirely staffed . . .

Order! The hon. member should not take that any further.

I hope the hon. Minister will intervene, I hope he will help.

It has become quite a common practice to hear the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Mr. Odell) singing the praise of the Government. He has suddenly become imbued with the idea that it is the finest and greatest government this country has ever had. Of course he has not yet been able to pluck up sufficient courage to allow the people of Pietermaritzburg (City) to say whether they endorse the step that he took or not.

Has he not joined the Broederbond yet?

I don’t know whether he has succeeded in becoming a member of the Broederbond. However, he certainly seems very pleased with everything and very happy in his present home. Unfortunately he made an attack on the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood), and it is also a pity that he did not have the courage to inform that hon. member to be present in his seat so that he could answer the points that were raised. But I suppose that is what one can expect from the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City.) Of course he was elected on the United Party policy and he endorsed the United Party policy when he was elected as such . . .

What policy?

He has now suddenly decided that that was all wrong. Anyhow, I hope that the hon. member will be able to give us a little more information on the Nationalist Party policy in regard to the Indian people, because there are certain features that I want to put to him, and I hope he will be able to stand up in this Committee and reply to those questions. First and foremost perhaps the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) could tell us what the hon. the Prime Minister meant in the statement he made and which was published in the Department of Information’s document “Indian South Africans”, where it is stated—

Where will The line be drawn as far as that authority is concerned?

Did you not hear that that was explained? I am amazed at your ignorance.

Perhaps the hon. Deputy Minister can give us more information in regard to the development of the Indian policy as stated by the Minister of Indian Affairs in the set-up in 1962, and various other statements that have been made concerning the affairs of the Indian community. These are very important issues for the Province of Natal when one considers the present population ratio and the population increase that is taking place in that province, particularly amongst the Indian community. The figures show that from 1951 to 1961, there was an increase of some 25 per cent in the Indian population. The 1960 census reveals that of the Indian population in Natal 131,000 were under the age of 15 years, which represents 40 per cent of the Indian population. These are very important points, and very important matters, because the problem arises of finding new avenues of employment for the Indian community. We have on occasions seen how certain job reservations have adversely affected the Indian community. I refer particularly to the catering trade where the Indians have been regarded as a traditional form of manpower and where one of those avenues of employment has now been stopped, the employment of barmen which has been reserved. These avenues of employment are of vital importance, not only from the point of view of the manpower position, but also in view of the many social problems that accompany unemployment. A survey was carried out by the Institute for Social Research of the University of Natal, and although the Minister does not accept all the findings of this survey, one revelation was the fact that a large number of the unemployed Indian persons were in the age group under 25 years.

It was stated that as many as 40 per cent of all the chronically unemployed were under the age of 25 and it also mentioned that 23 per cent of the unemployed had never worked. So it appears that this problem is one that has to be met and has to be faced by the Government and that new avenues of employment have to be opened. We would like to know from the hon. the Minister, or possibly from the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City), where these avenues of employment are to be found. We know that the hon. Minister last year replied to a letter that was written to him and addressed to him by an Indian group of persons representing the non-European Welfare Railway Passengers’ Association, and the Minister replied setting out certain details in regard to finding new avenues of employment for the Indians, and one referred to urban industrial areas for Indians. Other members on this side have asked where these areas are to be. Another point that was raised was that more land for Indian farmers would be made available. Here I would like to know from the hon. Minister whether any further steps have been taken in this regard, and if so. where this land is situated that has been made available for Indian farmers. Then it deals also with additional technical education. And here is another important facet of the problem, the question of extending vocational training and technical training for the Indian community. In Durban they have the M. L. Sultan Technical College which has achieved a great deal in that particular field. However, it is felt that there is still a greater need for an extension of that vocational training and the educational facilities for those persons who wish to partake of technical training. The other important point is the question of hospitals. I do not intend to deal with this matter, because I know that it is a provincial matter, and it is for that very reason that I would like to have some clarification from the hon. Minister in view of the statement also in this document “Indian South Africans” (page 48)—

That was stated by the Minister. Now hospitals are administered by the provinces. Is this perhaps an indication that the hon. Minister has in mind that hospitalization of the Indian community should now come under the Central Government? Perhaps the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) could tell us whether it has now become part of the policy of the Nationalist Party to take over the provincial hospitals that are administering health services for the Indian community. This is going to be fraught with very many difficulties indeed. You have large hospitals and institutions, such as the King Edward VIII Hospital, with over 2,000 beds, of which nearly half are occupied by Indians. It is a hospital for both Indians and Bantu and is administered by the Natal Provincial Administration. It is a very large and important undertaking and if Indians are to sit on the controlling board, that also does not seem to make sense as the hospital system falls under the direct control of the Provincial Administration, where you have advisory boards, but merely appointed in an advisory capacity. And I must say that as far as the King Edward VIII Hospital Board is concerned the advisory board with one Indian representative and two representatives of the Bantu people is working satisfactorily. It shows that a great deal can be achieved by the co-operation of the three races in dealing with such a large hospital. However this question of mentioning the hospitals and hospital services, does make one wonder whether the Government has in mind a further step to deprive the provinces of existing rights and existing powers. It would certainly appear to fit in with the pattern of empire-building which the hon. Minister is endeavouring to achieve. Another particular aspect in regard to which I would like some information from the hon. Minister also concerns the training of Indians. During the course of last year, the hon. Minister replied to a question that it had been agreed in principle that an industrial school for Indians would be established. I would like to know whether any progress has been made in regard to the establishment of an industrial school for Indians? These are matters which can all affect the overall problem of finding further avenues of employment for the Indians. I have indicated that a large proportion of the Indians are under the age of 15 years and therefore unless some important and radical steps are taken to ensure that more avenues of employment are opened to these Indian youths, we will be faced with a very serious social problem, particularly in the Province of Natal where the Indians predominate and are becoming the major portion of the population of that province.

I think it was in 1961 when the hon. the Minister of the Interior said: “Gradually people came to realize and it became clearer that the Indians in this country are our permanent responsibility. They are here and the vast majority of them are South African citizens and as such they are also entitled to necessary attention and necessary assistance”. Following that, some years later, the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs was appointed to a Ministry that was created for him. In that respect of course we expect the Minister of Indian Affairs to tell us something about what he has done in respect of Indian interests, what attention he has given to them, what help he has given to them. I don’t think it is even necessary for the hon. member for Houghton or any member of this House to bring to the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) or any member on the Government side evidence of the fact that traders certainly have been ruined. The hon. Minister knows himself about the Group Area proclamations in various towns throughout the Transvaal, apart from the proclamations in a large city like Johannesburg where traders must eventually move and leave the areas where they are presently trading. I think it was last year that the hon. Minister in a moment of enthusiasm stated that so far as the traders in Durban were concerned, they would not be moved. I think that was the first time that we had any real indication of attention that he was giving to this important problem. Well, people are compelled to move their businesses, particularly to confined areas where they have to carry on trade amongst themselves. I know this matter has been dealt with more than once in this House. They are virtually going to find themselves in a position where they are not only ruined, but they will have no means of earning their livelihood. Sir, most of the Indian people in Johannesburg for instance are traders. Very few of them run their own industries. Very few run industries at all. They are traders and they depend on dealing with a large community of people. They are living in a city with 1,000,000 people, and the object of the proclamation is to force them out of the areas where they are trading and send them to an area set aside for Indian people only. Now the Indian people for instance in Johannesburg, I do not think number more than about 40,000 or 50,000, and if that is the number, how are 1,200 to 1,500 traders going to earn their daily livelihood, or their livelihood at all, trading amongst themselves? If it is alleged that they have not been ruined, then it is alleged under the assumption that they are not being moved. Why does the Minister not tell us what his plans are in that respect and avoid these people being concerned day in and day out as to what their hazardous future may be? If the Nationalist Government maintains that they are citizens, and correctly so, then they must give them the attention which every citizen gets, and quite frankly, normally one would not raise these matters with the Minister of Indian Affairs; one would raise these matters under the ordinary general Vote which deals with the affairs of the citizens of the Republic. One would deal with their education, social welfare, their housing, their taxation, their employment and other matters which concern them personally. But here we have a specific Minister of Indian Affairs because in the Republic through the policy of this Government they have been set aside as a specific community who must be given specific attention. Sir, save in respect of normal taxation which is dealt with by the Minister of Finance, the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs is charged with the future of the Indian community. If you look through his Vote, save for Education, one sees nothing at all that falls under his Ministry, except the fact that he is concerned with their “general welfare”. That is what we want to know from him: What is taking place in regard to the Indian community? What is he doing to deal with their rights to normal economic liberty; what is he doing, what plans is he making with regard to their employment? We know that as the Indian community is gradually becoming more and more educated, and as they are finding themselves with degrees in various fields of activity, as they are qualifying as teachers, or qualifying in commerce, or as medical men, or as accountants, or qualifying for normal clerical activities, it is becoming important to know what is he doing to ensure that these people are going to find employment in the general community? If he feels that the number is sufficient to that he virtually can set up, as was originally suggested, a state within a state where people will take part in the commercial undertakings of this state within the state and will take part in the industries established in the state within the state, then he must tell us what his plans are. Nobody knows, least of all the Indian community. We have plenty of evidence that there is unemployment among them. We know that in Durban the conditions of poverty are very serious. We know that there are numerous people in this community who do not have a decent livelihood. We know that unless they are occupied in trade with the general community, they will not be able to earn their livelihood. The hon. Minister must tell us what his plans are. We hear remarks from the Government side as to what our plans are, but the Government is after all administering the country. They have established the Department of Indian Affairs. They have provided a Ministry to carry out the policy of the Government, but we do not get details of their policy. It is not sufficient to talk about the fact that an Indian Council is being established and developed. We would like to know something about the economic life of this community, the social life of this community. Surely that is not an unjustified question put to the hon. Minister. With regard to the general community, Ministers are at pains to answer us on all sorts of problems that are raised, Ministers are at pains to satisfy the country as to what they are doing in the interests of the community, the monuments they are establishing (we often hear that from the Government side) in respect of the future of a particular activity in the life of the community and particular aspects of the life of the community. What is the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs doing, what is he leaving as a monument? What is he doing to establish the foundation for the future existence, the happy existence and contented existence of this community?

I do not want to deal with the political side. I am satisfied if he would only give us some information with regard to the economic side, which I believe is a vital aspect in respect of the future of this community. We have had statements made by hon. members on the other side in regard to housing. We know that housing falls under a different Ministry entirely and this hon. Minister takes no interest whatsoever in the housing side. We know that the question of pensions and other matters which concern their personal affairs are all provided for from general taxation, and the hon. Minister’s Department is merely the channel through which the administration takes place, and we are not concerned with hearing anything from him in this respect. We are concerned with these other vital questions that we have raised, and we believe that the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs has an obligation to answer to the House what he intends to do, what plans he has provided.

It is not necessary in my view to give him details, but if he does want details, we have many memoranda submitted by the Indian community themselves to the hon. the Minister. He knows for instance the tremendous amount of property they own in the cities, from which they are to be removed. He knows the difficulties they are going to sustain if they have to dispose of these assets in order to eradicate their existence from these communities. He knows himself the number of traders that are involved, he knows the tremendous amount of assets they possess on their shelves and in their stores. He knows too another thing, but I do not think he is even aware of what is actually taking place. Does he know for instance that a new market is being planned for Johannesburg which is going to cost some R8,000,000 to R10,000,000 at least? [Time limit.]

In the Cape Province, Indians are Coloured people for voting purposes, and in the Cape Province, particularly at Kimberley. Vryburg and Mafeking, there is quite a sizable community of Indians. These people are really concerned now about what their prospects are and what their future will be. I do not wish to traverse ground which has already been traversed, except to highlight one or two facts. The Indian is a South African citizen and he regards himself as such. He wishes to share in whatever is going on, and he wishes to accept responsibility for acquiring his share. The Government in its wisdom has set up this new Department of Indian Affairs, and I would like to hear something from the Minister, so that I may reassure these people that their prospects are not as bleak as they believe them to be. Because the Indian community does regard its prospects as extremely bleak. The Group Areas Board has made decisions and demarcated certain areas. Disputes have arisen between the board and some local authorities. In some cases differences have been resolved, but the fact remains that although the Minister says that none of these people have been ruined, the prospect of ruination stares them in the face. It stares them in the face because of the utterances by the lesser lights in the Nationalist Party and sometimes by the bright shining stars as well. I would like the hon. Minister to give me answers to one or two straightforward points. What trading facilities are going to be provided for the Indian community north of the Orange River? What professions and callings can they follow in that particular part of the province and in that particular part of the country? They are general dealers and fresh produce dealers, almost exclusively confining their activities to those two trades. There are one or two professional men, doctors and attorneys. I would like to ask the hon. Minister if he is serious in believing that these communities, which are large enough to be discriminated against in terms of group areas, but too small to be self-supporting among themselves can support themselves. Is he serious in believing that these people can exist like that? Will these people get any opportunity whatsoever to receive training at the cost of the State to follow new callings, or are they going to be left just to wither and die? I do not think that we, as a group of people realize the awful prospect of being in business for a number of years, of building up a clientele and enjoying a trade and providing services, and then having to go on working from period to period on the basis of a permit. Do we have to wait until these people are actually out of business and so provide the evidence, that they have been ruined before the Minister will act? These are the questions which face these people and these are the questions that I want the hon. Minister to answer. You know of course, Mr. Chairman, that the Indian suffers under the tremendous disability that he may not move freely from place to place, that an Indian may not proceed to Natal from the northern portion of the Cape Province without a permit, and he has got to make up his mind to get there in a hurry too. We hear stories. We hear promises of the bright new world that we are going to see. I ask the hon. the Minister in this first discussion, that we are having on his Vote, and where some money is being provided: What facilities is he going to provide? And, if it is not the intention of the Government and his Department, to put the Asiatic trader out of business, then establish a basis now whereby the trader will get security of tenure for a considerable period, of say, not less than ten years. That gives a man a chance to do something; to think about his problems. I always quote the classic case of Kimberley where the local authority did quite a lot. Most of these people live there in peace, concord and amity with their fellow-citizens. Yet, today, although they have lived in the town all their life, they are objects of suspicion, they are going to be thrown out of the town. Nobody asked for it, but that is going to happen in the pursuit of this ideology. I do not want to discuss that now. Let us take Vryburg where you have a particular class of Indian who is a trader, and who does a flourishing and thriving business. Similarly at Mafeking. These people want to stay there. They have been there a long time. They do not want to move. To ask people over the age of 25 years to change their occupation at the will and whimsy of persons issuing proclamations, declarations and permits and, withdrawing permits, is fantastic! I think the whole policy of the Government is focused in its cruellest possible form on the Indian. So to-day I raise my voice here in the hope that this new Minister, on this new job, with all the money that is being provided, is going to have a sympathetic attitude towards the Indian and that he is going to do something constructive and that we do not have this, what I call nonsensical cry, repeated so often, “that the Indian can do something in his own area”. I quote you one simple example. There is an Indian doctor, a capable and qualified man, who may not go into a White hospital which has got Coloured wards. He has got White patients, plenty, but he may not go to a White hospital. He may not practise his profession or his trade. He must hand it over to some other medical practitioner. And they are very co-operative, let it be said. But, is. this the intention of the Government?

That has been the position all along.

I know, but there you have a doctor—there are other examples, plenty—and this cannot go on. I know that every member in this House has had representations made along these lines, but we close our eyes and we close our ears and in the process, we are closing our soul. You know that old saying: What shall it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul? In the midst of this tremendous prosperity which we hear so much about, we are losing our soul in the treatment of these people, who have so few to defend them, and who are now placed in the position of having their businesses and their futures placed in serious jeopardy. I do ask that the hon. Minister will now tell us this afternoon, in his reply, precisely what is intended. Are we going to be faced here with nothing being done, and with every young Indian having to classify himself, in going to register on a voters’ roll, as a “shop assistant”. Because that is all they can do. There are very few facilities for them and they have to go a long way from where they reside, to enjoy those facilities. In conclusion, I want to say: I have tried to raise a matter with the hon. Minister under the Hotels Bill. He waved me away, but like other non-Europeans, the Indians have no facilities whatsoever when they travel about. There is no provision for them, nobody worries about them, least of all the Government. There are no hotels, no provision in existing hotels. Some of these people are very wealthy men who maintain a high standard and live to a high standard. What is more, they pay high taxes. [Time limit.]

I think it is high time that someone told the United Party that there are Whites living in South Africa too, and not only Indians.

But we are discussing Indians now.

If one listens to the hon. member for Houghton, one is always discussing non-White affairs. In connection with what the hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) said and his views in regard to the wishes of the Indians as far as the matter of removal is concerned, not only the wishes of the Indians are applicable, but the wishes of the White community as well.

On a point of order, Sir, can you tell us whether we are discussing a White or a non-White Vote now?

The hon. member may proceed.

The hon. member is always speaking out of turn. I am saying that although the hon. member only wants to put across the wishes of the Indians, there are also Whites who have certain wishes which have to be taken into account in the matter of the removal of that community. I want to make a very earnest plea that the Minister should bring his influence to bear upon his colleague in order to ensure that the removal of those Indian communities in terms of the Group Areas Act will be carried out as soon as possible. In the second place I want to say this, that the National Party is governing in South Africa because it has been elected to power by the majority of the electorate and that it has a mandate, and that one of its assignments is to establish group areas for the Indians as well, and that the Whites also want that to be done.

The speakers of the Opposition have been asking the Minister questions on various matters of policy all afternoon. The pattern of development for the Indians has been explained by the Prime Minister on various occasions, and repeatedly by the Minister of Indian Affairs. But the Opposition fail to tell us what their policy is, and they are supposed to be the potential Government, they are the people who are now beginning to form shadow Cabinets, and who are leaving out the hon. member for Karoo when they choose leaders for the Indians and the Coloureds, that hon. member who was the leader of the United Party in the Cape Provincial Council, and who has a seat in the United Party caucus as a representative of Coloureds and Indians. He is left out, but the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) becomes the leader for that community. I consider it necessary that a Party which is beginning to form shadow Cabinets should tell South Africa what their policy is and what they are going to do with the Indians if they come into power. It is time that we asked them a few questions in regard to that matter. Perhaps the hon. member for Karoo will reply to our questions. What is their standpoint in regard to franchise rights for the Indians?

What does that have to do with the Vote?

Everything. Over there sits the leader of the United Party in the Transvaal, the hon. member for Germiston-District. They do not want these matters to be broached, because they want to adopt a certain attitude during the election in the Transvaal and a different attitude when this Vote is discussed here. I am asking: What is the policy of the United Party in regard to franchise rights for the Indians? The hon. member for Karoo abrogated to himself the right to speak about that matter, and he said that for franchise purposes the Indians and the Coloureds were on the same basis in the Cape Province, but is it the policy of the United Party to extend that franchise to the other provinces? [Interjections.]

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member is now discussing something for which legislation is required, and that cannot be discussed under this Vote.

Very well, Sir. Is the United Party satisfied with the position existing in the Cape Province? May I discuss that, Sir? Let the United Party get up here and not only criticize and ask questions, but also indicate what its policy will be as far as education and land tenure for the Indians are concerned.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg-City (Mr. Odell) asked me in regard to the use of a certain school building in Pietermaritzburg as a private school. I shall go into the matter and inform him what the possibilities are.

I know there are certain negotiations in progress in regard to those school premises and I do not want to anticipate them.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) asked me in regard to the admission of the child of an Indian woman, the child having been born in India. I prefer to give her the details privately. It is a matter which was investigated by the Department of the Interior. I may just say in general that if I have proof that it is the child of Indian parents resident in South Africa, and that the child was just born in India because the woman happened to be there when she was confined, I shall exert myself to allow them to enter the country.

The hon. member also asked me in regard to inter-provincial travelling by Indians and whether we would abolish the limitations imposed on it. No, we cannot do so because we have to retain control in regard to where these Indians live, but I make it as easy as possible for them to obtain the permits. I do not think they need wait long to obtain permits. We even made arrangements so that in cases of emergency they can easily obtain the necessary documents over week-ends. We make it as easy as possible for them, but we cannot abolish the control.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) asked in regard to the industrial school. The position is that the P.W.D. is negotiating for a site in Pietermaritzburg. As soon as that has been concluded we will start drawing up the plans.

Then I come to the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). I do not really want to take part in the argument between him and the hon. member for Vereeniging, but I can just remind him that the person who introduced the first legislation in South Africa in regard to repatriation was General Smuts. In other words, repatriation was not in the first place the policy of the National Party, and we abandoned it. It was also the policy of the United Party and of the South African Party; it was the policy of all of us formerly.

But you increased the subsidy.

Yes, but Gen. Smuts started that scheme. It was the policy of all of us. He also asked me in regard to the admission of Indians to Zululand, to the area north of the Tugela. There has never been any restriction on the entry of Indians to trade there, and that is a matter which falls under the control of the Provincial Administration. We are still doing what was done in his time; they are not allowed to trade in Zululand. But there have never been restrictions on their going to work there, and just recently there has been an influx of Indians to work there. There is no legal provision in terms of which they can be stopped. Nevertheless we do our best not to allow new areas to be over run by Indian workers. We try rather to give the Indian workers employment in their traditional areas.

The hon. members for Karoo and Florida (Mr. Miller) and others, and also the hon. member for Houghton, said that as the result of the implementation of the Group Areas Act Indian traders are being ruined and they asked what I was doing in that regard. I strongly want to deny that. It was said by the Minister of Community Development, and I have repeatedly said, that the Group Areas Act was placed on the Statute Book with the object of developing separate communities in separate residential areas, and that in the implementation of the Act consideration is given in the first place to residential separation because that is the greatest problem and therefore it is Priority No 1, but that the Act also provides for the removal of the Indian traders wherever necessary, and that under no circumstances would the Act be used to deprive people of their way of earning a living and to ruin them. That is why people are not compelled to go to reside in a different area unless there is alternative accommodation available, and they are not asked to shift their business unless there are other trading possibilities in the new area. I therefore repeat that to contend, as hon. members have done, and particularly the hon. member for Florida who put it very strongly, that the Group Areas Act is used to deprive people of their living is not true. It is a misrepresentation and I repeat that they cannot mention a single case to me of an Indian who was ruined as the result of the implementation of this Act. The Minister responsible for it has given that assurance, and I also give it, and if the hon. member does not want to accept it I cannot help it.

Various hon. members asked what the position was in regard to employment. Hon. members have again referred to the unemployment amongst Indians. The hon. member for Florida also mentioned it. I do not think the hon. member knows what is going on in the country. There was a fair measure of unemployment among Indians, but I have always maintained that the allegations in regard to unemployment among Indians were greatly exaggerated. I want to indicate that during the past year the position has improved to such an extent that whereas last year in February 3,000 Indians were registered as being unemployed in the country, in February this year there were only 1,900. In other words, the number of registered unemployed has decreased greatly. But doubts are being expressed about the reliability of the figures of the Department of Labour. But my Department, through its regional offices which it has in all the areas where there is a fairly dense concentration of Indians, has always urged the Indians who are unemployed to register themselves and to encourage others to do so as well, otherwise one does not know where they are and one cannot help them, but in spite of the fact that we encourage them to register the number of unemployed decreased this year from 3,000 to 1,900. They ask for all kinds of work. Many of them are only fitted for manual labour. There is hardly any unemployment among the more developed classes. Another indication is welfare. We do fairly much in regard to welfare. For the year ended 31 March 1964 we spent an amount of R37,000 on welfare. For the 11 months ended 28 February 1965 the amount was R 16.000. In other words, the expenditure on welfare has been reduced considerably, in spite of the fact that the services were extended. That is because there were fewer needy cases than before, due to greater employment. I can also give these interesting figures. My Department assists employers to find Indian workers, particularly those who need large numbers. Recently we had the case of a textile factory in Durban which wanted to employ 100 Indians as weavers. After a short period of training, they could earn up to R20 a week, but after a long time spent in struggling to find workers we could only succeed, together with the factory, in finding 40 to fill the 100 posts. That just shows that there are not so many unemployed Indians. Recently a large agricultural project was launched in Natal for which they needed Indian workers, but we simply could not find them. There was an Indian sugar company in Natal to which we had to grant permission to recruit Bantu workers because neither we nor they could find Indian workers. In Durban there is a firm which undertakes deliveries and which needed Indians, but they simply could not find them. They asked us to find workers for them, but we could not. I want to say there is no serious degree of unemployment among the Indians. That is why the Bureau for Educational and Social Research stopped its socioeconomic research in this regard, because there was no further necessity for it as the result of the greater employment there is at present.

I was also asked what opportunities we are creating for employment for Indians, and what the position is in regard to the establishment of industries by Indians. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) referred to a Press report in this regard. I just want to tell him that on 23 March this year the Minister of Economic Affairs gave a statement to the Press in regard to this whole matter, and the hon. member may have a look at the complete statement. It includes an announcement that the Cabinet had decided that border industry benefits would in future also be granted to Coloured and Indian industrialists in border areas, and also to White, Coloured and Indian industrialists in other selected areas where severe unemployment prevails. I can just say that in respect of the Indians, the other remaining areas, where there are large concentrations of Indians and in which we want to stimulate industrial development, are Pietermaritzburg, Verulam, Tongaat, and Stanger. In those four areas Indian industrialists who want to establish industries may be considered in regard to border area benefits. In so far as Durban is concerned, the hon. member said that Durban was already a border area in so far as Bantu are concerned, and now we have made it a border area in respect of Indians, and I said that that was not so, because there is no idea here of granting border area benefits for the establishment of industries. Industries which want to establish themselves in Durban are not considered for the granting of those benefits, because those benefits are only granted to enable industrialists who want to establish industries in the border industries to be on a competitive basis with industrialists in the settled areas, and there is no reason for giving industrialists or prospective industrialists in the Durban area these benefits, because they already enjoy certain benefits there. The benefits which are granted in the border areas are to put them on an equal footing with what is already the position in Durban. Therefore I said that Durban was not a border area in so far as the establishment of industries was concerned and those benefits will not be granted there.

But in regard to the establishment of industries, I must point out that there are enough opportunities for Indians in and around Durban. In Durban they can establish industries in the declared industrial areas. They can obtain permits for that. They can also establish certain types of service industries in their own group areas. Particularly in the Prospectum area, near Isipingo, which will now be developed, and in the Pinetown-New Germany area, which are all situated close to the residential areas, provision will be made for them to be able to establish industries. In other words, they can apply for a permit to establish an industry in any industrial area of Durban where they can find room, and also in these new areas, and also in all the other towns in Natal where there are fairly many Indians, and the Government will assist them to establish these industries, and we are considering establishing a development corporation which can assist them financially. In the meantime the I.D.C. is assisting them. We will assist them in every way to establish industries on condition that those industries provide opportunities for employment for people of their own race. [Interjection.]

Is a similar area for Indians in the Transvaal being considered?

In regard to Indians in the Transvaal, we shall have to make investigations in the near future in connection with some area where the growing number of Indians who are to be found everywhere in the rural areas of the Transvaal can be congregated. One cannot possibly create nuclei of development for them in every town in the Transvaal. Therefore we shall have to select a place, or a few places, where such nuclei of development for the Indian community can be established, so that the increasing numbers of Indians in other places may be attracted there.

That will be a slow death.

Then the question was asked as to what my intention was in regard to the Indian Council, and particularly in regard to developing it into a legislative body. I do not want to cover the whole terrain of our broad policy. I did so on a previous occasion and it should be quite clear. In regard to the particulars, I said in the past that the method of implementing our policy, and the method we will adopt to develop the present Indian Council, which is a nominated advisory body, into an elected council—eventually it will be a council all the members of which are elected, but how that is to be done is a matter which I want to discuss with the present advisory body, and I have already notified them that I want to discuss the matter at their next meeting in August. I do not want to tell the House now what I have in mind, because I should like the Indians themselves to have an opportunity of expressing their ideas before I bind myself to a particular method. But the intention is to develop a body which will have the right to pass legislation and to perform certain administrative functions in regard to those matters which affect them as a community, such as education. That is one of the matters which may be handed over to them completely. In the same way the time will arrive when health services may be handed over to them completely. That does not mean that we now want to take over the education services of Natal or of other provinces. We have given no consideration to that at all yet. We hope that there will be co-operation on the part of the provinces to establish hospitals in the Indian residential areas where Indian medical men will have the opportunity to treat their own patients and to become the superintendent of the hospital, under provincial control, and we hope the province will co-operate so that when the time comes when certain functions can be entrusted to the Indian Council, and it is considered desirable at that time—I do not know at present whether that will be so—to hand over to them health services also, we can then determine to what extent health services will be entrusted to the Indian Council, and whether hospitals in their own residential areas can also be placed under their control.

Is the development of the Indian Council which you envisage such that it will become a Cabinet?

Yes.

Vote put and agreed to.

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

Evening Sitting

On Revenue Vote No. 27.—“Commerce and Industries”, R7,059,000,

Mr. Chairman, I wish to claim the privilege of the half-hour. The hon. the Minister of Finance told this House some time ago that the present “boom” was planned by the Government. I do not know how much hand this Minister had in this planning, but whosoever planned it had apparently not foreseen some of its consequences which, if not checked, will put an end to the boom. I refer to the unfavourable balance of trade that has developed and rising prices.

The hon. the Minister of Finance said that the current deficit for the last quarter of 1964 was running at an annual rate of about R230,000,000. The import-export gap for the first three months of 1965 was R172,000,000. With the drought conditions at present prevailing the outlook for the rest of the year is not so promising either as far as agricultural exports are concerned. Agricultural exports for 1965 are bound to be less than the exports for 1964. No doubt the hon. the Minister has calculated what the effect of the drought will be on agricultural exports in the course of the next year. We should very much like to hear from him in this regard.

With presumably only a small net capital inflow, these unfavourable developments have been reflected in the Republic’s rapidly declining gold and foreign exchange reserves. At the end of last year these still stood at R470,000,000. By last Friday they had dropped to R362,300,000, a drop of R 107,700,000 in 4½ months, i.e. since the beginning of this year.

It is quite clear that the present level of economic activity cannot be maintained, unless the Republic can either on the one hand again get a considerable inflow of foreign capital, or on the other hand in the immediate future increase its foreign exchange earnings considerably. We must assume that the Minister and his Department, and the Government for that matter, have made plans to meet this threat that seems to be hanging over the future economic growth of South Africa in the near future. We should like to hear from the hon. the Minister what plans are in hand. Because, Mr. Chairman, as I develop my speech, it will become apparent that as far as this Department is concerned, no positive plans exist for expanding exports very rapidly.

As I said, there are only two ways of maintaining the present level of economic activities. On the one hand, there will have to be a rapid increase in exports or on the other hand, there will have to be a rapid inflow of foreign capital.

Of course, this Minister cannot be blamed for the comparative lack of inflow of foreign capital. What always astounds one, if one looks at the incredible wealth of South Africa and its great potential, is the small capital inflow that we have had in recent years. In Australia, for instance, the rate of inflow in recent years has been of the order of R400,000,000 per annum. If we can have a comparable capital inflow then the rate of economic growth in this country will in no way be threatened or slowed down. The hon. the Minister cannot alone be blamed for this lack of inflow of capital. Because, if one views the situation objectively, it becomes clear that this lack of capital inflow is caused by one and one factor only, namely the lack of confidence in our Government by the outside world. The reason is the lack of confidence, Mr. Chairman.

Hear, hear!

Because, from every economic point of view, South Africa should be having a healthy inflow of capital. The Republic has one of the greatest potentials in the whole world. But, Sir, we are not getting that inflow because, rightly or wrongly, the outside world has no faith in the ability of this Government to solve the problems inherent in a multiracial society such as ours.

The Minister is, of course, particularly concerned with the exports of manufactures. In time they must, of necessity, play an increasingly important role in export earnings. The increase in gold production, on which the economic expansion of the past was to such an extent dependent, is slowing down rapidly, and might soon become static. To illustrate this, one might just point out, for instance, that during the last five years, during 1959 to 1964 our gold production has increased from R500,000,000 to R740,000,000, an increase of R240,000,000. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that this increase has been one of the reasons for our rapid economic growth. According to the Economic Development Programme, it is estimated that our gold production will by 1969 have risen to R796,000,000. In other words, Sir, it is quite clear that there is a slowing down in the increase of our gold production and the position will quite soon become static. It is quite clear that the stimulating role that our gold production has been playing since the end of the last war is diminishing. To show what important role gold production has played in the economic growth of South Africa, I might just mention that since the end of the war, from 1946 to 1964, that is over a period of 16 years, gold production increased from R206,000,000 to no less than R740,000,000. That, Mr. Chairman, is an increase of R534.000.000. This is a most important factor in the economic growth which we have been enjoying over the past 16 or 18 years. But, as I pointed out, the stimulating effect of gold production seems to be diminishing rapidly, and it will continue to diminish unless something exceptional happens.

Over the same period it was not only our gold production that stimulated the South African economy. Our merchandising exports also increased rapidly over the same period. This was due to a large extent to the tremendous boom in the Common Market countries, in Japan, and in America. It increased from R 195,000,000 to R 1,080,000,000, an increase of R885,000,000. These two factors played a very important role in our rapid economic growth. I do not suggest that they were the sole factors, though. Nevertheless, it would appear that our gold production is showing signs of a decrease in the production rate.

If one looks at statistics it is rather alarming to see that in the past five years the growth in merchandise exports has been much slower than the increase in gold production. The immediate outlook, Mr. Chairman, is also rather depressing. Apart from the drought that I referred to, there is a deflationary movement present in the Common Market—and, to some extent, also in Japan—and the outlook for exports is not as promising as one should like it to be, owing to the credit squeeze, this international squeeze of which we are all aware.

I think it is clear, Mr. Chairman, that exports of manufactures will in these circumstances have to play an increasingly important role in future. With the rapidly developing economies in the Common Market countries, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and Japan, there should, of course, be a great potential future for industrial exports from this country to those markets. At the rate at which those countries are growing, despite the temporary slow-down, they must provide a tremendous potential market for industrial exports from South Africa. That is to say, provided we meet certain conditions.

In the first place, Sir, if we want to develop our exports satisfactorily, we must obtain the best possible tariff duties in these markets. We would therefore appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would make a fairly detailed statement on how the Kennedy Round of negotiations under the auspices of the G.A.T.T. is progressing, and how it is likely to affect South African exports. Because, Sir, it seems that this Round is the main agency by which South Africa can get for itself better tariff conditions in the markets just mentioned.

Apart from easy and ready access to export markets it is, of course, also imperative that our export prices should be competitive. To give an illustration of what I mean by this, Sir, I should like to refer to something I read in the Economist of 24 April. The article mentions how little the export prices of manufactures of some of the world’s main industrial exporters had in fact risen since 1961. It points out that since 1961 the prices of American goods exported had remained unchanged. For a period of very nearly four years there has been no increase in the prices of American export goods. As a matter of fact, the Economist points out that the prices of Japanese goods are actually lower than they were four years ago. German prices rose by about 2 per cent, and British prices by 7 per cent. Now, this increase of 7 per cent over four years in British prices compared to the low increases of other countries’ exports—if there was any increase at all—is largely responsible for the comparatively unsatisfactory British export figures. Moreover, the Economist points out that price competitiveness is bound to be increased this year because of Europe’s credit squeeze to which I have already referred. I think it is clear, Sir, that in this competitive world in which we live South Africa must increase her export manufactures if her economy is to continue growing. But this can only be done if we manage to limit price increases. The ideal position would be of course to keep them unchanged and at their present level.

As far as I am aware, Mr. Chairman, there is no index available of manufactures that are exported. But we do have an index of wholesales prices of South African manufactures, that is manufactures that are manufactured largely from South African raw materials. Between 1960 and February 1965, these have gone up by just over 6 per cent. This increase, of course, compares fairly favourably with increases in British prices, but it does not compare too well with German, Japanese and American prices. What is alarming, though, is the fact that the major part, i.e. more than 3i per cent, took place over the past year. If this trend continues, Sir, I suggest to the hon. the Minister that this country will in the near future be out of the export race. All indications would seem to point to the fact that this race is becoming more competitive and more intensive.

We are all aware that the hon. the Minister recently held discussions with industrialists on the question of price inflation. I trust the Minister will tell this House what steps, if any, were taken—and will still be taken—as a result of this meeting. Because, judging from Press reports, no specific steps were recommended. The hon. the Minister will, I take it, inform this House what action he intends taking in conjunction with the industrialists to try and contain the increases in prices of industrial manufactures.

According to Press reports of a few days ago, the Chairman of the Board of Trade and Industry has hinted at an incomes policy or, as the newspapers reported it, a prices and wages policy. Again I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to establishment an incomes council or similar body to control all forms of income? We know, of course, that a similar body exists in for instance the United Kingdom If so, will this be a separate body from the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, or will it fall under this hon. the Minister’s Department? Is the hon. the Minister satisfied that the necessary statistical information is available? Is he satisfied that there will be sufficient qualified civil servants to make a success of the mooted organization?

Inflation in Europe has in recent years to a large extent been due to the extreme shortage of labour. Comparatively easier labour supplies in the United States of America, where they had the advantage of a large unemployed population, has made it possible for America to show such a sustained rate of growth, such a rapid rate of growth, for the past four consecutive years with very little price inflation, compared with certain European countries.

The Republic of South Africa is in a similar fortunate position—or even more fortunate position, perhaps—than the United States of America to contain price increases. The reason is more or less the same as what applies to America, namely the very large reserves of non-White labour available. We find that until the third quarter of 1964 the price level was kept down remarkably well. To a large extent this was due to the enormous absorption of non-White, particularly Bantu labour. To substantiate this, Mr. Chairman, I should like to read what Dr. P. J. Riekert wrote in Tegniek of April this year. He wrote a very interesting article titled Ekonomie en Arbeidstekort, and inter alia said this:

I think it is quite clear from what Dr. Riekert has said that if we want to contain the increase in prices of our export manufactures we will simply have to make greater use of our non-Whites in skilled and semi-skilled occupations. If we do not do this we will be faced with a wage inflation.

I think it is also clear from what Dr. Riekert has said that, despite the Government’s claims of keeping South Africa “White”, the economy is in fact advancing largely on the basis of non-White labour. Mr. Chairman, South African industry could become very competitive if the Government would but accept this reality in its policies and remove the many statutory bars to non-Whites receiving training to become semi-skilled and skilled workers, and to obtaining semi-skilled and skilled employment.

Have you visited Oppenheimer recently?

I am glad the hon. member for Krugersdorp interrupted, Mr. Chairman, because I was going to come to him more or less. The moment these steps I have just proposed were to materialize, Sir, a section of the Nationalist Party, conditioned by years of their own propaganda, will panic and claim that the White man will be ruined, when, in fact, it is a process that lifts the standards of living higher and yet higher.

Hear, hear!

The tragedy of the matter is that thanks to Nationalist propaganda, and thanks to the hon. member for Krugersdorp, many people think that the steps I proposed will mean the ruination of the White man in South Africa. If he had better insight into economics he would realize that such a move would only lead to a higher standard of living for all people in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, apart from creating the right conditions for exports, i.e. (a) negotiating as free markets as possible for the country’s exports, and (b) keeping prices down as much as possible, there is, of course, still the problem of promoting and selling the exports. Exhorting industrialists to export is, of course, necessary. But the Government should also induce them more positively by holding out bigger fiscal carrots. But this, of course, is not really a matter for this hon. the Minister. It is more a matter for the hon. the Minister of Finance who, in my view, missed a golden opportunity of doing this very thing when he formulated his last Budget of a few months ago.

However, the hon. the Minister of Commerce and Industries can assist local exporters enormously with his foreign trade service and trade promotion overseas.

But, Sir, I am dismayed when I look at the Estimates of this year, because the foreign trade service personnel is actually being reduced from 73 to 61, compared with 75 two years ago. Six staff members have been transferred from Singapore, no doubt for political reasons. But I notice with alarm that in Japan our foreign service personnel has been reduced by one. Also in various other centres there have been staff reductions.

If one looks at the Vote for Trade Publicity one sees that it remains constant at R182,500, and assistance to exporters remains constant at R 100,000. Other speakers on this side will deal more fully with this particular aspect, and therefore I will not elaborate on this point. One is concerned when one contrasts what is being done by this hon. the Minister with what is being done by the British Board of Trade. Of course, Britain is also experiencing balance of payments difficulties. I have before me a circular issued by the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce containing an item regarding an export drive by the British Board of Trade, and this is what is printed under the heading of Topical News and Views:

Now, this is the type of service the hon. the Minister should provide for exporters of this country, too.

Hear, hear!

Speakers who will follow me can perhaps elaborate on this idea, but I feel unhappy because when one studies these Votes and these Estimates one realizes there has been no change compared to last year. The Government is just taking no active steps whatsoever to promote exports. If one looks at this year’s Estimates one is forced to admit that it indicates a total lack of awareness on the part of the Government of the urgency for South Africa to increase its exports, particularly manufactures. The Government is certainly not doing its share in developing export markets rapidly, and expansion which is very essential at the present time, as I have tried to point out to the Government. If success is not achieved in this regard, there must inevitably be a slowing down of our economic growth.

Mr. Chairman, I can but say to the hon. the Minister that the Government is apparently not aware that the choice before South Africa at the moment is one of “export or stagnate”.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal first with the point which was dealt with last by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. He blames the hon. the Minister and his Department for the fact that exports are not taking place on a larger scale. The hon. member wants the Department to give much more encouragement for exports to be made.

I want to ask the hon. member whether he has not noticed that, owing to the prosperous times we are experiencing, the domestic market for our goods has expanded so tremendously that producers are becoming apathetic as far as the export trade is concerned? It seems to me, Sir. that as a result of the brisk sales on our domestic markets producers are simply not bothering about the export trade. I can give the hon. member the assurance, however, that any information they may require in respect of the export trade they can in fact be obtained from the Department. I trust the hon. member is listening to what I am saying. He can consult the Department in connection with any commodity which he wishes to export, and he can make enquiries and obtain information there which will satisfy him as much as any exporter or potential exporter can be satisfied in England or in other countries.

The hon. member is perhaps rightly concerned about our decreasing reserves. I nevertheless want to ask him not to be too pessimistic about that. The hon. member mentioned various minor and trivial points here, matters which to my mind are not really relevant. I take it that the hon. member knows what the purpose of reserves is. One has reserves so that one can fall back upon them when you need them. South Africa is a country which has a large gold production, and we can afford to have a lower percentage of reserves than any of the countries to which gold mined in our country is paid every day in the form of security or in respect of any excess of imports over exports we may have. I mention that because it is something which is usually left out of account when people compare our foreign exchange position with those of other countries. It is an important consideration and hon. members should therefore pay attention to it when they discuss these matters.

I concede to the hon. member that there has been a decrease of R 10,000,000 over the period mentioned by him, but in spite of that our reserves are still approximately R200,000,000 higher than they were two or three years ago. So the position has in fact improved. I want to point out to the hon. member that the trend for the past number of years—say, since the war—has been for the foreign exchange position to deteriorate, relatively speaking, during the first six months or any particular year as compared with the last six months of that year. I recall that on a previous occasion I mentioned the figures for quite a number of years in order to prove that statement. As a matter of fact, it is a statement of an obvious fact. The import and export position during the latter half of any year is always much better than during the first half. That is a factor which we must not leave out of account.

The hon. member also contended that we would not be able to maintain our rate of economic growth unless something drastic is done, but I just want to remind him of the fact that the Government has already intimated that the rate of growth of 10 per cent per annum cannot be maintained and cannot continue. For the position to be sound and for us to be able to afford it the rate of growth must be reduced to 5 per cent or 5| per cent per annum. We shall be able to manage such a percentage reasonably well, taking into account our import and export position. There is, however, one particular factor which makes matters much more difficult for South Africa than for any other country. One must remember that in the event of so rapid a rate of development as we are experiencing at the moment being experienced in England or America, the capital goods required for that development are manufactured within those countries themselves. Consequently no special effort on their part is required as far as imports are concerned. But South Africa has not yet reached the stage where the machinery and capital goods required for new factories can be manufactured locally. Because that is the position in South Africa we inevitably find that as we expand more rapidly and more industries are established our imports must increase. As a result the effect on the balance of trade is much greater than in the case of other larger countries which manufacture their own machinery and so forth. I have not been able to verify its accuracy by means of figures, but my information is that the present large deficit in our balance of imports and exports has in fact been caused by the large-scale importation of capital goods for the establishment of new factories. These capital goods, of course, result in local production being increased and in more avenues of employment being created. And eventually the commodities which at present have to be imported for purposes of consumption will be produced locally. However. I do not know when we shall be able to produce enough locally to set off the quantity of capital goods which are being imported. I do not think anybody can make a prediction in this regard. In any case, until such time as we have reached that position, it will not be advisable to want to do too much as far as expanding our economy is concerned. If we want to do too much, we shall inevitably get an increased deficit in our balance of trade. That is something which the hon. member must consider very carefully, and when he has done that, he can let us have his views on the matter during this debate or perhaps at a later stage. I should like to hear what his views are.

He is the second Jeremiah.

I have already pointed out that our position in this respect differs considerably from that of other countries, particularly as far as the older countries are concerned. I am convinced that on the basis which has been announced by the Department of Planning and which ought to be applied by all of us, that is to say, a rate of growth of 5 or 5| per cent per annum, we can afford to have such a rate of growth. But I feel that something must be done to encourage our industrialists to make use of the facilities which have been provided for them to increase their exports. The difficulty with those people is that they think they can manage without that. At the same time, however, they forget that South Africa cannot manage without it. It is the duty of those people to look after not only their own interests, but also the interests of the country as a whole, because if we should in due course reach a position in which, owing to lack of resources, we are unable to maintain the expansion, they will suffer together with us as a result of that. It is a pity that the Government cannot take steps to compel those people to move in the desired direction. But it is nevertheless necessary for us to create the psychosis amongst them to develop their factories in that direction.

I want to tell the hon. member that our foreign exchange position is not as bad as he makes out. He must remember that we still have a very large reserve with the International Monetary Fund, a reserve which we can draw upon. England has already drawn how many thousand millions of pounds there, while we have not drawn anything as yet, although we have a large standing credit there to which we are entitled. We need not even go and ask for it, we can simply go and take it. This credit has not been added to our present reserves.

That still does not help us to solve our problems.

There are two ways of exporting. The first is by achieving a position in which it will no longer be necessary to import, because the commodity concerned is being manufactured at home. We are paying attention to this aspect on a large scale now, and as a result we have to import capital goods on such a scale that our balance is being temporarily upset. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) is apparently completely satisfied that we do not need export markets because we have expanding local markets. Of course, we all know that our local markets are expanding, and that despite this Government’s efforts to stop this. Now I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give us some more information regarding the Kennedy Round of negotiations that are being conducted. As I understand the position South Africa’s G.A.T.T. partners have accepted that this country is not in a position to accept equal across the board cuts with the major trading countries, and while we will not get the advantages that the so-called underdeveloped countries get we will not be placed in the position of being equal partners—or rather rivals—when tariff cuts are being offered and argued. We will be somewhere in between the developed countries and the underdeveloped countries. I think the hon. the Minister should be congratulated on this achievement.

So far so good. But what worries me at the moment is a statement made to the Federated Chamber of Industries by the then Deputy Secretary of Commerce and Industries. This is what he said:

First of all I want to stress something which is probably not new to the F.C.I., namely, that there is a rather distinct dividing line between, on the one hand, the dictates of close consultation between the State and industry on economic issues, and on the other hand, the need for the maintenance of official secrecy. I do not want to labour the point but it will be realized, therefore, that however much the Government was anxious to consult there is a certain point beyond which the Department cannot unfortunately go.

Surely, under present conditions, such secret provisions are not necessary. The Chamber of Industries does not think so and I don’t think so. Nobody on this side thinks so. I hope the Minister does not think so. Most tariff changes —certainly those of an upward nature—are now made as a result of recommendations of the Board of Trade and information in regard to these proposed tariff adjustments is very widely publicized.

The Chamber of Industries believes, and so do I, that organized industry should be kept fully informed of all proposed tariff changes under the Kennedy Round arrangements, and that full prior consultation with industry must be made to get their views on possible effects. You know, Sir, our statistics have improved of recent years but they are still not particularly adequate. I understand also that the hon. the Minister has arranged that South Africa will be given time to consider tariff concessions offered by other countries and work out how best to offer in return concessions of comparable value. At this stage I do suggest that it is essential that organized industry not only be called in but kept in the picture all the time. I hope the Minister will expand on this subject a little bit later.

I want to move to another matter that was largely dealt with by the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje). It is obvious to all of us that our balance of payments position is our Achilles’ heel at the moment unless we can increase our exports substantially—particularly, as has been said before, our industrial exports. Unless we do so we shall be in very serious trouble. The outlook for our foreign exchange earnings is uncertain. Gold production will, on present indications, not expand rapidly in future, in fact, it is already becoming obvious that the assistance given to low-grade mines, while very acceptable and based on sound methods, is proving too small to succeed in its intention. In view of the information already to hand I must express some surprise that the hon. the Minister has not pressed his colleague in charge of finance to provide a much higher amount for this assistance to marginal mines. After all, we know that whatever gold we produce can be sold. [Interjections.] I was just going to say that, Sir, still, this Minister, when in charge of mines, was the first one to see the worth of our requests for assistance to the industry. This was quite refreshing after the many years of battling against the indolence and ignorance of his predecessors. Mr. Chairman, this Minister is in charge of Economic Affairs. The hon. Minister of Finance is in charge of the money, but their duties are inextricably interwoven. If our gold production drops, as expected, and the contraction in world trade in raw materials, which is expected all over the world, happens, then we will be in serious trouble in regard to our balance of payments position. It is therefore all the more important to encourage both our gold production and our industrial exports to a greater degree than at present.

I don’t intend to decry the present assistance being given by the Government to our exports. The present arrangements in regard to export credit insurance should, on the face of it, be a considerable help to exporters, but it has not brought about the increase in exports that was expected. Of course, we must remember, that our natural markets for manufactured goods of this sort are closed to us. In addition the Government has provided funds for financing exporters to enable them to give credit over longer terms than they normally give . . .

There is a dumping duty; you cannot expect that.

Are you making this speech, Piet, or I? The income tax concessions given to exporters too could have been expected to help, and the provision of funds for the financing of the establishment of a National Export Organization by private enterprise. Unfortunately all these efforts, well-meant as they were, have not produced the results that were expected. In plain language, they have produced no real results at all. I do not want to be too much of a pessimist, Sir, but on the facts given by my hon. colleague and those that I have given, there is no question that very grave problems will face us in future.

To sum up, Sir: It certainly looks as though our gold production is not going to increase. No provision is made for assistance to marginal mines this year and I hope, behind the scenes, the Minister will try to do something about this because he obviously is the only member in the Cabinet or on that side who has appreciated the necessity of assisting the marginal mines. As my colleague has said a contraction in world trade in raw materials is expected in the immediate future and our industrial exports, such as they are, are going to meet fiercer and fiercer competition.

The only markets which can help us out of our trouble and help us to maintain our standard of living and control our balance of payments problems are those of the countries to our north. Notwithstanding all the assistance, on the material side, given by the Government to exports, the fact remains that it is the Government’s policies to leave us in our present position. All these well-thought-out methods of assistance are right but then you get that type of policy-foundation, together with the shortage and misuse of our manpower, and the other and most important fact that our natural markets north of us will not trade with us.

We were very proud of the Minister when he raised the assistance to the marginal mines but is he trying to get the hon. the Prime Minister to do something about re-opening friendships with the countries north of us. I am sure he is not but you know, Sir, he was successful once before and he should try it again. In a previous debate I asked the Minister certain questions. He did not take part in that debate so he did not have a chance to answer them. The questions in regard to the border industries were (1) does he not now agree that the hon. the Prime Minister’s dream about border industries was impracticable; (2) does he not agree that the frantic efforts to clothe these border industries in the word “decentralization” is one of the main reasons holding back our manufacturers from trying to export goods out of the country? I want to ask him, if he were a manufacturer and he knew that at any moment somebody would be put in the position, not in a border industry in the bundu, but on the borders of one of our large White towns, in which he would have an unfair advantage over him, would the Minister, in those circumstances, try to export? [Time limit]

At one stage in his speech the hon. member who has just sat down said: “Piet, who is making this speech, you or I?” If only Piet had made it! In any case, it could not have been worse than it was. He is the new prophet of doom of the United Party. I want to content myself by saying that the former prophet of doom of the United Party, the hon. member for Constantia [Mr. Water-son), played the part far better than the hon. member has tried to play it.

The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) expressed one important doubt and I am inclined to agree with him to a large extent. He is concerned about our exports position. I agree with him that our exports position is not as favourable as we should like to see it. The question is: What can we do to improve it? What are our export products? In the first place we have gold. I do not think that we could increase our gold production to any large extent. Moreover, the price is fixed, so there is actually nothing we can do in this regard. In the second place we have our agricultural products. We have had one or two unfortunate years; we have to depend upon climatic conditions and overseas’ prices and so there is nothing we can do in this regard either. In the third place we have our diamonds and base minerals. I think that every effort is being made by the private sector to increase our diamond production because prices are so high to-day. We may experience some improvement in this regard in the future. Then there is the question of the export of raw materials. I think that we may perhaps be able to do something in connection with the export of raw materials by concentrating a little more upon the refining of those raw materials instead of exporting them, and in this way earning more foreign currency. But I think that everything possible is already being done in this regard.

The one aspect of our exports in which I think we are falling very far short at the moment is that of manufactured goods. The hon. member for Jeppe is of the opinion that the Government is doing a very great deal to encourage the export of manufactured goods. I agree with the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Van den Heever) that the machinery which we have overseas, our trade commissioners, market research officials, marketing enquiries and so forth, can perhaps be improved. An additional 11 trade commissioners have been appointed over the past two years which brings the total to 46. Viewed from this angle I cannot see that we can bring about very great improvements. The big difficulty at the moment is, of course, that there is such a large market for all manufactured goods in South Africa that manufacturers in this country can sell virtually everything that they produce on the streets, as Dr. Rabie put it in a speech to the Rotary Club in Johannesburg. Anyone who is in the selling business knows that the easiest way to sell one’s products is to sell it on the street. When one can sell things virtually on the street one feels that it is unnecessary to incur expense in developing foreign markets. I shall suggest something just now which I think the Government could also do to encourage our export market for manufactured goods but the question which arises to my mind is whether or not the Government could in actual fact do a great deal more? A further question which arises to my mind is whether the industrialists in South Africa are doing sufficient to build up an export market. That is the point. Our industrialists are at the moment in this fortunate position, for them, that they can sell locally everything which they manufacture. Take the steel industry. Not so long ago we were a large exporter of steel and this fact improved our currency position. But as a result of the upsurge in this country, as a result of building activities, as a result of all these things, we are no longer an exporter of steel but an importer. This holds good for most of our manufacturing industries. Where we had possibly in the past to find export markets, the local market at the moment is so large that we are no longer seeking export markets. I think that industrialists can do a great deal more in this connection. Mr. Chairman, we shall reach saturation point at some or other stage as far as this enormous economic and production expansion is concerned and then our industrialists will have to compete on foreign markets. It appears to me as though they are following the short-sighted policy at the moment of selling everything locally instead of putting a few of their eggs into other baskets, preferably on the foreign market.

And laying a few more eggs.

Yes they should lay a few more eggs, make additional funds availableable, seek additional markets and that sort of thing.

I should like to make a suggestion in regard to which I think the hon. the Minister and private industry can co-operate to assist in building up bigger foreign markets. In the first place, they must be weaned—it will be difficult to wean them, human tendencies being what they are—from the idea of wanting to sell everything locally. They should try to put a few eggs into their foreign baskets even though they may not make very much profit in this regard, in order to develop a foreign market. We have SAFTO, the South African Foreign Trades Organization, which is complementing the efforts of the Government to develop foreign trade. The Government is contributing to the funds of SAFTO, I think to the extent of R 100,000. I understand that this amount of R100.000 forms a large part of the budget of that organization. I should like to make this suggestion for the consideration of the hon. the Minister. I know that I cannot advocate additional expenditure but, as a policy for the future, will the hon. the Minister not be prepared to make a larger amount available to SAFTO on condition that they contribute an additional R2 for every additional R1 which the hon. the Minister gives them, in order to strengthen their funds. This money can then be spent on research, market research, market analyses and in searching for markets generally. Notwithstanding the fact that the stock market has fallen to such an extent recently, there is not the slightest doubt that the manufacturing industry is making fantastic profits. They are building up tremendous reserves and I do not think it is asking too much of them to spend a portion of those reserves upon the development of foreign markets, not only because this is in the interests of South Africa, not only because it is in the interests of our balance of payments position but because it is in the interests of industry itself. It is in their own interests not to concentrate exclusively upon the local market just because it happens to be a very large market. That is why I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he cannot encourage private industry to follow this suggestion. I do not think that our balance of payments position is anywhere near the crisis stage but with a view to a possible decrease in our gold production—we do not know whether there will be an increase in the gold price—South Africa has from an economic point of view to rely on increased exports of manufactured goods. We shall have to consider this matter. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister cannot give consideration to the suggestion I have just made as a long-term policy?

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) has been quick to shrug off the responsibility of the Government in regard to exports and to place it on the shoulders of the industrialists. It works the other way when the Government takes credit for the work of the industrialist. When industry develops, when the economy develops, then the Government claims that it is its policy which is causing it; not the industrialist who is, in fact, responsible. But when there are difficulties then the hon. member for Vereeniging puts the blame on the shoulders of the industrialists. I don’t want to follow his arguments in detail other than to deal with two aspects of the points raised by the hon. member for Vereeniging.

He advanced the facile argument that whereas we were exporters of steel we were now importing steel. He forgets to mention that instead of our importing, for instance, railway rolling stock, we are making our own with the steel which would otherwise have been exported. In other words, where we are losing exports on the raw steel we are saving on the lesser imports of the finished goods and saving a far greater amount than you would have had you imported the finished articles. Secondly, I would like to ask the hon. member for Vereeniging, or preferably the hon. the Minister—the Minister might be able to give us some interesting figures on this—to tell us what the export figures are in respect of the one section of industry which the Government is doing its best to encourage at heavy cost to the State, the border industries of South Africa; the border industries which are the baby of the Government and which are being nursed with every possible inducement and assistance the Government can give. In other words, what contribution are the border industries of South Africa making to our export drive. They are the baby of the Government. We want to know whether these border industries are going to be an asset in regard to exports; we want to know what the Government is doing to assist them to obtain export markets. We don’t want just vague generalizations. I hope the Minister will be able to give us some specific items of exports from our border industries.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) is quick to jump to the defence of border industries but I want to turn to that baby of his. Last year the hon. member for Heilbron told this House that the border industry development had provided employment for 42,000 Bantu in border industries. I am glad the hon. member confirms it because I have his Hansard here. But only a week or so ago, Sir, we had Tabled in this House the annual report of the Permanent Committee on border industries reporting for the period I January to 31 December 1964. When one refers to the bottom of page 2 and page 3 one finds that this committee, the official Government committee dealing with border industries, gives, in summarized form, the figures in respect of employment and investment over the last four and a half years. According to these figures, at a date a year later than that which we were discussing a year ago when the member for Heilbron gave the figure of 42,000 as the number in employment, there are now, as a result of four and a half years of border industry development, 33.000 Bantu employed therein. In other words, 9,000 less than that hon. member claimed were employed a year ago. That includes both assisted industry—there are 60 assisted industries—and 28 new industries which receive no Government assistance. So we have the position that four and a half years of effort has provided employment for 33,000 Bantu whereas the Minister, the Chairman of the Bantu Affairs Commission and any other person, who has studied the position, will know that jobs must be found for about 80.000 Bantu per year. I assume the hon. the Minister does not dispute that figure because it comes from the report of his own commission.

The point is what is the figure for the last year.

The figure for the last year is not given. The estimate is given—

We have had estimates every year and the estimates for one year have been higher than the total for four and a half years. I am not interested in estimates and dreams, Sir; I am interested in facts, in the truth, in the reality. We have heard of the plans and the intentions of the Government year after year. What matters is what is the fact and the fact is that in over four years 33,000 people have been employed, i.e. approximately 8,000 per annum. In other words, 10 per cent of the number of Bantu who must be absorbed into employment. Ninety per cent of the Bantu, who have found jobs, are not employed therein. There are 3,800,000 gainfully employed Bantu over the age of 15 in South Africa and we talk here of a meagre 33,000 as being the solution to the problem of finding employment for the Bantu in border areas. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to tell this House, this House which is responsible for the economy of the whole of South Africa, whether he, in fact, has now come to recognize that the United Party is correct when it pleads for the decentralization of industry on an economic basis to anywhere in South Africa where that industry can, with justification, be decentralized and that, in fact, the major industrial development of South Africa will continue to take place in the major industrial centres.

Why?

I shall tell you. Instead of moving industry to the borders of the Bantu areas they are moving the Bantu areas to industry.

Nonsense!

My friend says “nonsense”. Here I have the annual report of the I.D.C. Where are the border areas? Rosslyn, a suburb of Pretoria.

You are talking complete nonsense.

Of course, it is a suburb of Pretoria. I happen to know a bit about Rosslyn. Rosslyn is nine miles from the centre of Pretoria. Is that not a suburb of Pretoria? In other words, Sir, if that is the policy of the Government then we are to accept that our major industrial areas must, in fact, become the end of White South Africa of which the Government talks. Because next to Durban you have Umlazi, next to Pretoria you have Rosslyn, between Pietermaritzburg and Durban you have Hammersdale. These areas which we have regarded as part of South Africa’s industrial complexes are now to become border areas. They are to become the new frontiers of South Africa, the new frontiers where the White man will cease to be. If those are to be the new borders of our country then the Minister is in fact accepting that the development will continue to take place in the industrial complexes. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just spoken said that I had given wrong statistics. I want to make the position clear so that he can understand it. This particular committee which he mentioned has to deal with certain industries which for its purposes inter alia, certain industries which are, for example, situated in Durban have for the purposes of that committee not been classified as border industries because it is not necessary to give any assistance to those industries which are already established. As hon. members know, certain concessions are given to certain industries in terms of the border industries policy. Durban is not the only example; there are other examples of industries in regard to which border industry benefits are not required. The figure of 42,000 Bantu which I gave last year fixed on the basis of a survey which was made in respect of all Bantu working in the White areas but living in Bantu areas, according to the same pattern as that of border industries. I obtained that figure from the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, a figure arrived at as a result of a survey which was made. This explains the difference between that survey and the figure quoted as emanating from the border industry committee.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) is very concerned because we have as yet provided employment for so few Bantu in the border industries. But he himself knows that border industries have only been in operation for the past two or three years. If these are the results which we can show over this short period then I think that a great deal of progress has already been made. We have achieved this position in spite of the opposition which we have experienced from the United Party, in spite of their hostility. We have often pointed out in this House that we will not achieve our goal so much by providing employment for people in the border industries as by ensuring that for every Bantu working in a border industry there is a family living in the Bantu homeland. A living is created for a large number of people, for every family living in the Bantu homeland because tertiary activities come into being in the Bantu homeland. As was indicated last year, there have to be health officials, there have to be municipal officials, there have to be shopkeepers and there have to be chemists. All those activities come into being in the Bantu homeland and thus provide employment for the Bantu in the Bantu homeland. The hon. member must therefore not stare blindly at the few working in the industries on the White side of the border but he must consider how many other Bantu are employed in their own homeland as a result of the development of the border industries.

The hon. member advanced another argument which I do not agree. He says that we are bringing the Bantu areas to the border industries. That is one of the most ridiculous statements that anyone could make in this House. I am sure that the hon. member has never in his life been to Rosslyn because if he had ever been there he would know that there is an existing Bantu area there which has been demarcated as such since 1913. This area was demarcated as a Bantu area in 1913. On the border of that Bantu area there is an area which is known as Rosslyn in which border industries are now being planned. Because it so happens that that Bantu area is near Pretoria, is this any reason to say that we are bringing a Bantu area to a border industry? [Interjections.] That is apparently his grievance. We have the same position at Umlazi. The hon. member could just as well have quoted Umlazi as an example although those Durban industries are not classified as border industries for the purposes of the committee because they do not need support; they are established industries. But those industries are situated near a Bantu area.

Take Pietersburg. It is contiguous to a Bantu area and a large number of border industries are coming into being at Pietersburg. Because Pietersburg is as it happens near a Bantu area, can it be said that a Bantu area is now being brought to Pietersburg? Does the hon. member want to tell me that we are moving the land in South Africa? What a stupid argument. Mr. Chairman !

We can mention the example of King William’s Town. There has always been a Bantu area there and there are border industries there. East London is another example.

The industries have also always been there.

No, the industries did not get there by chance. Do not put your foot in it. The industries were established there because the labour was available there. Take Umdanzani as an example. There was a Bantu area there.

No, no.

Because, as it happened, we bought certain White farms for the township of Umdanzani in order to lay out a Bantu township there, although it is not precisely in the Bantu area but is situated next to the Bantu area, the hon. member now says “no, no.” White land was purchased next to the Bantu area in order to lay out the township. It makes a difference of two or three miles and that is why the hon. member for Durban (Point) now says that we are bringing the Bantu area closer to the White area. An industry is coming into being there at the moment which will enjoy border industry benefits. We can go on in this way. Let me tell hon. members that there are a number of centres in South Africa, in which these border industries are being established. I cannot mention them all by name this evening but this whole process is now getting under way and it is getting under way very well. I should also like to make this point. Hon. members always say that they are in favour of the decentralization of industries in South Africa. On every possible or impossible occasion they say that they are in favour of the decentralization of industries but when this policy of border industries is linked up with the decentralization of industries, it is not a good thing. Why is it not a good thing then? Just because they happen to be border industries.

That simply proves how ridiculous it is.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) made an important statement here this evening in which he gave us to understand that he was no longer in favour of the decentralization of industries. He said that it was a fact that industries would continue to develop in the large metropolitan areas. In other words, he wants to do nothing to bring about the decentralization of industries.

That is untrue.

We are actually killing two birds with one stone here. We are bringing about the decentralization of our industries and we are also promoting our policy of separate development by means of our border industries. That is actually why the hon. member is aggrieved. [Time limit.]

I do not want to deprive the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field) of the pleasure of dealing with the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman). So the hon. member will forgive me if I do not follow him.

I want to come back to the question of our export policy and our export problems. I do not think this is a matter at issue between the Government and ourselves. That one of the great problems of the day is the fact that we must export more. I think this is common ground. I am rather amazed that the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) does not seem to be very concerned either with our export problems or with our balance of payments problem. Because, Mr. Chairman, our export problems arise from the fact that we have a balance of payments problem, that there is a terrific increase in our imports each year (last year the increase was 23 per cent), that we have the problem of inflation and the problem of how to curb it, and the delicate position of our gold-mining industry which cannot face up to much more inflation. These are our fiscal problems, which are each bound up one with the other, and the policy of the Government to-day is to try and overcome these problems by curbing credit, by taking the purchasing power out of the hands of the public, and so decrease the purchasing power locally and decrease the importation of goods and so enable us to export. I think the hon. member for Vereeniging and the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) have not looked far enough ahead, because if the policy of the Government is going to be successful. the effect will be that our industries will have capacity for export, and that is what we are going to have to concentrate on: Exports to solve all our other problems.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) dealt with some of the aid the Government has already offered to the exporters, aid in regard to taxation, export credit, and so on and so forth. But there are many other aids, and the hon. Minister is perhaps the best person in this House to know, because he is already offering these aids, Mr. Chairman, in one form or another to the border industries: Taxation relief, for example, cheaper power, cheap water, in a far greater measure than the incentive offered to the exporter. So the hon. Minister knows the picture entirely and if he were to apply to the exporter some of these aids that he is applying to the border industries, perhaps he would have some greater incentive among our exporters to export.

The other factor, Mr. Chairman, is the question of our foreign trade service. It is a matter I have raised continually in this House, I do not want to decry in any shape or form those members of our service who are doing an extraordinary good job, but I think we have rather lost our perspective in regard to a modern export trade service. The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) has already referred to the fact that the British Board of Trade is spending some £100,000 to tell exporters in England what a fine market South Africa is, and I would like to read an extract from the “Board of Trade Journal” of the 15th January, dealing with the Government Services for exporters of Great Britain—

These are the facilities that the British Government is making available to their exporters. What is our position? We sent three commissions overseas in 1961, and their summing up was identical. This is from the commission that went to North and South America (on page 25)—

What are we doing in this field? Last year, or the year before, we had a discussion with the hon. the Minister on the question of private individuals being utilized for the services of the State in overseas trade capacities. If I remember rightly, the hon. Minister told us that he had appointed such persons, who had been sent overseas. I would like the hon. Minister to tell us to-night whether he has expanded that policy, whether he is utilizing more persons from the private sector, whether the two who went over are still overseas, and generally what the position is. Because if we look at the Estimates for this year, the position is somewhat disturbing. Look at France for example. What is our total trade representation in France? Two, one chief professional officer and one other staff. In Italy? Two. In Sweden—and Sweden not only takes care of Sweden, but takes care of Denmark, Finland, Norway, all that complex of countries, and as the hon. Minister knows in Finland particularly we have built up an extremely valuable market, for example in brandies, and we have two officials attending to that market. It is the same throughout the rest of Europe, except for Germany and the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. Our entire policy of the appointments of trade officials seems to be worsening and not getting better. This mission which went over to South America and North America in 1961, recommended that we should do certain things, and in so far as South America is concerned, it recommended that it was essential that an official be attached to the embassy in Buenos Aires for trade promotional work and that this official should also be accredited to the Governments of the other South American countries, and should pay regular visits to these countries in order to keep contact with prospective importers.

In 1964/5, the hon. Minister had on the Estimates provision for a commercial secretary for the Argentine and a commercial secretary for Brazil. This year, both those appointments have disappeared from the Estimates. It would appear that not only have they disappeared but that the appointments were never made. Now I know that the South American countries are not easy countries to deal with; I know they have foreign currency problems; I know they have a currency which can fluctuate by 25 per cent in a week; but nevertheless they are great importing countries. The Argentine over the last four years had imports of approximately $1,500,000,000 per annum, and Brazil, whose economy is growing pretty fast to-day, had imports almost as big. I do not know why we have ignored these countries. What rather perturbs one is when one reads about SAFTO, one finds that the managing director of SAFTO is making a visit to South America this year, particularly to see what can be done about our exports and that SAFTO reports that our exports to Venezuela this year were R450.000, and from a report which appeared in the local Press it appears that increased exports to Venezuela are considered to be the result of active promotion by SAFTO of South African goods, together with SAFTO’s urging of South African companies to meet enquiries and orders coming from Venezuela, and their managing director is following this up and is now going to South America to see what can be done to foster our trade. I hope that the hon. Minister will not take a short-term view of these things. These countries are developing countries. There may be problems that restrict what we can export to them to-day. It is also true that part of our economies are very similar: we live under the same climatic conditions and so on. But they are importing from other countries. And that pattern applies throughout Europe: Does the hon. Minister really believe that we are sufficiently represented, from a trade point of view, in the rest of Europe? [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down followed the same trend as that followed by an hon. member who spoke before he did—to point out that we must do more to promote exports overseas. We must be careful in saying these things that we do not forget that it does not help the Government to keep a large number of people in employment overseas in promoting trade if we have not yet reached the stage where we have sufficient to export. I agree with the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) who said that trade and industry must realize that they have also to play a very important part in the obtaining of markets. I also want to associate myself with the suggestion made by the hon. member in this connection. I think that in our whole approach to this matter we must not try to create the impression that it is the responsibility of the Government and its responsibility alone to dispose of the goods of the private sector. We are in favour of the Government’s doing as much as it can but we must simply not under-emphasize the role which the trade itself must play in this connection.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) is not here. I should like to reply to the various points which the hon. member raised because I do not think they should be left unanswered. One could have a debate on each one of the points he raised but I want to content myself with a few observations. The one point which the hon. member for Jeppes made was that he accused us of importing too little capital recently. What is the position? The position is that the Republic of South Africa has become virtually self-supporting as far as her capital requirements are concerned. Not only is she virtually self-supporting as far as her capital requirements are concerned but it is also a fact that hon. members opposite attacked us the other day and said that we were developing bottlenecks in South Africa because we did not have sufficient manpower. I do not think one can have it both ways. One cannot say that there are bottlenecks and then complain that there is not sufficient capital coming into the country in order to erect more factories. But in any case, we shall probably be able to argue this point with the hon. member at a later stage. I should like in passing to mention another point. The hon. member adopted the attitude that South Africa has one solution in regard to the rising price structure. He mentioned the example of our manufactured goods and how the price structure in this regard has of late risen by six points, and then he said: There is a solution to this problem and the solution is that we lower one of the factors which brought about that rise —labour—and there is only one way in which to lower it and that is to replace the expensive section, the White section, by non-Whites. There is not time now to argue this point, nor is the hon. member here, but I should just like to remark that by his observation the hon. member reaffirmed what we have always said and what hon. members opposite do not want us to say of them—that they want to replace the White man by the Black man in South Africa’s labour structure. That was the whole background to the argument of the hon. member. The hon. member mentioned various other things with which I do not want to deal now.

I should like to make a few observations in pursuance of what hon. members have had to say in regard to the position of our monetary reserves, and also because this matter is now being given general attention. I want to say that the position of our monetary reserves is important, as indeed it is in any country, because it is the key to the tempo of our economic development. That is why it is important. Everything actually, all our economic activities, can be traced back to the position of our balance of payments and also to our foreign exchange position. I do not think that the present state of our reserves justifies unnecessary concern. Mr. Chairman, you will remember that when this position became dangerous some while ago this side issued the warning that we would have to be careful because it appeared as though we were heading for the creation of an inflation psychosis. It is just as dangerous to create a psychosis at this stage in connection with our reserves. There is no reason for it. That is why I feel that it may be dangerous to say too much about the position because the fact is that our reserves are considerably higher, indeed, more than twice as high, as they were at this stage in 1961. At that stage our reserves stood at about R 150,000,000 and they are now about twice that amount. We can, however, say that we cannot permit our monetary reserves to drop to that level again, nor is the Government prepared to allow this to happen. I do not think there is any reason to feel that they will fall to that level, the reason being that in the first instance they may fall to a level at which our economic development will be retarded, which one does not want, and secondly, that because of the rate of development which we are trying to maintain it is necessary to have larger reserves. But the fact that I am mentioning this does not mean that we can say that our reserves are very low. They have certainly not reached a dangerous stage as yet. I do not think that financial measures alone are the answer; what we need is actually an interaction of monetary measures on the one hand and perhaps the application of import control on the other. But what is actually of importance in this connection is not one single set of measures but an interaction of measures applied by the various Ministers together, and applied carefully, in order to control a reserves position such as we have to-day. It is clear that the high rate of interest of a short while ago was a contributory factor to this position. The hon. the Minister was compelled to take action and to peg interest rates but that high rate of interest pattern at that stage gave us one important indication and that was that South Africa was prepared to overspend using expensive money, and that even expensive money at 7 per cent, 8 per cent, 9 per cent and 10 per cent did not deter the public from overspending. This is a very important point. Sir, the effect of the measures to curb the drop in our financial reserves cannot be seen at this stage. We feel that this effect will be a long-term effect and that it will produce the necessary result. Apart from the fact that we are expecting an effect of this nature, the fact remains further that there are a few things in our economic setup which we must remember. The one is that large stocks have been ordered and that these stocks are now being delivered. This is affecting our reserves position. As the hon. member for Vereeniging also said, the position will have to rectify itself later in the year. But what is of importance is that we must obtain the co-operation of the banking sector in this connection. The banking sector is important because our commercial banks at the moment control only slightly more than 40 per cent of the deposits. A large proportion of the deposits available are in the hands of institutions which allow that money to be spent on luxury goods by the extension of credit facilities. I say that there is no necessity for a large amount of the spending that is going on. We who are, for example, a liquor-producing country, ought not to permit an excessive quantity of liquor to be imported. For example, why should we allow credit for the importing of the inferior literature which is entering the country in such quantities? There are a large number of these things which have nothing to do with the cost structure of the country or with the standard of living in the country. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) dealt with the question of border industries with particular emphasis on its effect on East London and the Bantu reserves in those parts. I would have thought that he had been warned by the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs to keep away from that subject at all costs, because if ever the failure of the policy fostering border industries on an uneconomic basis was typified, it is to be seen in what has taken place at East London. I refer in particular to the protection that has been given to the Cyril Lord factory which was brought out at the expense of the taxpayers of this country, and in regard to which we warned the hon. Minister and the Government that the country would pay very dearly indeed for the method on which this venture was financed. We have been proved absolutely correct in the fear that we expressed in regard to the importation of this factory and the manner in which it was established. What are the circumstances, Sir? This factory was brought out in order to boost the policy of border industries and the establishment of Bantustans in that particular area. It has been done at the expense of the public to such an extent that the rebate on poplin goods, which the ordinary taxpayer enjoyed throughout the years when these woven articles were brought into the country without any duty, was withdrawn and there was a consequential increase in the price of these raw materials. That was bad enough, but the circumstances in which this factory was established is something for which this Government has to hide its head in shame. If this Government has been criticized, and quite correctly, on the scandal of the Parity collapse, I say what has taken place in the establishment of, and the protection given to, the Cyril Lord Factory is something far worse. What happened in regard to the Parity collapse is of insignificance compared to the protection given to the establishment of the Cyril Lord Factory, and the extra cost the Government has inflicted on the taxpayer of South Africa. That is a flea-bite in comparison to what the taxpayer is still going to pay, and is paying to-day, for the protection that is given by the Government in order to boost its ideological policy of border industries; because if border industries cannot succeed, Sir, Bantustans cannot succeed, and if Bantustans cannot succeed, then the Government has to fall! What has the Government done? It has given blanket protection to an industry which was never justified in demanding it, and that is all that Cyril Lord has done: He has held a pistol at the head of the Government, and has demanded this protection when no other manufacturer of a similar commodity asked for this protection in regard to poplins and similar articles. In order to give employment to approximately 220 Europeans, and. possibly at a later stage, 2,000 Bantu, the public of South Africa are having all their commodities such as shirts, pyjamas, skirtings, nightdresses, and so on, increased by at least 20 per cent. But what has happened? The rebate was withdrawn, the cost of the article was pushed up considerably, the cost-of-living of every single person in South Africa, and particularly the lower income groups, have been adversely affected. It is now however found that the article that the Cyril Lord Factory produced was of such poor quality that it is lying stock-piled in its warehouses to the tune of 15,000,000 yds. of material, for which there is no demand by the trade. In order to dispose of that material what does the hon. Minister now do? He imposes a complete embargo on all imports of poplins and similar goods; a complete embargo, Sir, in order to enable this subsidized factory to dispose of its inferior quality material and for which the country is now going to pay more than previously. And, Sir, when one realizes that the cost of this material is roughly 30 cents per yd., then with the quantity available, it will work out that approximately R4,500.000 is stockpiled in that warehouse. But this is the important aspect: The man in the street is paying for that, he is paying for it through the Industrial Development Corporation which has financed the whole farce which has been pulled over the eyes of the public of South Africa, and for which the taxpayers are paying.

You are talking nonsense !

The wool has been pulled over the eyes of the hon. member for Vereeniging as well, and he knows it.

I know something about you.

We want to know from the hon. the Minister, in his reply, how much money was invested by the Industrial Development Corporation in this establishment, which, I understand is practically under judicial management at this stage. I would like the hon. the Minister to dispel a very serious rumour which is going round that this industry which the Government subsidized and established in order to boost their ideological policy, has now got one of the senior officials of the Industrial Development Corporation in full-time control of this factory in order to bring it back onto its feet. Will the hon. Minister say whether that is correct or not? Will he tell us how much loss this subsidized industry has incurred during the past year? We have been unable to find that out in questioning the Minister and various other persons, how much money the Industrial Development Corporation has invested in this undertaking? Who is paying for the stockpiling of roughly R4.500.000 worth of material, and who is going to pay for the production for the next one-and-a-half or two years in order to enable this factory to dispose of its stocks.

Those are the questions which the hon. the Minister must answer, and in respect of which he has to accept responsibility, because at all times he was aware of the risk he was taking. This was a pre-calculated risk which the Government took in bringing out this factory from Britain, when they had been warned of the dangers of giving this form of protection to an industry of this nature. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will be honest with the House and honest with the country and if a mistake has been made . . .

What are you suggesting?

If a mistake has been made. I think the hon. the Minister should do what any other business undertaking would do, and that is to admit the error of its calculations and try to remedy the defects before we find the public having to pay still more by giving this particular industry still further protection. [Time limit.]

It appears to me that the Opposition will just die away without their eyes having been opened at all. We have for years been hearing the complaints which we have heard again this evening⌔that the factories which are built are so inferior. We have been hearing this since 1926. When Iscor was established the Opposition said that South Africa could not produce steel and that an amount of £5,000,000 was just being thrown away. We heard the same tale when Sasol came into being and when, at the start, Sasol showed a loss, the Opposition was just as vociferous in its complaints about that loss. We no longer hear anything about this. The same thing happened in regard to Phalaborwa. The Opposition are the ones who should have least to say about these matters. What right do they have to say that more should be produced in the country and that we should export more, in the light of the fact that they are the ones who in the past did not even try to encourage factory production but simply believed that everything should be imported from Mother England? At the start, the Opposition opposed everything this Government sought to do. When commerce and industry is discussed, they ask about the border industries. They have to drag that matter and also the question of the Bantu into the debate, but they do not want to discuss the true position of the country. I want to say that when next South Africa has a good year for agriculture, when we have a normal rainfall, our exports will increase in value by at least R 150,000,000 within a year. Unfavourable climatic conditions are one of the reasons why our exports have fallen sharply over the past.

While we are discussing the question of factories, I want to say that I understand that consideration is still being given to the erection of another bag factory. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to be careful in regard to the erection of another bag factory. We have to pay a great deal for the bags which are manufactured in this country to-day because the imported raw fibre has become very expensive. We can understand that the country which produces the jute fibre is not very anxious to export it to South Africa because by doing so it will be detrimentally affecting its own industry. It prefers to export the jute bags rather than the raw fibre. We find that a considerable number of bags are being made from synthetic fibres in South Africa to-day. These fibres are spun and woven here. The raw material is still being imported and if we can improve the market, the machinery for the processing of the raw material can also be imported. The synthetic material is a good five times stronger than the ordinary jute bag and it can be sold far more cheaply. We are all aware of the fact that the bag factories in this country were established at the time in order to safeguard the country when there was the possibility of our not being able to obtain bags at all. This move was fully justified but I should still like to say that we should give these synthetic bags a trial. Experiments are going to be carried out in this regard during this maize season to see how good they are. There is still one difficulty which has still to be overcome and that is that the bags are very smooth and so they cannot be packed to any height when they are stored. There is one factory which is prepared to supply us with quite a few thousand bags for experimental purposes and these bags will not be so smooth. If those bags prove that they can be stacked in fairly high rows without slipping and if they prove that they do not become wet as easily as the jute bags, and that they breathe to prevent mildew in the grain, then I should very much like the Government to consider the advisability of manufacturing more of these synthetic bags because they are far stronger than the jute bag.

There is one further point I should like to make and that is in connection with artificial fertilizer. Many years ago I discussed the increase in the price of artificial fertilizer in this House. I was told at the time that the artificial fertilizer factories only receive 6 per cent interest on their capital. It is true that they are allowed a certain percentage interest on their capital, but those artificial fertilizer factories are the organizations offering very high salaries indeed to the officials in the State Department of Technical Services. They entice those people away from the service of the State by means of salaries which are virtually twice those which the State can pay. It is not actually those factories which pay those salaries; it is actually the farmer who pays them because these amounts are simply included in the cost of the fertilizer and the 6 per cent interest they receive is what remains after those expenses have been deducted. I think that the time has come for the salaries which these factories pay to certain officials to be pegged, bearing in mind the fact that these factories do make a certain percentage profit. If this is done we will not find that prices will be inclined to soar.

The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Keyter) was criticizing the United Party for their lack of enterprise in not establishing industries in this country. I should like to remind him that the efforts of the United Party during the war years are out of all proportion to the efforts made by the present Government. The foundation of the industrial development one sees in South Africa to-day was laid by the United Party Government. (Laughter.) The hon. the Minister is not in a very enviable position. One can hear that from the speeches coming from his own side of the House about border industries. Unfortunately he belongs to a party whose political policies have intruded into the economic field, and that happens every day to an increasing degree. We find that he has to trim his economic sails to the policy of his party. We have heard a fantastic story from the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), who told us about border industries, and the other day he gave us a new interpretation of economic integration and now to-night he has come out with a new theory, that border industries are there for the decentralization of industries. His thoughts are very fruitful and he is trying to help his Government talk themselves out of a very difficult position in which they find themselves. I appreciate that the Minister of Economic Affairs wants to see South Africa built up into an industrial giant on this continent, and I believe it could be done, but he cannot have his cake and eat it as well. I would like to quote an example of how this Government allows their racial policies to interfere with economics.

Take the Western Cape. Here the Government’s policy is to move all the Bantu away from the Western Province. I do not know whether we should talk about 1978, but that is the plan. In order to get this to work, the Minister of Coloured Affairs is going to replace the Bantu removed by Coloureds, but it has not been done. But I will hand it to the Minister of Railways that he is at least honest in this regard and he got rid of his Bantu labour in the Docks and brought down 300 Coloureds from the Transkei in order to carry out the Government’s policy. They were brought down in 1963, and I want to read a report which appeared in the Cape Times —

That is the position. I recall when Professor Cillie addressed a conference at Malmesbury on 13 March 1963 where he said, “talking about the exchange of labour, that the only type of Coloured labour outside the Western Cape which could be brought in on an exchange basis for the African labour was one that did the same type of work as the Africans, which was mostly unskilled work, and on this basis the greatest number of Coloured people who would qualify was about 20.000, and it would involve bringing whole, complete Coloured families here. So we have that position. During the Bantu Affairs debate we had the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) telling us about the Bantu who were entering the Western Cape in increasing numbers.

Order! The hon. member should come back to the Vote.

The point I want to make is in regard to the effect of the removal of Bantu from the Western Cape on industry in this area.

I realize that, but the hon. member must stick to his point.

The Bantu who came to work in industry here are allowed to enter on a yearly permit basis. It may be said that industry has all the labour it requires in the Western Cape. That might be so but industry does not want this unstable form of labour on a yearly permit. They are here to-day and gone to-morrow. We want the Minister to do tor the Western Cape what he is doing for the border areas. Reading from the report in the S.A. Digest, it says—

Financial assistance in the form of loans, share capital, factory installations, has reached the figure of R22,500,000. Of this amount R 13,000,000 was offered to industrialists during this last year alone.

We would like to see the Minister of Economic Affairs doing that for the Coloureds here. If the Government is sincere in making the Western Cape the home for the Coloureds and removing the Bantu, then they should do for the Coloureds exactly what they are doing for the Bantu in the border areas. We would welcome that in the Western Cape. Then we would at least be playing the game with the Coloureds and develop this area. But the Minister is not satisfied. We in the Western Cape, at the tail end of the Continent, have to pay extra railway rates on our products, but as far as border industries are concerned he is giving them a rebate on railway rates to the tune of R 180,000 a year. Why cannot we in the Cape get that? We are pushed about as far as our labour is concerned. We have no labour to replace the Bantu as a stable labour supply and on top of that the Minister gives the border industries R 180,000 to assist them in regard to railway rates.

The Minister has on several occasions spoken about building up the productivity of the unit in this country. How can you do that with an unstable labour supply? How can factories who are training skilled and semiskilled labour keep them for a year and then they have to go back because the hon. member for Heilbron will not give them a permit to stay here longer? So off they go, and we have to train another batch. Industry cannot exist on that basis. I do not know whether the hon. member for Heilbron has had any experience of industry, but listening to his speeches I do not think he has. I say the Western Cape has become the Cinderella of the Government, Their eyes are either looking north or to the border areas, and they use the Western Cape to test out their ideological policies as far as the Bantu and the Coloureds are concerned. [Time limit.]

We have found up to the present that hon. members opposite have blamed the hon. the Minister for not having improved our foreign trade; secondly, because our gold production has remained static and thirdly, because we cannot attract foreign capital to the Republic. When we look at our foreign trade we find that in the first nine months of this year, compared with the first nine months of 1963, it increased by no less than R40,000,000, excluding our gold which we also sell to the outside world. But let us listen to what Dr. Rabie, the Director of Exports has to say. He says—

From this we see that the hon. the Minister and his Department have certainly done their share. As for attracting foreign capital to this country, I would point out to hon. members opposite that South Africa is the best country in the world in which money can be invested.

I should like to come back to what was said by the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney). He said that the National Party had dragged politics into industry. I want to tell him that if it had not been for the National Party’s bringing politics into industry there would probably have been chaos in our industries to-day. The apartheid policy of the National Party is responsible for the prosperity which we have to-day because it has led to race and labour peace. Why does he not employ Coloureds in his business? And then he accuses us!

I should like to come back to the hon. members for Springs (Mr. Taurog) and Benoni (Mr. Ross), the two greatest prophets of doom to sit in this House up to last year. They accused the hon. the Minister on numerous occasions last year of allowing industrial development to take place in the border areas. They accused the hon. the Minister of allowing the East Rand to bleed to death. But what is the position on the East Rand to-day? This is what the local newspapers have to say in this regard—

This is what the local newspaper in Springs has to say—

Let us take the case of his own city. He blamed the hon. the Minister and told us that we were building ghost towns on the East Rand. This is what the Benoni City Times has to say—

What is the position in the industrial sector? It is this—

They call this place Rühr of the Highveld. Because the hon. the Minister has been responsible for this tremendous industrial development I should like to make this plea this evening: As we have this industrial development in the border areas, I want to advocate the appointment of a commission of enquiry to consider the advisability of moving some of the industries situated in the White complex to the border areas. I should like to refer to the following types of industries which have a high percentage of Bantu labour. In the textile industry there are 48 Bantu to ten Whites; wood and cork. 52 Bantu to ten Whites; in the rubber product industry there are 35 Bantu to ten Whites and in the leather products industry there are 30 Bantu to ten Whites. If we can move this type of industry to the border areas I am convinced that we shall be able to lower the cost structure in industry. We shall then be able to compete with the outside world because we shall be able to accommodate and transport those Bantu more cheaply. They will live in their own homelands. At the same time, because of the removal of these industries to the border areas, additional land will become available in the White areas on which we can establish other industries employing Whites. Houses will also be available in which the Bantu can be accommodated. I am convinced that if we can make a start in this regard while we are experiencing this tremendous upsurge in the industrial sphere, there will be great possibilities in it for us because then these factories can also export their products overseas. They can only compete if they are established in the border areas where they will be given all the incentives which the Government is prepared to give them. Let me tell hon. members that I am convinced that if we can gradually and systematically remove this type of factory, of which there are large numbers within the White areas to-day, all these prophets of doom will be proved wrong. The hon. member for Springs told us that the Cyril Lord factory was almost bankrupt but he was only scare-mongering. Every year they have a different story, every year those stories come to nothing and every year they are proved wrong; the hon. the Minister is proved right and it is also proved that the policy which he is following is in the interests of the development of the country. His policy has resulted in our having race and labour peace and if we do not have it, we cannot compete. Hon. members are fond of making accusations against us. They think that we are not doing what is best for the country. Let me assure them that it has been the National Party in the years in which it has been in power that has been responsible for our experiencing the wonderful industrial upsurge which we are experiencing to-day. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down is the first to have admitted that the Nationalists have brought politics into industry, but he claims that by doing that they have saved industry in South Africa from chaos. But what about the Western Province, where the labour position is now chaotic as the result of the Government’s policy? He apparently wants industries taken away from the industrial areas and sent to the borders. I wonder whether he will say that to his own constituents.

Yes, and I will come back with a far greater majority.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), who contradicted the hon. member for Point (Mr. Raw) by referring to Umdanzani, near East London, as an area where the industries have been brought to the Bantu, whereas in fact if he knows anything about these areas he will know that that was an area originally planned by the East London Municipality as a Bantu residential area, and the Department of Bantu Administration bought out a strip of some 20 miles in order to link that area with another Bantu area [Interjections.] Obviously the hon. member for Heilbron does not know what he is talking about, although he is a member of the Bantu Affairs Commission. He is not the only one in that respect, because I want now to refer to the remarks made by the hon. member for Somerset East (Mr. Vosloo) in reply to what I said in a previous debate, and I want to quote from his Hansard. He read a pamphlet entitled The Eastern Cape Report, and from that report he read the following—

The hon. member is one of the members who has derived the greatest benefit from the Government’s border industry policy, but he closes his eyes to everything else except the fact that the Cyril Lord factory is the only one which was opened there with Government assistance.

Now that is precisely what I was saying and I should thank the hon. member for having supported what I said, that in fact that was the only industry which corresponds with the Government’s border industry policy and which has been brought to that area, and then he mentioned what was happening in Port Elizabeth. Again it shows how little those hon. members know what they are talking about. My point was that the industries are going to Port Elizabeth, which is not a border industry area, instead of coming to the real border area industry at East London. It is quite obvious that the big development taking place in Port Elizabeth is not, as Government policy would have it, in the border areas.

Now I want to make a few constructive remarks. I want to submit to the Minister that he should reconsider the question of a free port in South Africa, but before I come to that I should like to draw his attention to the industrial position at present at East London.

In the corridor between East London. King William’s Town, Stutterheim and Queenstown, that corridor is surrounded on both sides by the biggest concentration of Bantu population anywhere in the Republic. We would expect to find that that is where, in terms of the Government’s policy, the biggest concentration of border industries is taking place, but on the contrary that is where the smallest number of border industries are being established. There is one industry which complies with the Government’s border industry requirements and that is the Cyril Lord industry. I do not want it thrown back at me that some other industries have also been established there. There have been some other small industries established, mainly of an engineering nature, which are not really border industries in that they do not employ a preponderance of Bantu labour. On the contrary, those industries are actually carrying out the United Party policy of decentralization. That is the point I want to make clear, the difference between the United Party policy of decentralization and the Government’s policy of border industries, which is mixing politics with industry. Obviously if the Government policy is to succeed at all, something will have to be done to induce more industries to go to the border areas in that spot where the biggest concentration of Bantu is. The entire Government policy will obviously have to be revised, unless they can substantiate their claim that border industries will make the Bantustans viable. Pronouncements have frequently been made that the Government’s method is not one of compulsion but of inducement. Certain inducements have been given, but obviously they have been inadequate judging by the results. I submit that the next step is up to the Minister. As the other inducements so far given have not achieved their purpose, I want to put it to the Minister that he should now reconsider the question of establishing a free port at East London because this will fit in with the necessity for encouraging exports. Of all the ports in South Africa. East London is in the best position to be a free port. It has so many factors favourable for the establishment of industries and it would also be in the ideal position for establishing industries which would be able to compete in the world markets. I trust that the Minister will give further consideration to that. I know it was considered in the past, but in view of the obvious need, which was stated by the Minister himself, for encouraging export industries, I hope he will give further consideration to it and see whether that is not a constructive step which can be taken really to encourage export industries in South Africa.

I want this evening to take up the cudgels with the hon. the Minister on behalf of the rural areas of South Africa. We are really concerned when we see the deterioration of the small towns throughout the platteland. I realize that the Government cannot do everything. One cannot give artificial encouragement to some or other development in every town. But I do not want to say that we, the inhabitants of those towns and districts, have a duty towards our own towns. I do not know whether we can make that appeal by means of the Press or the radio. We have had the occurrence over the past years that things have gone better with our people in the economic sphere. Every town has asked for a tarred road and we have simply taken our cars and driven to Bloemfontein or to Port Elizabeth or to Johannesburg and there our wives have bought their frocks and we have bought our clothes, and the only thing left to the shopkeepers in the towns has been the sale of sugar and cigaretets and matches, and the towns cannot flourish on the sale of these things alone. Our schools and our banks and our churches will then retrogress. In the first place, it is the duty of the inhabitants of these towns and of the people living in those districts to be loyal to the local businesses and to spend their money there. That is the basis of prosperity for the towns.

In the second place, I should like to break a lance for the decentralization of industries. I think that the time has come for the United Party to be exposed for what they are. Year after year since I have been in this House they have been ridiculing the policy which we know as the border industry policy. We make no bones about it; this policy is part of the Government’s Bantu policy and we do not deny it. Hon. members should also see this matter from an economic point of view. If they do so they will realize that it is an economic policy of decentralization and of the establishment of industries in economically undeveloped areas. I want to support this policy and I want to ask the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field), who has had so much to say in the newspapers to the effect that the border industry policy is a colossal failure, where he comes by that information? Has he not read the report in which it is stated that the Ciskei complex has come more strongly to the fore over the past year, 1964, than ever before? Does he not know that the industrial climate there continues to improve? At this stage East London is concentrating upon trying to promote growth. The report states that while a few years ago a great deal of industrial land was available and a number of factory buildings were standing empty, already there is talk of a relative shortage of industrial premises.

That is due to the United Party policy of decentralization.

It states clearly here that while a few years ago a great deal of industrial land was available, there is now a shortage. This is over the past four years. Why? It is as a result of this policy. Four new factories have come into being there since 1960; 12 existing undertakings have already been extended, two new undertakings are now under construction and a further two factories will soon be built. What did that hon. member and the other hon. member for East London, who is not here this evening, do in this regard? They ridiculed everything. They called in the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) to open a fête there and on that occasion the hon. member for Durban (Point) told the people: “Under this policy you are living in a fool’s paradise.” But the English-speaking chairman of the Chamber of Industries there told him: “Mr. Raw, please go home, it is a matter of sour grapes for you.”

Business interrupted to report progress.