I put the Vote, and I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that under this Vote they may also discuss Loan Vote A,—Miscellaneous Loans and Services, R175,925,000.

We do not often have to deal with this Vote quite so soon after the Budget debate. I am glad to see that the hon. the Minister has apparently recovered from the hammering that he got last week. I know that one has to be careful, in dealing with his Vote, not to appear to be indulging in another Budget debate. I assure you, Sir, that we have no intention of doing that, but there are a number of points involving the policy pursued by the Minister and his Department on which we would like to ask for some further information. When the hon. the Minister replied to the Budget debate and in defending himself on the grounds that circumstances had changed and that nobody could foresee what would happen, he quoted from the Reserve Bank quarterly report and I thought he rather gave the impression that he waited for the quarterly reports from the Reserve Bank to know what the Reserve Bank had to say or was thinking about. I cannot believe that he really meant that. What contact does the hon. the Minister actually have with the Reserve Bank? How often does he discuss matters with the Governor? We saw in the Press not long ago that a senior officer of the Reserve Bank was being seconded to the Treasury. It was not quite clear whether the Reserve Bank was seconding him to the Treasury to keep an eye on the Treasury, or whether the Treasury had asked for assistance from the Reserve Bank to help them in the problems they were having to deal with, or whether the Minister had asked for further expert advice in the things he had to tackle. One does not know what this rather unusual appointment really involves, and I would like the Minister to tell us whether we are to regard this as a permanent appointment, and what is the purpose of having a senior officer of the Reserve Bank attached to the Treasury. Has he direct access to the Minister? Is he there to act as liaison between the Minister and the Governor of the Reserve Bank, or what exactly are the functions he is performing?

There is another matter on which I think the House would like to have information from the Minister. There have been references in the Press recently to a gentleman named Popov in connection with the new aircraft industry at Kempton Park. Normally one would not raise the question, except of course that this new aircraft industry is a very large undertaking in which the Government is very much involved, partly through the I.D.C. and partly through the fact that the Government has, I understand, guaranteed a certain rate of interest to shareholders investing in one of the companies concerned in the undertaking. According to the Press, this gentleman has been in the country for two months and he is engaged on floating or financing a very big loan running into millions of rands to help finance the industry, and according to the Press he is likely to reap a very substantial commission himself for what he is doing.

I must say I think we are entitled to ask the Minister whether he knows anything about this, because this is a very big undertaking running into enormous financial commitments in which the Government has a major hand and it does seem to me rather strange that a quite unknown financier, according to the Press, should suddenly appear on the scene to undertake the financing of a substantial part of this undertaking. I think the Minister will be doing this Committee and the country a service if he makes the position quite clear, because the newspaper reports go so far as to say that this gentleman’s activities are being either approved or underwritten by the Reserve Bank. I am not at all in a position to say whether these reports are correct or not, and therefore I am giving the Minister the opportunity to refute them, or to tell us exactly what the position is, and I hope he will do so.

There is another point I should like to raise, and on which I should like to have some information. In the weekly Government propaganda sheet called the S.A. Digest there is reference to a new R60,000,000 gold mine to be established, and there has also been reference to it in the Press. It says—

Then the statement goes on to say that the Government will probably agree to a scheme which means foregoing R30,000,000 in taxes. It is not clear from the statement whether the Government has actually entered into this arrangement or whether it will probably enter into it. I must say that this proposal is one of the greatest possible importance for the future of the gold-mining industry, and I think one should know just exactly what is being proposed. The suggestion is, of course, that the gold-mining company, if it wants to start another gold mine in its vicinity, may apply under this scheme to have the new mine regarded as part of the old mine, and to develop it out of the profits earned by the old mine, and thereby escape taxation on the old mine. It seems to me that if that principle is going to be adopted, and I think there is a great deal to be said for it in an attempt to stimulate the development of new gold mines, I am not quite sure why it should be so near the existing gold mine. In this particular case there is going to be a tunnel under the river and a bridge across the river to connect the two so that they are not really on top of each other.

If the principle is going to be adopted that a gold mine may be allowed to develop a new mine out of the profits of the existing mine, then, as I say, I think there is a good deal to be said for it in the interests of developing the gold-mining industry, but I am not quite sure why it has to be so very close to the other mine, and if there is going to be a limit, what kind of limit is the Government going to set? It is said here that it may be possible to utilize the same method for financing other mines that are not too far distant from the parent mine. That is. very vague. The Treasury is obviously going to be affected because it will have to sacrifice some of the income-tax paid by the parent mine, and I think the Minister should tell the House whether they have adopted this new policy as a matter of principle and whether they propose to pursue it and just how far they propose to pursue it and what they regard as a mine not too far distant from the parent mine, and why, if the principle is sound, the exact mileage from the old mine is a matter of great importance.

I am in full sympathy with the Opposition and, to be specific, with the hon. member for Constantia, who has just sat down, because after the Opposition received such a sound drubbing as that which they received in the Budget debate that has just been concluded, it must be quite difficult to come up with something new under this Treasury Vote. I therefore say that I am in full sympathy with them, and one can therefore appreciate that the hon. member, who usually asks for the half-hour to introduce the Vote, did not ask for the customary half-hour this afternoon. One can therefore also understand why he brought up almost nothing here except the three questions he put to the Minister of Finance.

With regard to the first two, I shall leave him in the hands of the Minister altogether, but as regards the third matter he has just brought up, the establishment of a new gold mine, it was really quite unnecessary for him to come with these questions; because it is surely quite clear that this is an attempt on the part of the Government to assist the gold-mining industry, which is operating under very difficult circumstances, to develop new mines. As a result of the tremendous increase in costs we have had in the past number of years, and more specifically as a result of the fact that the gold price has now been fixed since 1937, the mines are caught between the pincers of rising costs and a fixed price for their product.

The Government has therefore in my opinion come UD with a most original scheme to assist the gold-mining industry to establish new mines. This one of which we have just heard will most certainly not be the last either, nor will it be the last within the foreseeable future; for as the hon. member may have seen in the Press, a second one is being planned, for which a name has already been chosen; but the announcement will be made shortly. Surely it is quite evident that this industry, which is of such importance to our country, must be assisted to cope with its tremendous problem of a fixed price on the one hand and rising costs on the other hand.

In the very short time at my disposal I want to address a few words to the hon. the Minister of Finance, and I want to tell him how much we appreciate these new bank notes we have just received. I want to offer him our hearty congratulations on these beautiful new notes, and I am not going to take the series out of my pocket now, because I do not have them, though I did manage to see them. To put it briefly, they are beautiful and of a very handy size. I am particularly glad to see that the R2 note will no longer be used.

Order! The hon. member must rather discuss that under Vote No. 9.

Thank you for your guidance, Sir. Then I should just like to say something about the principle applied by the Treasury in this Budget we have just had, namely to finance a large part of our capital expenditure from Revenue Account. There have often been objections to this principle, because it is said that we prejudice the taxpayer by employing this method of financing. But I want to point out that we are dealing here with a principle which is accepted throughout the financial world, and which is applied by private enterprise as well. If we consider what directorates of companies do, we find that they also make a rule of ploughing back a large portion of their profits instead of distributing it to the people who have a share in that company. If I look at the few I have in front of me, I see that there is one company which distributes only 250 cents out of its income of 722 cents to the people who have a share in it, while the rest is all ploughed back. Similarly, another company earns 199 cents and distributes only 100 cents to its shareholders, and puts the rest back on capital account. Another earns 227 cents and distributed only 130 cents. Another one earned 110 cents and distributed only 42 cents. Another one earned 12 cents and distributed only 7 cents. You will therefore see, Sir, that it is a very sound principle in the financing of private undertakings also. Of course there are material differences between the financing of companies and Government financing, but the principle is essentially the same, namely that one should not consume everything or spend everything every year, but that one should use part of one’s income to finance one’s capital account. We therefore want to express the hope that the Treasury will continue to apply this principle, but if we should again come to a slump period, we trust that that principle will not be applied so strictly, and that as much as possible will then be returned to the taxpayers in order that the economy may be stimulated and may get back into its stride.

The hon. member for Paarl should at least have made sure of his facts. He started off by saying that it is usual for this side of the House to claim the first half-hour, but of course if he looks back at the records of the House he will find that it is not usual to take the half-hour for the Finance Vote. I suggest that before coming into a debate of this kind he should have looked at the previous reports. Later on he referred to the question of the distribution of profits and of some profits being ploughed back. Surely he knows that there is an undistributed profits tax, and that if you accumulate too many profits the Minister has his remedy by means of this tax he imposes. So much for that hon. member, whose contribution, apart from his eulogies to the Minister, has not been very profound.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the financial matters which have been raised in the past. I refer him to the Hansard of 28th March, 1957, when his predecessor announced the country’s investments in the International Finance Corporation. The country took shares in that corporation and I should like to know from the Minister whether he can give an indication as to whether we still hold those shares and what progress has been made since those days. Then again in 1958 we had the special concessions offered to the American South African Investment Trust Company Ltd. The Minister’s predecessor said it was the intention to provide a medium of investment by Americans in shares of companies operating in the Union, and the Minister then said that he believed this new venture would channel £10,000,000 of new overseas investments into the Union and that it was possible that it might ultimately reach even greater proportions. The Minister, when announcing that, indicated that he was going to give a special concession. The intention was to make provision in the Act so that each company would be treated on its merits but that they would be exempt from tax on their dealings on shares. I should like to know from the Minister what progress has been made and what has taken place over the years. It is true that he inherited both these matters from his predecessor, but I think the time has come for us to have a full report as to what the position is to-day. Are funds still being invested by the American companies in South Africa, and have funds been repatriated? Was the full £10,000,000 invested? A comprehensive report by the Minister will be appreciated.

There is another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. We have already indicated the necessity for controlling and in some cases curtailing capital expenditure. I should now like to know from the Minister whether in curtailing or prohibiting capital expenditure there is any liaison with other departments—in other words, when the surgeon decides to use his knife does he leave it to someone else to mop up the blood? I ask this question because a very serious matter has been brought to my attention by persons in the city of Durban. The City Council applied for R4,477,000 for the financial year 1966-7 in respect of capital development at Umlazi. As the Minister probably knows, the development of Umlazi is being undertaken as a result of a Cabinet request through the Minister of Bantu Administration. Following directives by the State this amount was first reduced by R1,036,000 and then by a further amount of R1,490,000 leaving a final allocation of only R1,950,000. The total expenditure up to 31st July, 1966, was estimated to be R2,700,000, an over-expenditure of R749,000 which was reduced by the utilization of other financial resources to R149,000. The implications of these cuts are these. The value of uncompleted buildings at Umlazi is estimated to be R1,324,000. Are these buildings going to be allowed to remain half completed and has there been any collaboration between the Minister and his colleagues in respect of this matter? Have they made any representations to him about what should be done meanwhile? Capital charges in respect of these uncompleted structures amount to R105,920, the value of expendable stores amounts to R240,000 while the deterioration of idle plant and equipment is estimated to be R400,000. This is a serious matter, Mr. Chairman. A highly skilled organization has been built up, an organization consisting of 75 Whites and 2,457 non-Whites. What is more, these non-Whites are people who have been specially trained as building workers. At a request of the Department these have been specially trained and have been employed on the job for some time. They must now be disbanded and according to my information it will be impossible to reassemble them when building work is again resumed. Therefore, a new labour force will then have to be trained at a cost which is estimated to be R1,000,000 if they have to be trained to the same level of efficiency as those who have been disbanded. So these Bantu labourers now become unemployed and the question arises whether they will now be endorsed back to the homelands, whether they will be sent to farms, or whether their skills are going to be lost entirely. This is a serious matter because I am told that as a result of the disbandment of this labour force the economy of Umlazi will suffer to the extent of R100,000 per month. There are Bantu traders in that area with families dependent upon them. You can imagine what the effect of this decision will be on the people living in that area. I know the Minister has to make even harder decisions in cutting loan funds. What I should like to know, however, is whether the Treasury if they decide to cut consult the other Departments involved and whether they have been given any indication of what the effects of their decision will be. These matters have been brought to my attention by industrialists who have pointed out the seriousness of the matter. I should therefore like to know from the Minister whether he can give us any indication whether the Departments concerned are going to do anything about the effects of the decision which has been made.

Mr. Chairman, under this Vote I should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister the Borckenhagen Commission, which was appointed to inquire into the financial relations between the Central Government on the one hand and provincial administrations and local authorities on the other hand. Mr. Chai-man. I should like to know from you whether I may discuss this matter here.

Order! That does not fall under this Vote. The hon. member may discuss that under Vote No. 7.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to the item “Control of Financial Institutions”. I have no intention of criticizing the institutions but should like to know from the Minister how this control operates. A very great responsibility rests upon the officers, and especially the senior officers of his Department in this matter and therefore I should like to know from the Minister how they in actual fact operate. There are banks, the stock exchange, insurance companies and various other financial institutions. How is the work of controlling these bodies organized. Are inspections held? In short, in what manner is the work carried out? I should say that the less investigation and inspection, the better in most cases.

The next item to which I should like to draw attention, is item G, “Compensation: Coin Operated Machines”, on page 16. Does this item relate to the new coinage system which we have introduced? Which machine companies have been compensated? Does this item merely refer to parking meters only or has it been extended beyond that? The amount involved is considerable. Last year it was R1,000,000 while this year it is R300,000. In view of this I should like to have this information from the hon. the Minister.

I should also like to query this item relating to compensation in respect of coin operated machines. The principle of compensating the owners of coin operated machines was accepted by this House and by the Government where, as a result of the change in our coinage, machines required modification or replacement. In the present Budget the Minister has created a similar situation, a situation to which I drew attention during the debate on the Budget. However, I got no reply. There are some thousands of cigarette slot machines operating on a 20c coin. Where necessary these machines supplied the change of one or two cents, as the case may be. As a result of the increase in the price of cigarettes by the Minister every one of these machines has become useless. The price of a packet of 20 cigarettes in future will be 21c or 22c. Now if these machines have to be operated by inserting two 20c coins, change of either 18 or 19 cents will have to be given. Even if a 5c coin is added to a 20c coin change of 3 or 4 cents, as the case may be. will have to be given. The service which these machines provided is of importance especially to people who work night shifts or others who have to work while the normal sources of supply are not open. Does the Minister intend giving any compensation to the owners of these slot machines or does he intend taking any steps to ensure that this service will continue. Will there be any compensation to those people who as a result of the Minister’s taxation now find themselves laden with useless machinery?

Order! While the hon. member for Paarl was addressing the Committee on the question of banknotes, I ruled that he could not raise that matter on this Vote. I have since investigated the matter further and have established that he was quite in order in raising it on this Vote.

I shall deal with the various points in the order in which they have been raised. The hon. member for Constantia asked a number of questions about our contact with the Reserve Bank. Well, I am in a position to inform him that our contact with the Reserve Bank is very intimate. This is a rather strange position especially in view of the fact that most of the central banks, for instance of the United Kingdom, of the U.S.A., of Canada and of Australia, are all State-owned while our Reserve Bank is not. It is true, however, that the Government has a majority of the directors because we appoint three directors in addition to the Governor and the two Deputy Governors. In matters of monetary import, however, there is always the closest collaboration between the Reserve Bank and the Treasury. That, I think, is to the advantage of the country as a whole because thereby we pool our knowledge and resources. As a matter of fact, it is a scheme which has worked very well and we have not had the unfortunate experience which they have had in Canada where there was a distinct breach between the Minister of Finance and the Governor of their Central Bank. We have avoided this sort of thing in the past and I hope we will also do so in future.

Then there is the question of Dr. de Kock’s appointment. I can give the assurance that there is nothing sinister about it. There is no question that he is the liaison between the Reserve Bank and the Treasury because without any officer in that capacity we have, as I have said, the closest contact with the Reserve Bank. The position is that Dr. de Kock has merely been seconded to help in the Treasury and not only that but also to give the Reserve Bank some insight into the facts of life. If there is not sufficient contact with political realities, they might be inclined to think that they are sitting in an ivory tower and thus it may arise that while they may be theoretically correct, they have not been in such close contact as the Treasury has been with the hard facts of political life. This is a reason why Dr. de Kock has been seconded for one year. We do not want to take him away too long. Under this arrangement he still does some work for the Reserve Bank although it is a type of work which is common to both. He helps, for instance, with the quarterly reports of the Reserve Bank as well as with its economic statements. In addition he helps us whenever we can make use of him. As I said. I think this is an arrangement which is to the mutual benefit really of the Reserve Bank as well as of the Treasury.

Another point raised by the hon. member for Constantia related to Mr. Popov. All that I know of this gentleman is that he offered to raise a loan of $15,000,000 for the Atlas company, a firm which, as hon. members know, is engaged in the manufacturing of aeroplanes in South Africa. Naturally the Government has a very great interest in this matter. I understand that the loan will be for ten years at a rate of interest of 5 per cent. These are very favourable terms. The subscription to the loan could be made in blocked rands. In view of the national importance of the Atlas company and the difficulty of obtaining other sources of finance for their necessary work the Reserve Bank agreed to the scheme in principle. The Reserve Bank will, as in such cases, guarantee the loan and will in turn be guaranteed by the Government. The scheme will mean that blocked rands which normally can be withdrawn after five years by investment in non-resident bonds or immediately through arbitrage dealings will now become transferable after ten years. If there are other funds apart from the blocked rands which they may want to use, funds, for example, of emigrants who cannot take their money away with them, they can draw those funds but then it will mean that over a period of ten years the money will be allowed to leave the country. That is all I know about the arrangements with Mr. Popov. Certain blocked funds which are normally not withdrawable after five years may, however, also be used but now it is ten years instead of five. If this scheme does eventuate it will be of great financial interest to South Africa and if it does not eventuate we cannot, as far as I can see, lose on it because for this arrangement to be finalized the amount of $15,000,000 must be handed over to us.

Who is Mr. Popov?

He is not a friend of mine. However, I did not consult the “who’s who”, which I could have done had I known that the hon. member would ask me such a question! The point I should like to bring home to hon. members is that there is no possible risk to the Government in this arrangement. The money must be delivered to us. If there is any risk that risk is Mr. Popov’s. [Interjections.] Well, you know another government may arrive …

Are you going to leave us with the baby?

Well, I do not think Mr. Popov will have any sleepless nights on that score, neither the hon. member for Transkei.

By whom is the R1,000,000 commission being paid?

As I understand this scheme, Mr. Popov gets his commission because he sells these certificates at R110 if they are marked R100 to these people with the blocked rands. They pay R110 and in that way Mr. Popov is compensated. We, therefore, do not pay him any commission. That is all that I know about him. That is all I know about it.

Then the hon. member raised the question of this new gold mine south of the Vaal. I want to say at once that there is no question of a tax concession. A certain proposition was put before the Treasury. It was put to the Treasury that here was a possibility of opening a new mine south of the Vaal; the cost of opening a new mine was so prohibitive that it could not be considered; there would be no money to finance it, but if it could be worked with another mine and if they could get rights from an intermediate financing company, then they would be able to work it with their own mine, and that would entail, at the beginning, a loss of taxation by the Government, but in the long run there would be a net gain, and I think the net gain is something of the order of R30,000,000 ultimately. The question was whether we should allow this new mine to be opened. The advice that we got from the Mines Department was that there was no hope of this new mine being opened unless some assistance of this nature was given. The assistance is not in the form of any tax concession; it takes the shape of allowing an established mine to begin with a new mine, and in that way there will be a loss of taxation for a number of years, but ultimately it will swing over to the other side and there will be a considerable gain for my successor in office.

Hear, hear!

That will be in about the year 1990! So in that respect, I can also say “hear, hear”. We want to extend the life of our gold mines as long as possible, and if this is allowed it will mean a considerable extension in the life of Vaal Reefs. The advice that we had from the Government Mining Engineer was definitely in favour of this. We laid down certain reservations, which were accepted by the Company, and I think in all the circumstances this is a good scheme. But there is no principle involved in this matter. Each case will have to be dealt with on its own merits. We are not going to say that this is open to every old company that wishes to start a new mine. We will have to consider the circumstances and weigh the advantages and disadvantages, and if the advantages to the country outweigh the disadvantages, then we will do so again. In this case we came to the conclusion that it was definitely to our advantage.

*The hon. member for Paarl spoke of the bank notes, and as he has now been ruled in order, I want to tell him that this is actually the finalization of the process we started with the coins. This is the other part which is now also being finalized. The R2, as he rightly said, is now falling away altogether, because we want our people to get away from the idea of pounds, shillings and pence. If they see a R2 note, they are in many cases still inclined to think of it as £1.

†The hon. member for Pinetown referred to the I.F.C. (International Finance Corporation). The position is that we had shares in it and we still have them. South Africa has received no loans from the I.F.C. It is not a question of the Government borrowing money from the I.F.C., but private organizations are entitled to borrow if they are able to satisfy the conditions imposed. So far no South African company has applied. No dividends have been declared and the I.F.C. falls directly under the World Bank. This is one of its subsidiaries, it is under the same aegis.

I think the next question raised by the hon. member for Pinetown was in regard to the American-South African Investment Corporation. The information which I am able to give him now is that the amount originally invested from abroad by Asaic, to give it its short title, was 33,000,000 dollars in 1958. Hon. members will remember that in 1958 we had a great shortage of foreign capital, and here an offer was made to introduce $33,000,000, subject to the condition that it will not be taken out again for a period of 10 years. Through capital appreciation and the ploughing back of dividends this amount has now grown to R47,000,000. At the time the Government gave certain concessions to this company about to be formed. The concession was that they would not have to pay the ordinary tax on acquiring these shares; they got them direct from the mining houses; they did not buy them on the Stock Exchange. Any tax which would otherwise have been paid was therefore not paid. On the other hand they also gave us a guarantee. We gave them a guarantee of repatriation of the capital, including capital appreciation, and we also gave them forward exchange cover for a period of five years. This was subsequently extended to 1968. The maximum amount for which guarantees would be given was limited to R48,000,000. The whole matter will come again for consideration and review in 1968. No South African is allowed to purchase those shares. They are a portfolio of South African shares held in America and sold there. South African residents do not purchase them, but naturally, as in the case of any open-end trust, they are allowed to sell and repurchase the shares to make up their portfolio. They have been ploughing back a lot of dividends which would otherwise have gone out of the country and raising their capital which has now grown by about $33,000,000. As I have said, the whole matter will come up again for consideration and review. It was passed by this House in 1958 and it will come up for review again in 1968.

The other point that the hon. member mentioned was the question of certain uncompleted buildings. He asked whether there was any collaboration between the Department and the Treasury in regard to the cutting down of expenditure on capital works. Yes, there is. We do not lay down a certain percentage and then tell each Department to cut down its expenditure by that percentage, but we first discuss the matter at departmental level and afterwards at Cabinet level. The matter is discussed and the Departments usually inform us that they are able to cut down their Votes by a certain amount, but naturally we do not know the precise details as to how they are going to try to cut down their expenditure. That will be putting too much of a burden on us, but if there are any new projects, then the priority to be given to those new projects is discussed and examined very closely by the Cabinet with a view to seeing whether or not we can approve of those new projects. Where provision has been made for an existing project, then all we can do, as we did last year, is to make a general appeal to the Departments to try to stretch out as far as possible any agreements that they have made involving capital expenditure during the present year.

The hon. member for Kensington asked me about financial institutions. I think a very onerous task rests on the officials dealing with financial institutions. A large proportion of the companies falling under their jurisdiction gives them no trouble but there are always certain companies which they have to observe very closely. I introduced a Bill into this House some time ago to give them the right of inspection, to increase their inspectorate. Hon. members will see that we now have a staff of six inspectors but we still make use, if necessary, of the services of external inspectors. I think on the whole I can say that the inspectorate works very well indeed and I have had no complaints about their work.

The hon. member also raised the question of the new coinage and of firms which have to be compensated, that is to say, compensation paid to firms which have had to have their automatic and adding machines altered as a result of our switching over to the decimal system. That is paid to all firms. Any firm which could satisfy the special committee that we appointed that they either had to get new machines or that alterations had to be made to their existing machines, were entitled to compensation and they were paid compensation. Naturally the bulk of it was paid out last year. Hon. members will see that this year we are only making provision for R300,000 whereas last year it was R1,000,000 for this purpose. It is still below the quota that we had in mind. The hon. member for Point has asked me whether this will also apply in the case of cigarette machines which have been adjusted for the sale of cigarettes at a certain price. Naturally not. It has never been done before. This is not the first time that the price of cigarettes has been increased either because of Government taxation or because of the price policy of the firm itself.

This is the first time it has ever gone over 20 cents.

There is a guarantee that the coin will not be changed. If there is a change in the size of the coin then we will pay compensation, but if there is a change in the price then naturally there can be no compensation and we do not propose to entertain that idea at all. I hope therefore that the hon. member will not ask me for this extra expenditure in view of the Opposition’s plea that the Government must cut down its own expenditure!

Arising out of the Minister’s reply, I want to refer him to what was said by his predecessor when this question of the American-South African Investment Trust Company was first mooted. The Minister’s predecessor in introducing it said this—

This organization was exempt from that under the proposals of the Minister’s predecessor. But in the same volume of Hansard the Minister’s predecessor said this—

The point is that it was clear from the whole tenor of the statement made by the Minister’s predecessor when he introduced this matter was that this was a five-year deal; the Minister now says it is ten years.

It has been extended.

Yes, I accept the Minister’s reply that it has been extended, but my submission is that the House gave this its blessing for a period of five years. Here is an organization which is making profits and which has increased its capital from R33,000,000 to R47,000,000 and it has been exempt from taxation. The period has now been extended for a further five years. Might I suggest to the Minister that if it is going to be further extended, he should come to the House. He came to the House in the first instance;, he then extended it once after five years and gave no information to the House, although he agreed at the time that it was a new departure and that it was a concession given to this specific organization. I submit that if the Minister is going to extend it again in 1968, he should come to this House. He has already done it once without referring to the House and without telling the House anything about it. Sir, this is a very major concession, and I suggest that if the Minister intends to extend the period or to give any further concessions, he should come to the House. That would be the proper way to do it.

Then I want to put a further question to the hon. the Minister with regard to Mr. Popov. Mr. Popov is getting a guarantee presumably from the Reserve Bank; he is taking no risks. The Minister admits that he will be making a profit on the commission. This man is making a profit out of South African blocked rand. If I buy and sell blocked rand as a matter of business I am taxed on my profit. Is the Minister going to tax Mr. Popov on the profit that he makes on blocked rand or is Mr. Popov going to get special exemption? If any bank in this country buys and sells foreign exchange it is taxed by the Minister on its profits. What special advantage is Mr. Popov bringing to South Africa which justifies this special concession? I would like to know from the Minister why the Reserve Bank cannot deal with this transaction, just as well as Mr. Popov can, thus retaining the profits in South Africa? I hope the Minister will give us some assurance because the House raised its eyebrows some ten years ago when this special concession was given to our American friends. I must say that our American friends have invested in South Africa and have done South African industry a tremendous amount of good. Sir, when special concessions are given to special people they must be brought out in the full light of day. The Minister’s predecessor brought out in the full light of day the concessions he was giving to this American company. He indicated to the House that it was for five years. It has been extended for five years without this fact being brought to the notice of the House. I hope that the Minister will now give us some further information with regard to this American-South African Investment Company and give us the assurance that if further conditions are imposed or introduced in 1968, the House will be given full information. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give us a satisfactory reply in regard to this new special kind of transaction which Mr. Popov is going to enter into. I should also like the hon. the Minister to tell us whether it is his intention to tax him on the commission he is making in selling South African currency and if not, why not.

Mr. Chairman. I should like to revert to this story of the American-South African Investment Corporation. These shares are listed on the New York Stock Exchange. Although South Africans may not be shareholders, Americans may be shareholders. They trade under these very favourable conditions of not paying company income tax as other companies do. Not only that, but they have the right to withdraw that capital if the Security Exchange Commission says that it should be withdrawn. In other words, all the advantages are given to them. South Africa does not get all the advantages. They also have the option of withdrawing. I remember 1958 when the hon. the Minister of Finance of those days introduced this scheme. But he envisaged not only one company. He envisaged this form of investment being developed. Now, it has not been developed. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us why it has not been extended and, when this company was given the privilege of extending for five years, when that was decided upon.

The next point I wish to make is this: I have received a number of letters, and I am sure the hon. the Minister has as well, asking why, in South Africa, advertisements for the sale of goods can be placed in pounds. I do not know what the hon. the Minister’s attitude is to that. People advertize a motor-car or a house or any other saleable goods in pounds. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has received representations about a change. I have, and I should like to know in reply what the hon. the Minister’s attitude is.

Mr. Chairman, in the Income Tax Act provision is made for this agreement with the American South African Investment Corporation. No time limit was fixed. There was therefore no need for me to come to Parliament after the expiration of the period of five years. Parliament at the time gave the Minister of Finance permission in respect of an undefined period. In other words, it is now for the Minister to decide. Parliament has granted him that power. That is the reason why I did not come to Parliament when the period of five years expired. We were not prepared to do it on exactly the same terms. I think we made some alterations. It was not what they asked for. I think we gave them much less than they asked for. But on the whole it was inconvenient in 1963 to allow this money to be sent out of the country again. We have, in other words, their guarantee that they would not withdraw the money. If it were ordinary shares held in America, they could of course at any time have sold it on the market here and in due course taken their capital out of the country. Now we have tried to prevent that happening.

As far as Mr. Popov is concerned, I want to say that there is no remission of taxation whatsoever. No concession has been granted to him. He is liable to the ordinary taxation laws of the country. No exception has been given to him at all. Atlas is really a private company. We are only interested in it in the sense that we are guaranteeing this loan. It is not a direct loan to the Government. We would never dream of concluding a loan of this kind. It is a private company and all that we are involved in is the guaranteeing of that loan. They get the R15,000,000 and I say good luck to them.

I should now like to refer to the other point raised by the hon. member for Kensington. I am happy to say that I am in complete agreement with him. I think it is now five years that we have had the decimal system in existence. It is high time that the pound should now disappear. I have already made an appeal last year when I spoke at a Mint ceremony on the eve of the introduction into circulation of some of our new coins. I also repeated it afterwards. And I say again that there is no need for South Africa now after five years to make use of a currency which is no longer the currency of this country. If this goes on I shall have to consider—and I hope the hon. member will support me in this—whether legislation will not be necessary. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to explain that I have not expressed a view at all. I have not said that I think it should be changed. I said that I have received numerous letters on the subject from people saying that it should be changed. I have no strong views on the matter. I should, however, like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that we should try and get the public with us if he is contemplating a change. It might be necessary to quote in both currencies for a period. For example, if a motor-car is for sale at R1,600 it should be permitted to quote the figure of £800 in brackets as well. It might be necessary to have a transition period. I do not like forcing the public to accept. The public have been most co-operating in the introduction of decimal coinage. I think they have been wonderful. Perhaps this stage has been prolonged. But the point I raised with the Minister is this: I have received these requests from people.

And so did I.

I have had certain suggestions from them and they have asked me whether anything is going to be done about it.

I should like to know what to reply to them. But now I know. I know now what the hon. the Minister’s views are and I can tell them what is being considered. But I myself have not advocated it. Should I be asked, my opinion would be that for a period both currencies should be quoted together as in the case of guineas.

I am surprised that the hon. member for Kensington can come along and tell us here that he has no strong views on this situation in South Africa. The hon. member served with us on the Committee in which we devised the new coinage system in South Africa by exchanging ideas and arguments. I think it is the hon. member’s duty to impress upon the public they should please get rid of this habit in future, and I hope he will carry out that duty. The hon. the Minister of Finance introduced this new coinage system and urged our people in speeches he made in public to accept this system. Mr. Chairman, I think it will be an evil day if the Opposition refuses to give its full co-operation to the Government in this respect and to advise their people as well to advertise in rands and cents instead of pounds, shillings and pennies. I do not believe legislation to be necessary in this connection. Everyone must only do his duty. I want to ask the hon. member to oppose this attitude strongly on public platforms and at public meetings wherever he goes. I think that is the least we can do. Will the hon. member for Kensington give an undertaking that he and his party will do that?

This has nothing to do with the party as such.

I am sorry that the hon. the Minister has seen fit to talk about legislating over a thing like this. I am afraid he has been keeping bad company. He is sitting too near the hon. the Minister of Justice at the moment. It is such a silly thing to talk about. The decimal system has been in operation for some years. I suppose the majority of our population—I will not say 50 per cent but nevertheless a very large percentage of the people in the country, especially the younger ones—know nothing else. The vast bulk of the people have fallen into the practice of talking about rands. It is only a modicum of people who are still talking about pounds. Occasionally one sees an advertisement in rands with the equivalent in pounds alongside in brackets, and I think this is largely due to the fact that we have kept the two-rand note going which is identical to the old pound note. And I think now that the two-rand note is disappearing that, in a matter of 12 months or so this whole question would be something of the past. I should like to urge the hon. the Minister not to start threatening people about what he is going to do if things do not come right. It will come right. And I think as a matter of fact that this whole switch-over to a decimal system has reflected the greatest possible credit on all concerned. This does not apply only to the authorities, but also to the people of the country. I think the whole population has taken to it very smoothly and has co-operated fully. I have no doubts that within a year or two the hon. the Minister’s letter bag containing complaints from the public will contain complaints about other matters. He will still have complaints, but I think that particular complaint will die away. He therefore need not worry about legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to disagree very strongly with the hon. member for Kensington, who asked that there should be a period of adaptation from pounds to rands. Have we not had five years of adaptation already? For the past five years we have given the public the opportunity to become familiar with the new system. Neither do I want to ask that legislation be introduced to get rid of this habit of advertising in pounds. If you had not ruled me out of order in the first place, Sir, I would have cleared up this matter from the start. I certainly think that the problem will be solved with the disappearance of the pound notes, or rather the two-rand notes, which are still nothing but pound notes to many people. But I want to submit to the hon. the Minister for his consideration that he should not wait until all these pound notes have become old and shabby. He must have them withdrawn from circulation quickly.

Mr. Chairman, there is another monetary unit which is not really a monetary unit and over which I know, however, the hon. the Minister of Finance has no control. I am, of course, referring to the guinea. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to make a serious appeal to the public to lay to rest the guinea once and for all. The guinea has no place in our coinage system. On the one hand, it has only snob value. Some people like to say that they bought a mink coat for 500 guineas. It is supposed to sound better than to say they bought it for R1,000. As a matter of fact, the guinea has nothing but snob value. On the other hand, some people, particularly auctioneers, try to get a little bit more from the pockets of the public, because, instead of using pounds and rands at auctions, they use guineas and gain another 5 per cent. This is nothing else but an underhand method of robbing the public. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to state clearly and seriously that we should get rid of these relics of the colonial period of former years once and for all.

Mr. Chairman, I trust that the hon. member for Paarl will forgive me if I do not follow his thought. It costs enough in any language and any coinage at the moment. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would be good enough to clarify his policy on a matter which is becoming one of urgency, namely the financial relations between the Government and the Provinces. The hon. the Minister will be aware, I am sure, of the growing imbalance …

Order! The hon. member should discuss that under Vote 7.

With respect, Mr. Chairman, it is a question of the Minister’s policy in this regard and not the actual expenditure. That is why I brought it up under his Vote.

The hon. member can do it under Vote 7. He can discuss the Minister’s policy there.

Mr. Chairman, I surely hope they are not going to approach this problem, the hon. the Minister’s problem, in the spirit that was exemplified in the speech of the hon. member for Sunnyside. The hon. the Minister has been successful in persuading the public. And I think an appeal to the public on the lines that has been suggested would have the effect. I quite agree that a man selling goods will naturally try and make the price seem as low as possible. And if he is a buyer he will say that you are charging him a very high price. Now, Sir, if one travels abroad one finds in countries two or three systems in operation. They quote prices in dollars, in pounds, and in rands. They quote in whichever currency you like and they are all advertised. They tell you that you can travel at a certain price and they will give it to you in two or three currencies. And I think we in South Africa are still at a stage where the older people especially are thinking in terms of the old currency. I will try to assist the Minister in persuading people. But we have been so successful in persuasion, that to use compulsion would, I think, really be a great mistake.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 6.—“Public Debt,

R76,501,000”.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister, during the course of his Budget speech, announced that he had a new series of loans for Post Office savings. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister when the public could start taking advantage of those new Post Office savings bonds and when the necessary documents will be available at post offices. Inquiries already made have shown that there are none available and employees at certain post offices have indicated that there was no possibility of getting them for at least another two months.

I said in my Budget speech that they would be available from the 1st October.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 7,—“Provincial Administrations, R176,264,000”.

Mr. Chairman, as I tried to indicate a little earlier I wonder whether the hon. the Minister would be good enough to elaborate on the policy in regard to financial relations between the Central Government and the Provinces. He will be aware, Sir, that there is an increasing imbalance between revenue and expenditure at provincial level and that it has been more and more necessary over the last few years for the Provinces to utilize an increasing amount of revenue to finance capital works. This has been going on and it would seem that in spite of this being done the essential services that should be provided by the provinces are still not being provided at an adequate rate. There was a lot of talk during the last few days, Mr. Chairman, about the infra-structure of our economy. But in so far as any infra-structure of our provinces are concerned, there is a great deal to be done before one can feel that their finances are on a sound basis.

The Administrator of the Cape, as long ago as four years, in 1962, used these words in presenting his budget—

And then he went on to say, and I would remind you. Sir, that this was four years ago—

Well, four financial years have passed and we still find that the Cape Provincial Council is sitting at present with a budget—and this is more or less common to all the provinces—of approved and necessary capital expenditure of R170,000,000 to provide the essential services, in education, for roads, hospitals, etc. in the province, and it has available the sum of R17,000,000. What it means is that the province is going to take 10 or 12 years to catch up and to complete what is now needed. I put the question to the Minister during this Session as to whether he had received a report from the Schumann Commission, and the Minister in his reply of 5th August stated that he has had the report in his possession since February, 1964, i.e. for 2½ years. But we still do not know what is in that report. I wonder whether it is necessary to keep it on the secret list any longer. The Minister said he was waiting for the final report of the Borckenhagen Committee, but I do not think that that necessitates our continuing with the present unsatisfactory state of affairs as far as the financial relations between the Central Government and the provinces are concerned. Would the Minister perhaps indicate whether this matter has been dealt with by the Schumann Commission? Then there is another aspect which I am sure is dealt with in that report, or at least I hope so, because it is certainly vital to the Cape Province. That is the fact that we have the vast North Western Cape Area being developed. There is much mining activity and most of the companies operating there are registered in the Transvaal, with the result that their vehicle licence fees are paid to the Transvaal and the levy on their company tax is paid to the Transvaal and does not come to the Cape. They are using a vast network of roads which must be maintained by the Caoe and there is no financial benefit accruing to the Cape. These are matters which should be considered. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether the Commission considered those matters and whether they made any recommendations. I know the difficulties. I know that the Minister has an annual call from each of the provinces in regard to finances, but I think it is generally accepted that the present arrangement is no longer the best. The time has come for something to be done either to implement the Schumann Report or to make some other satisfactory change in regard to those relations.

It will probably not happen frequently that I follow upon the hon. member for Green Point and agree with him on certain matters. I should also like to hear from the hon. the Minister what has become of the Borckenhagen Committee’s report, the committee which was appointed by the previous Minister of Finance to inquire into the financial relations between the Central Government, the Provinces and the local authorities. From time to time we, as members of this House, have received interim reports from the Borckenhagen Committee. Now I should like to know from the Minister whether he has received the final report of that Committee, and if so. whether the Minister will lay it upon the Table shortly. If the Minister has received the report, is he going to publish a White Paper in connection with it? I should also like to know whether any decisions have been taken with regard to these interim reports, which were made available to us from time to time, and whether any steps have been taken by the Central Government in connection with the recommendations of this Committee. If we look at the estimates before us—and this is where I may differ with my hon. friend—we find that the subsidies to be paid to the Provinces this vear show a net increase of R14,362,000, despite the fact that Coloured education and Indian education have been taken away from them, and that the Central Government has created much better facilities for commercial and technical education in the various cities in the country. But what causes me most concern is the tremendous over lapping between the Central Government, the provincial governments and the local authorities.

If we look at the third interim report of the Borckenhagen Committee, which deals with the financing of road works, we find that no fewer than four concerns are responsible for the network of roads in the Republic. There is the National Transport Commission, the Provincial Administrations, the Divisional Councils and the urban local authorities. Four concerns are responsible for the roads, and that has to cause overlapping. If we take health services, there is the Central Government, for whom the local authorities act as agents, and then there are the Provincial Administrations, which provide health services in the respective provinces. I want to submit that the worst overlapping occurs, in fact, in respect of the health of our people. In the past few days I read that as regards the larger City Councils, they are now going to provide special ambulance services at the larger urban hospitals. We find that the local authorities already have an ambulance service, and we find that more than one local authority has to provide an ambulance service to serve one hospital. If the Provincial Administration introduces a special ambulance service for special cases, there will be tremendous overlapping once again. I therefore want to make a plea to the Minister this afternoon to inform us as soon as possible what the findings of the Schumann Commission and of the Borckenhagen Committee have been. I am convinced that if we examine those findings thoroughly, we will find that there will be advantageous recommendations which will counter overlapping, and that will be to the advantage of the Central Government. the provincial governments and also the local authorities.

The position in regard to this very thorny problem of the financial relationships between the Central Government, the provincial authorities and the local authorities, has been receiving attention for some considerable time. We already have the reports of the Schumann Commission to hand and it has already been examined on a departmental level, but we cannot continue with it before we receive the final report of the Borckenhagen Committee because the Borckenhagen Committee again provides for the transference of certain sources of taxation from the Provincial Administration to the local authorities.

We have received the first part of the final report of the Borckenhagen Committee, but have not yet received the second part. It is obvious that we could not act on these interim reports; we had to see the picture as a whole. I just want to tell the hon. member for Green Point that the idea is that after it has been properly examined by the Cabinet they will pool their thoughts on the matter and draw up a White Paper, and they will then hold discussions with the Province. Subsequently a White Paper will be drawn up in regard to what the attitude of the Government is. But I am in complete agreement with the hon. member for Brakpan that there is tremendous overlapping. But now the reply one obtains is the following, if you ask the one man whether there is overlapping then he says that everything should be given to the Provincial Administration, while on the other hand the other one says that the entire service should be transferred to the Central Government.

It would really require the wisdom of Solomon to resolve the matter. In the meantime I can just say that the actual difficulty of the Provincial Administrations does not lie in their current expenditure, but in their capital loans. For current expenditure they have a formula which I think is very favourable for their work, so favourable that most of them have been able to build up capital funds. Out of those capital funds which they built up out of revenue, they have been able to accomplish many things for which they were unable to obtain loan capital from us. Apart from the fact that we make an annual allowance of 6 per cent under that formula, there is also something else, and that is the amount of almost R28,000,000 which you see here. We have said that if the Government makes any changes in salaries which also affect the Provinces then we shall pay 50 per cent of the Provinces’ expenditure.

You will see that what we have here now is the subsidy on expenditure incurred by the Provinces as a result of the 1958 and subsequent revision of salary scales, the consolidation of cost-of-living allowances, holiday savings bonuses, contributions to the widows’ pension fund in respect of provincial employees on a rand-for-rand basis, and increased allowances to provincial pensioners in terms of Act 38 of 1957. There you see a total amount of almost R28,000,000. That is over and above the normal formula. Therefore I do not think that their complaint is in connection with revenue, I think it is in connection with loans.

It is a fact that as in the case with all the Departments, in spite of what the Opposition says, we had to cut many of their essential services as well. We could not give them what they asked for, and just as in the case of the other Departments they also had to cut down expenses because we want to limit the expenditure of the Government as much as possible. But we cannot finalize this matter until such time as the final part of the report of the Borckenhagen Committee is available and we have had sufficient time to go into that matter. That is why I shall also ask in the Finance Act that the old formula should continue for another year.

Can the hon. the Minister tell us when he expects the final report?

That is a question which must be put to Mr. Borckenhagen, but I do not think it can be much longer now.

I wonder whether the Minister would not give some thought to making available a copy of the Schumann Commission’s Report. The terms of reference of that commission and some of the investigations which we know were carried out will have a long-term effect on planning of services and on various other matters where there is this overlapping at present. The Minister has had that report in his possession for over two years. I am sure it will do a lot of good if he would consider releasing it for consideration and study by those concerned with provincial administrations. I think the Minister would perhaps hesitate to give me an answer about that now, but I shall be glad if he would just indicate that he will think again along those lines.

Just as we as the Central Government can take certain steps to curb expenditure by the Provincial Councils, so the Provincial Councils too can surely exert their influence on the local authorities. If we notice that some of the local authorities pay a town clerk a salary of R14,500. I think it is time that we as the Central Government raised our voices if the Provincial Councils do not do so themselves. I wonder whether the Minister should not ascertain through the Provincial Councils what the position is, or what can be done to this state of affairs. I think it is preposterous that a town clerk should get a salary of R14,500. It is nearly the same salary as that of the Prime Minister. If the Provincial Councils cannot exert their influence on the local authorities, I think the Central Government should reduce their subsidy.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 9,—“South African Mint, R993,000”.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise what I believe to be a very serious matter in regard to the minting and sale of sets of South African coins by the South African Mint. Every year specimen or proof sets of these coins are minted, bearing the date of the year in which they are minted. They are arranged in attractive cases and offered for sale by the South African Mint. Some of these are called long sets (containing two gold coins) and some are the so-called short sets (containing only the silver, nickel and bronze coins). Basically it is a very good idea to make these collector’s pieces available in South Africa and abroad. I wish to deal to-day in particular with the sale of the short sets of coins. These sets are offered for sale by the Mint at R3.50 each. This represents a profit to the Mint of between 60 and 70 per cent per set. In 1964-5 the total profit on the sale of all sets amounted to approximately R37,500. As I have said this is basically a good idea, but as happens so often with this Government, a good idea can be transformed into something bad in practice. The Mint makes a tidy profit and the collector usually gets a good set of coins. There is, however, one fundamental requirement when making these sets of coins available to the public, namely that they must be available to the public in a reasonable quantity. Otherwise, there is a possibility of a highly undesirable and reprehensible black market arising which can only benefit the few. I believe that this requirement is being scandalously ignored by the Minister and the South African Mint to-day.

This afternoon I wish to accuse the Government of, firstly, in the face of a vast and overwhelming demand for these sets of coins, particularly for the short sets, deliberately minting only a very small number—it is the right of the Government to decide how many will be printed—out of which unknown persons possibly can, and are, making vast profits; and secondly I wish to accuse the Government of deliberately keeping the list of people who are entitled to buy these sets of coins as exclusive as possible, thereby excluding the public at large.

Let us take the first accusation. In 1965, altogether 20,000 short sets were minted. Everyone was sold. The startling fact, however, is that, while 20,000 sets were minted, applications were received locally and from abroad for no less than 1,250,000 sets. The Government, knowing full well that there might be such a huge demand, only minted 20,000 sets.

It is quite clear that the supply did not even remotely approach the demand. The Government knew that there would be such a vast demand, because the previous year there had been a demand, for 750,000 such sets. One side effect of this policy of the Government is that it could only make a profit of R37,000, on the 20,000 sets it had sold, while it could have sold more than a million sets and made a profit of more than R1,500,000—one way, as I suggested to the hon. the Minister during the Budget debate, of reducing his deficit. It is also clear that the Government, far from changing its policy, intends deliberately following the policy of minting a limited number of these sets again this year. Knowing full well that there may be a demand in the zone of a million or more, the Government has already decided to print only 15,000 short sets.

It would be perfectly easy for the Mint once it sees the demand rising for instance to 100,000 or to 200,000, to mint additional sets. Why was that not done? It is unbelievable that this was not done. I am quite sure that someone or some people are making hundreds of thousands, if not millions of rand out of these sets of coins. The country is entitled to know who these people are and why the profit from the sale of these sets cannot accrue to the taxpayer himself.

Of course the Mint is deliberately keeping the number of sets minted low. It is deliberately avoiding making a larger profit for the taxpayer. But I believe that someone is making money. I mentioned earlier that the Mint is selling these short sets at R3.50 a set. Do you know that the lucky person who bought one of these sets for that amount last year can to-day get R40 for it, a profit of more than 1,100 per cent? In a reply to a question I put to him this Session, the Minister told me that he was aware of these profits. But, as in the case of the Prime Minister and the cost of living, he was merely watching the position and doing nothing about it.

My second accusation is that the ordinary public is deliberately being deprived of the right to buy these sets of coins. Not only were they in short supply, but there exists a special list of people who have priority over John Citizen when he wants to buy a set of coins. I asked the Minister about this. He was quite cagey. In his reply to me, he stated: “no priority is given to anyone in selling these sets of coins.” Such priority as there was, was “based on the order of receipts of applications.” That reply sounded innocent enough. However, I approached his Department and after some days received further particulars which they kindly furnished to me. It now appears, from a letter dated 29th August which I received from them, that there are several other disconcerting facts in regard to these lists. Firstly, the Department’s letter stated that the Mint kept a standing list of applicants, based on those who had applied for sets in the past. That standing list was rarely renewed. They were renewed only when people dropped out when they no longer wanted to buy sets. These people got priority. Only when their needs were satisfied was the person next in order on the waiting list put on this standing list. The ordinary collector’s chance of getting on this standing list is extremely small, if you take into account the limited number of sets minted, and the fact that the number of names on the waiting list for the short sets is in excess of 75,000. How long will it take to satisfy those people? And who would not like his name to go on such a list, knowing that he could make a profit of more than 1,000 per cent on a set of coins in one year? No date at all is announced in the Gazette as from when these coins are available. This is done in the case of penguin eggs and in the case of fish meal concessions. I can say a lot about concessions too. However, Sir, it is not done and I believe it should be done.

Who are the people on these standing lists? Surely they must be made to contribute something for that great privilege. These people on the standing list are assured of their supplies of this limited number of coins which is minted. Do you know, Sir, that a certain dealer, long before the Minister had decided how many sets were to be minted this year, had already stated in an advertisement that only 15,000 were to be minted this year? In the advertisement he also stated that it was quite possible that in the case of three of the coins a very limited amount would be minted. This was great value to collectors, and they could already start ordering their sets at R20 each. To-day, these 1966 sets, which might not yet even have been minted, are already being offered for sale at R30 each, while the Mint was selling them for R3.50 each. Some fortunates are going to make a cool half a million or more from the 1966 sets. The shocking fact is that the Minister admitted to me that he knew that these sets were already being offered for sale. When I asked him to comment on it, he had no comment whatsoever.

I therefore believe, Sir, that I am justified in asking fl) for an immediate inquiry, the results of which will be made public, into why (a) sets of coins are minted in such small numbers, equalling less than one-sixtieth of the demand; and (b) why the list of applicants is not based solely on priority for applications received from a certain date, which should be announced in the Gazette annually, thereby giving the ordinary coin collector a chance to buy these sets; (2) that in future sufficient sets to satisfy normal demand will be struck; and (3) that the inquiry should also trace the sale of those sets sold at such a high profit from the Mint.

Some time ago in America, a Kennedy dollar was printed. Millions of them were printed and they disappeared from the market. The United States Government realized that a black market might result. Not only once, but two or three times they reminted millions and millions of these Kennedy silver dollar sets, solely in order to prevent a black market in the sale of these coins.

Business interrupted to report progress.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The motion I have moved, falls into two parts. The first part is a statement of the existence of a shortage of housing and a request to note it and the second part deals with the solution to that shortage. I submit, Sir, that my first premise, my first claim that there is in fact a shortage, is one which requires no argument. I call as my witness the hon. the Minister of Community Development himself, who this month, on the 7th August, granted an exclusive interview to a Sunday newspaper, in which he recognized the tremendous shortage, which he estimated at 90,000 houses. The Minister himself, therefore, recognizes a shortage of 90,000 houses, and he himself stated—

Therefore, as I have said, Sir, the hon. the Minister himself agrees with me. The facts themselves doubly prove the statement that there is a critical shortage of housing in the lower and middle income groups. This is particularly so in the case of pensioners. There are 139,000 White social pensioners alone in South Africa. Every one of those people has a maximum pension income of R40 per month. If they had a penny more than that, they would not be able to enjoy a social pension. 128,000 of them receive the full social pension, which means that they must comply with the means test and draw a pension from the Government of R40 per month, plus whatever few rand they are allowed under the means test. This aspect is one which another speaker on this side of the House will deal with in greater detail. I mention it as a background to the shortage and the need for housing. There is this vast group, an identifiable group of just on 140,000 Whites alone.

Then, Sir. there are the vast numbers, the hundreds of thousands, of working people in South Africa. We have pointed out in other debates that in the Railways alone there are 93,000 workers earning less than R200 per month. That, in terms of the amended figures which the hon. the Minister has recently announced, classifies them as being entitled to enjoy subsidized state housing. Therefore the Government and the Minister himself accepts that level as being a level at which the State is required to assist people. Having established the fact, with the support of the Minister, that this shortage of housing exists, I submit that the issue before us now is the second part of the motion, namely the question of a solution.

I have been concerned for a long time with this problem. I and other members in this House, year after year, in private interviews, in correspondence with the Department and in debate, have dealt with what to us is a serious and a dangerous social problem for South Africa. I hope it is parliamentary, Mr. Speaker, but I can think of no other term which adequately describes my feeling towards this problem than one of being plain bloody-minded.

Order! What did the hon. member say?

I say, Mr. Speaker, that it is a state of mind which is described as bloody-minded. If that is not parliamentary, I shall withdraw it. I shall withdraw it, Sir, but it is a state of frustration which is difficult to describe when one thinks of the human tragedy and the suffering of the people in South Africa of all races, as the result of their inability to house themselves at a level which they are able to afford. Year after year, Sir, we have had promises, statistics and figures. People cannot live on statistics. They cannot live on promises. They cannot live on gallons of printer’s ink. I have cutting after cutting here of the promises which have been made. The plans, the crash programmes, the emergency schemes, the thousands of houses that are going to be built to-morrow are all mentioned here. Here is a cutting from a Natal newspaper of this month. The headlines are: “70,000 new homes for Durban. Vast 7-year housing plan.” If one goes back, Sir, one finds that for three years we have had this constant reference to crash programmes and crash schemes. I have a letter here, dated 30th September, 1964, from the former Minister of Community Development. At that time he already acknowledged the critical shortage. He refers to the demand, accelerated by immigration. He states:

At that time, namely in September, 1964, I received a letter emphasizing the steps the Department had taken, the consultations it had had, with the municipality and the recognition of the urgency of the problem. Now, Sir, it is two years later and because they are comparable to the figures to which I have referred I take the figures for Durban. In Durban, in the last 2½ years, namely the whole of 1964, the whole of 1965 and 1966 to date, the State has provided 834 houses, and the local authority—the City Council—362.

Why only 300?

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that that interjection was made. I am not defending the local authority. I said, and I repeat, that I am sick and tired of the buck-passing, the Government blaming the Corporation, the City Council blaming the Government, and everybody passing the buck to one another. We are not interested in excuses. We are not interested in reasons. We are interested in houses that people can live in. Here are the cold, hard facts, Sir, namely that in Durban in two and a half years 1,196 houses have been provided by the State and the local authority. In the whole of South Africa in that period, 6,059 houses and flats—I am talking now of houses and flats, each flat counting as a unit, and not as a block—that is to say, total dwelling units, have been provided by the State and the local authorities with State funds. This figure includes 1964, 1965 and half of 1966. I refer to the figures provided by the hon. the Minister in reply to a question by me on the 12th August, this year. The Minister himself has accepted that there is a need of 18,000 houses per year for Europeans and 50,000 houses per year for non-Europeans. I have here the figures in regard to non-White housing, a question which will be dealt with by another speaker, but I should like to say that the Department and local authorities have provided between 26,000 and 28,000 houses per year over the last three years. In other words, just about half of the Minister’s own accepted requirement has been met by his own Department and by all local authorities. In regard to White housing, less than a third of the requirement has been provided.

These, Mr. Speaker, are the facts. It is not a question of politics. It is not a question of blaming one party or another. Quite honestly, I am not interested in what happened in 19-voetsak, or at any other time. I believe that we, when we were the Government, also perhaps did not carry out our full responsibilities. This is not a question of saying that the Nationalist Party or the United Party did this or that. This is a private member’s motion and I hope that this House, this whole Parliament, will answer the urgent cry from the people of South Africa and will answer that cry as the legislature of South Africa, recognizing their problem, recognizing their difficulty and answering that request.

You are losing your grip.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether some of these members treat this matter lightly. I have had the experience, when I was a young boy, of living in a single room with my parents. The whole family, four of us, were in one room. I have known what it is like. Those members can mock and joke about it. I have not forgotten what it is like to live under those conditions, to have to count pennies to buy a bottle of milk or a loaf of bread.

Most of us lived in shacks.

Some lived in shacks, I agree. But have they remembered it or have they forgotten it? What I am asking, Sir, is that those who have lived in shacks and those who have struggled as many of us have struggled, should remember the struggle, now when they no longer need to struggle. They should have sympathy for and should remember those who are not so fortunate. That is exactly the appeal which I am making.

The first suggestion I wish to make to the hon. the Minister is that, in order to encourage private home ownership, the ownership of a home be regarded as part of the social security of an individual. It is a matter for consultation with other departments, but a pension is regarded as social security for a person's future, for his old age. It is tax free. Provident funds are tax free. Insurance is a social security measure and is partially tax free. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that payments on a home occupied by the owner for his own personal residence should be regarded in the same light as contributions to a pension fund and that they should also be tax free. If we are to provide for our old age, surely the ownership of a bond-free, rent-free home is as important a social security measure as a pension fund from which you draw so much per month. To my mind, it is even more valuable because you are secure for the rest of your life. You have a home in which you can live. I believe that that would be a great encouragement for people to make an extra sacrifice to provide homes which they own themselves. This in itself would lift much of the burden and much of the responsibility from the State in regard to all those who are able to house themselves.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to deal with masses of figures. They are all available. I do not think it is necessary, but there is one aspect which I think I must substantiate with figures. The hon. the Minister, through his Department, has provided a total of 4,250 houses over the past 21 years. Of those, more than a quarter, namely 1,250 fall in the price range of over R6,000, some of them being over R16,000. Mr. Speaker, surely people in this income group do not require the Department to build and to buy houses for them. 56 homes costing over R16,000 have been provided by the Department in the last 21 years. If you look at the rentals, you will find that about one-fifth of the homes provided—whether leased or sold—are in the class of either over R40 per month or over R6,000 in value. I believe that that field is a field for private enterprise. There I believe that private enterprise has played a major and a vital part in providing houses. I am not one of those who sees them as exploiters. There are exploiters. There are some people who exploit and who evade the Act. In the brief time at my disposal I have no time to deal with all the evasions, but I shall list them for the hon. the Minister’s information. He probably knows about them. There is the selling of flats to avoid rent control. There is the provision of bed and breakfast, the subletting of flats through a nominee or through a caretaker, who then gives notice and so gets rid of the tenant who is a sub-lessee. Furnishing has been dealt with. Then there is the question of holiday flats or hotels and demolition, which leads to flats being vacant month after month while the owner is emptying a building. These are the evils which flow either from frustration or the exploitation of the shortage by landlords. In both cases, the responsibility rests on the Government. I do not believe that freezing rents is the answer and that it is going to solve the problem. The mere freezing of rents is only going to stop the building of homes, because people are not going to invest money unless they can expect a reasonable return. After all, an investor is entitled to a reasonable return. The mere freezing of rents is merely going to force a greater group of people to resort to evasions such as I have mentioned, and to stop building.

I believe that the value of building plans have dropped from R58,000,000 to some R18,000,000 this year—a radical drop. In Durban alone, in the last two years, 3,500 flats alone have been provided by private enterprise, against 1,196 provided by the State and the Council. In the light of this, you will realize what a big part private enterprise has to play. Three homes have been provided by private enterprise for every one which the State and the Council have provided. The rents vary for a two-bedroomed flat from a minimum of R55 up to R80 per month, and single bedroom and lounge, from R45 to R60 per month. Those rents are above the means of the average working man, and it is for the lower income groups that I make my appeal. Private enterprise will care for the people who can afford to pay those rents. But then private enterprise must be given a chance. Exploitation must be prevented and those who exploit must be dealt with and I hope steps will be taken to close some of the loopholes which I have mentioned. There are, however, other ways in which the Minister can tackle this problem. In this connection I suggest that where there is a building which the owner wishes to demolish the Minister’s Department should buy that building and let it rather than try and build a new building at the higher building costs. Very often a perfectly good building is demolished simply because the owner cannot make enough out of it. Surely, he can provide far more housing by buying up existing buildings rather than trying to put up new buildings at the higher costs which are prevalent to-day. Alternatively, let us subsidize in order to keep the rent down but do not let us destroy cheap accommodation merely because we have to carry out a law. I suggest too, that the Minister should consider the question of housing associations, such as those existing in Britain. Literature is available on this. These are associations which can provide housing more or less on a utility company basis. I also suggest that he should consider the building society scheme which was recently announced. Unfortunately I do not have time to go into its details. There is prefabrication, something which I know the Minister is considering. My information is, however, that many prefabricated houses are more expensive than the conventional type of house. Let me quote as an example of this the housing scheme at the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam. There I believe the prefabricated houses cost much more than the ordinary conventional house. Then there are the present programmes which the Minister has at his disposal.

These are steps which I propose should be taken so that we can stop talking about this problem and deal with it. I think the time has passed when we could afford to make promises of houses to be built and satisfy ourselves with statistics instead of providing roofs over the heads of the people of South Africa.

I move—

1. (1) encourage and induce local authorities to provide housing schemes for the lower and middle income groups;
2. (2) meet housing needs on an ever-increasing scale itself by increasing the funds available to the National Housing Commission; and
3. (3) provide additional housing through the Community Development Board and various Government Departments such as Railways and Harbours, Forestry and Public Works.

In this debate which was opened by the hon. member for Durban (Point) and in which he posed as a pious and non-political champion of the underprivileged, we have once again met with the same performance we had in the Budget debate, namely that the hon. hon. member advocates one thing while the other advocates the opposite. Last week we heard criticism to the effect that the deflationary measures of the Government were having a detrimental effect on the lower income groups in this sense that rates of interest had been increased and that consequently it was impossible for that group to build houses. In the same debate, however, another member asked the hon. the Minister why he had not allowed an increase in the rates of interest last year already. Why was the hon. the Minister introducing control of rates of interest at this time? That is what another member wanted to know. Last week we were given to understand that it was the expenditure of the Government in particular which was promoting inflation, but is Government expenditure on housing not one of its major items of expenditure? No less than R56,000,000 is being budgeted for on loan account for the Department of Community Development alone this year, i.e. approximately R6.500,000 more than last year. To that must be added approximately R2,700,000 from revenue account. Is the provision of housing not part of the infrastructure which we heard so much about during the Budget debate? Is the provision of housing on a large scale not part of an ambitious attempt on the part of the Government to encourage the development of our country by providing housing for our people where houses are necessary? But now hon. members come along, amongst them the hon. member for Durban (Point) who objected last week to the amount of Government expenditure, and say that the Government is not spending enough on housing.

When we discuss housing, we must get a clear reply to the question of whose respondibility it is to provide housing for the less well-to-do section of our population. Of course the ideal situation is that each family, regardless of what its income is, should have its own home, because by possessing their own home many of the evils which we hear so much about are eliminated. Being bound to the soil, in other words the possession of a piece of land and a home of his own, is one of the greatest ideals of every person no matter how undeveloped or how highly developed he is or how small or how large his income. But apart from that, by possessing their own house on which they pay off a small portion each month our people are being encouraged to do what they were asked to do in the Budget last week, namely to save. This is a form of saving which stretches over practically the whole lifespan of a person. Besides, I cannot conceive of any better or more sensible form of saving than this, which goes hand in hand with the possession of one’s own house. Of course I will concede that there are certain of our people who, from the nature of their circumstances, cannot possess their own house. There is in the first place the lowest income groups and then there are those people who are transferred from one post to another, there are inter alia certain Government officials who are transferred quite often. But that does not mean that they cannot save in some other way with the purpose of ultimately possessing a home of their own.

The question is: “Whose responsibility is it to take care of these people”? I maintain that it is not the task of the Government to accept full responsibility for these people. If we have to arrange things in such a way that the State must provide everyone with a house, then we are on the road to socialism. By doing so we deprive the man in the street of his initiative to save on his own accord, to nurture his own ideals and to work for the realization of those ideals. What the Government can do, is to give encouragement. The Government can also supply guidance and assistance. But it is not the primary duty of the Government to see to it that everyone does in fact have a house. Hon. members can also contribute a great deal in this respect, so too can that hon. member who made a plea here this afternoon for those people who were suffering hardships and were not able to own a house. He can, as the Government is doing, bring home to those people the advantage of investing money correctly. He can try and create in them the ideal of saving up in order to own their own houses. But he must not go on before shouting that the Government does not see to it that everyone has a house. I said that the Government could be of assistance. It is already doing so by making loans available, and this is being done to an ever-increasing extent. I have already mentioned what the Government has made available this year to the Department of Community Development for this purpose. The Government makes loans available to individuals in the first place for the building of houses, and in the second to local authorities for the establishment of housing schemes. Then it also makes loans available to utility companies at low rates of interest for that purpose, and in addition also subsidizes sub-economic schemes. In fact, there has been no mention of the Government not being prepared to play its part in this connection.

But if the Government is prepared to make these loans and subsidies available, then the responsibility of other bodies also comes. to the fore. In this connection I am thinking particularly of the responsibility of local communities and of local authorities towards the underprivileged part of our population. This responsibility has up to now not been properly realized. I believe that local communities should accept responsibility for the care, even if it is with the aid of loans by the State, for the elderly people of that community. These elderly people served that community during their lifetime, and now it is the task of that community to look after them in turn. Before our people began to become urban-dwellers, our elderly people had no problem as far as housing was concerned because they were established in their own communities even if it was in unpretentious little houses. There they were happy. To-day, however, we are living in a time of increasing industrialization and our people are moving from the rural areas to the cities. In the cities most of them are themselves immigrants without a roof over their heads. At the same time we are drawing immigrants at a rate of 30,000 per year. Of course I am not finding fault with this. In fact, it is to be welcomed. However, the consequence is that the pressure of housing requirements in concentrated areas is becoming so much greater.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) has said that there is a housing shortage at the moment. I do not want to pretend that there are no people who are experiencing a housing shortage at the moment, but let us examine to what an extent other circumstances than those which I have already mentioned have contributed to the creation of that shortage. During the past four to five years we have been experiencing the greatest drought which our country has ever known and that has compelled thousands of people who were previously resident in the rural areas to forsake the soil, even if it is just temporarily, and go and seek a refuge in the cities. That has been the cause of thousands of houses standing empty at the moment, houses which cannot be occupied by others because one cannot settle that group which the hon. member spoke about there in the rural areas. The occupants and owners of those houses are now competing for accommodation in the cities and that is something which aggravates the shortage even more. Now I say, Mr. Speaker, that this is where the duty of local communities and local authorities comes in. In the past local authorities had building regulations which stood in the way of cheaper and faster building work which would have provided accommodation in this very category. Since the hon. member has sketched this situation here to-day, I want to paint another picture now. Arising from the amendment which I moved, I want to say that this Government in particular is deserving of every praise for the way in which it has tackled our housing problem. I want to pay tribute today to the former Minister of Community Development. He realized that we were being faced with a problem here, and he also realized that the problem could only be solved by taking positive and rapid action. That is why I want to call him the father of pre-constructed building in this country. This building system has come to stay and will help us to solve our housing problems more rapidly. I also want to pay tribute to the present Minister of Community Development. Since he accepted that post he has indicated that he intends carrying on in the same way as his predecessor and thinking on a grand scale. If we see that from 1920 to 1948, that is to say over a period of 28 years, only 22,301 houses for Whites were built in South Africa at a cost of R54,000,000, while from 1948 to 1965 no less than 43,305 houses were built by means of funds from the National Housing Commission in South Africa at a cost of R177,723,000, then we see how this task is really being tackled. From 1960 to 1965 almost 10,000 houses have been built for Whites at a cost of approximately R42,000,000. If one adds to that houses which have been built by other Government Departments, such as the Railways and others which I have mentioned for example, then one finds that a total of 73,483 houses have been built at a cost of R350,000,000 since this Government accepted office in 1948.

I have said, Mr. Speaker, that the Government has displayed its willingness to make the funds available. The Government has indicated that it thinks on a grand scale and that it is prepared to lend a hand itself where people do not want to act quickly enough. If one looks at the history of the struggle which the Department of Community Development and the hon. the Minister has had with local authorities to get them to at least make a start, while they knew very well that the necessary funds were at their disposal, then I say we must take off our hats to the hon. the Minister and the officials of that Department. They had an ungrateful task to perform. Mr. Speaker, there was not only unwillingness to take action. In many cases there was even resistance. There was also the feeling—as the hon. member for Durban (Point) has also stated here—that it was the duty of the Government to provide houses for those people. That was the view which prevailed. Now I say that this Government has succeeded in activating local authorities. The Department of Community Development even placed plans at their disposal and they were told that the necessary funds were available. They were encouraged to take the bull by the horns and make a start with construction work, particularly for the underprivileged group. Provision is specifically being made for our elderly people to whom the hon. member referred. In 1953 there were only 36 old-age homes which accommodated about 2,000 people. This year there are 122 old-age homes which can accommodate almost 6,500 people. Another 47 are under construction or will shortly be begun. They will be able to accommodate a further 3,000 elderly people. It has already been announced that the per capita allowance for such homes will be increased from R10 per person to R17.50 per month starting from October this year. We then come to the schemes which are being subsidized by the Department. There the income limit has been raised from R60 to R100 per month. People earning R100 per month can now go and live in these sub-economic houses. These houses are made available to them at a rate of interest of £ per cent. In respect of a White family with two children the income limit has been raised from R160 per month to R225 per month. That means that people earning up to R225 per month can now go and live in that type of house. For people with more than two children the income limit has been raised from R250 to R300 per month. This differentiated rental scale which I mentioned in my amendment provides in the case of new schemes that people in the income group R101 to R130 per month can occupy houses at a rental scale of 3 per cent on the capital investment. The rental scale of those falling in the income group of R131 to R160 per month is 5 per cent. So the amount moves up until the group earning more than R180 per month will have to pay 8 per cent. They will be benefited in this way however that they will be occupying houses in new schemes, houses which we believe it will be possible to construct by means of the preconstructed system at a lower cost than has been the case up to new. While we are discussing these matters, Mr. Speaker, and we are pointing out the duties of certain sections of our society and all that the Government is prepared to do, I cannot omit to point out that there is another section of our community which is also able to make a contribution. I am referring to our industries. I am referring to the major employers of those people who are being drawn to our cities. I want to make an appeal to our industrialists to make an investment contribution from their side in respect of the provision of houses for the people which they employ and which they draw to their industries and I feel that the time has come when this should be done. That is why I believe that the view which the hon. member for Durban (Point) has of the problem is not the correct one. I prefer to believe that by making correct use of the means at our disposal, South Africa is on the way to solving its housing problem.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the hon. member for Stellenbosch with interest, and I have listened to the amendment which he has moved. However, there are certain aspects in regard to this important matter which the hon. member for Stellenbosch did not cover. That was in regard to the urgent steps that must be taken to overcome the present shortage. The hon. member for Durban (Point) has indicated that the shortage does exist, a very serious shortage of some 90,000 dwelling units throughout the Republic. As recently as February, 1966, the hon. the Minister of Community Development showed that there was a shortage of 98,950 dwelling units throughout the Republic of South Africa.

Now, Sir, the point is that the shortage still exists. The hon. the Minister seems to be faced with a problem of having to overcome a substantial backlog and at the same time try to keep pace with an ever-increasing demand for housing. We can appreciate the difficulties that must be facing the hon. the Minister in tackling this task. There is the question of the industrialization of the country and a shift to the cities. After all, Sir, that is where the serious shortage does exist. In a large city such as Durban, which has shown a phenomenal industrial growth and a population growth, there is a severe shortage of housing in that area. The specific group which the hon. member for Durban (Point) specifically brought fo the notice of this House is the lower income group and the pensioner group. We know that persons moving into a city are invariably faced with grave difficulties in finding suitable accommodation.

The persons mentioned in the motion moved by the hon. member for Durban (Point) refers to the pensioners and the lower income groups, the people who are unable, in normal circumstances, due to their financial position, to afford the facilities which are available from private enterprise for the purchase of a house. They can therefore only look for assistance either to the local authority or the Department of Community Development. Sir, I recently had a case in my own constituency where a person, who had been transferred to Durban, was unable to bring his wife and four children with him due to the shortage of accommodation. This difficulty arose in the course of the last three months. This person had to live in a caravan until such time as he could find suitable accommodation for his wife and family to join him in Durban where he had been transferred on business. He was informed that it would take at least two and a half years before he would be able to obtain a house through the local authority. He then approached the Department of Community Development and they too were unable to assist him immediately with the result that he had to resign his job and take up employment in another town where he could get accommodation and be joined by his family. Sir, this leads me to one of the important statements contained in the report of the Committee of Inquiry into family allowances. This committee, which is known as the Piek Committee, brought out its report in 1961. The committee stated in its report at page 72 under “Housing” that housing was of primary importance in considering family life. In paragraph 263 the committee says—

Sir, this is a social problem, and without propounding any policy of socialism, as suggested by the hon. member for Stellenbosch, we believe that it is in the interests of this group in our community who require assistance that proper housing within the means of the head of the family should be available to them, and we believe this on the grounds of realism rather than socialism. These people have no alternative but to look for assistance either to the Government or to the local authority, and in pleading for assistance for these people we are certainly not advocating a socialistic State.

I believe that a country can be judged by the way in which it looks after needy, deserving sections of the community. I feel that the present shortage of housing in South Africa is interfering with what should be the normal way of family life. We appreciate that the Minister is faced with difficulties. If there had been no housing shortage, surely the previous Minister would not have embarked on a crash programme in an attempt to alleviate the housing shortage. I hope that when the Minister of Community Development participates in this debate he will be able to give us some idea as to what degree of success he has had in implementing his crash programme. Sir, there are certain other aspects of this whole problem which affect the family man and which affect him very greatly indeed, and I hope that the Minister will also give some indication as to his views with regard to the use of prefabricated or preconstructed buildings. We had the opportunity of reading the Louw report which was submitted during 1964 and which made some very interesting observations with regard to non-conventional methods of construction that will result in the saving of both labour and material.

However, certain doubts have been expressed in various quarters as to whether this is in fact the answer to the problem. The answer appears to be that the Minister must take urgent steps to reduce the backlog and thereafter endeavour to keep pace with the demand. We know that that demand has been further aggravated by immigration, and we also know that it has become impossible for many families, as a result of the increased cost of living, to obtain suitable accommodation at rentals within their means. There are often cases where people have to move from homes which are demolished in order to make way for progress. There is nothing wrong, of course, with the demolition of houses to make way for progress, but there is something wrong when there is no alternative accommodation available for these families when they are required to move. Sir, I have another case here which I would like to mention to the House because I think it illustrates the degree of the problem.

In this case a family, also consisting of husband and wife and four children, was compelled to move due to the fact that the house in which they were living was to be demolished. The only accommodation which was offered to them was a house at R75 per month, which was beyond their means. They were offered this accommodation by the Department of Community Development. Similarly the local authority informed them that it would be at least two years before they could be assisted. In this letter of complaint from this constituent of mine there is one paragraph which may be of interest to the House and in which this mother writes—

Sir, this whole problem is affecting the family life of the lower income groups and of those people who, because of their financial position, are unable to obtain accommodation through private enterprise.

Then I want to deal for a moment with the position of the social pensioners. We know that we have over 500,000 social pensioners of all races in this country at the present time We do not expect the State or welfare organizations to provide accommodation in homes for the aged for such a large number ol people. These people much prefer to be independent and to have some corner of their own rather than be accommodated in a large home for the aged. We must therefore find ways and means of assisting this group of persons, and I believe that one of the ways in which we can assist them is by ensuring that all our housing schemes provide a certain amount of accommodation for social, civil or railway pensioners whose income is below a certain level. I believe that at least 10 per cent of the dwelling units in every housing scheme should consist of semi-detached cottages for this group of persons so that the capital expense will not be as great. In this way these people would be retained in the community, which I believe is a far better way of accommodating them than to accommodate them in large homes for the aged.

I think it is imperative that such homes should be erected in order to overcome the enormous backlog that has arisen in the past few years. These people, whom I regard as the pioneers of South Africa, contributed a great deal towards the economic growth and prosperity of South Africa, and I believe that the fact that many of them have to live bleak lives in the back streets of our cities, is a blot upon the conscience of South Africa. I believe that we should make every effort to rectify and improve the position. I think that if this type of accommodation can be made available for social and civil pensioners it will go a long way towards assisting this group of people who in many cases are unable to find suitable accommodation, particularly where old buildings in which they have lived for perhaps a lifetime have to be demolished in order to make way for progress.

The other aspect on which I want to touch is the question of assistance that the State can give to welfare organizations to enable them to build more homes for the aged. Sir, the shortage of accommodation for pensioners is high-lighted almost every year in the annual report of the S.A. National Council for the Welfare of the Aged. I do not intend to quote from these reports, but they indicate that this is an acute problem in all the large cities of South Africa, and here I am referring to accommodation not only for pensioners but especially accommodation for the aged, frail and infirm type who require special assistance and in some cases special nursing. It is a great pity that many of these people who are physically frail and infirm, have no alternative but to turn to private nursing homes and private places of care, and it is an acknowledged fact that there have been cases where these unfortunate people have been exploited. It is a great tragedy, I think, that these people are exploited in this way in the twilight of their lives. The question of financial assistance to these welfare organizations is of vital importance. It has been accepted by the Government and by this House that welfare services should not be run solely by the State. It is an important facet of our welfare set-up in South Africa that the welfare organizations and the churches play a major part in providing welfare services. Many of these people have reached a stage of life where they can only look for assistance to the welfare organizations.

Sir, in the 1964 Budget debate a very important announcement was made in this House with regard to the allocation of R750,000 to assist welfare organizations and to encourage them to provide homes for the aged. Sir, I feel that there must be something wrong with the public relations set-up between the Government and the welfare organizations because the welfare organizations do not appear to have been aware that these funds were available. I say that because of the R750,000 which was made available in 1964-5 not a single cent was in fact spent. The amount spent was nil according to a reply given by the Minister of Social Welfare in this House on the 9th August, 1966. A sum of R300,000 was re-voted for the year 1965-6 and of that amount only R75,881 has been spent. We have the position therefore that an overall figure of over R1,000,000 has been allocated for this purpose but in actual fact only R75,881 has been spent.

I believe that if these funds are not serving the purpose for which they were intended the scope of the field in which they can be used should be extended to assist the welfare organizations to a greater degree in furnishing and equipping such homes for the aged. We know that a sub-committee of the Minister’s has reported on the whole question of homes for the aged, and we eagerly await the report to see if it will result in the building of a greater number of homes for the aged. I am not suggesting that homes for the aged are not being built. As a matter of fact, the building programme in this regard has been accelerated over the past year but the fact still remains that we have a large backlog which still has to be eliminated before we can keep pace with the demand.

We know that many of the welfare organizations have felt that they have been restricted in planning homes for the aged because the Department has asked that these people should be accommodated in double rooms. We know that it is a difficult problem in homes for the aged to try to accommodate them in double rooms. They prefer single rooms because they naturally like a certain amount of privacy. They feel more independent and they feel that they are far better served in a single room. I am pleased that the Minister has increased the per capita allowance from R1,100 to R1.475 in respect of Whites and I hope that this will encourage the welfare organizations to proceed with the establishment of more homes for the aged on the basis of the subsidies that they can get and the loans that they can get through their local authorities. I feel that a great opportunity has been lost in that R750,000 voted in 1964-5 was in fact not utilized for the establishment of a greater number of homes for the aged. As I have already said, I believe that the scope of the use of the funds specially allotted for the building of homes should be extended to assist the welfare organizations to furnish and equip homes.

According to the formula laid down by the Government these welfare organizations are entitled to a subsidy in connection with the cost of furnishing and equipping these homes; they are entitled to a subsidy of 75 per cent of the cost of the furniture and equipment, subject to a maximum of R90 per subsidizable inmate. However, with the rising costs, not only of building homes but also the rising cost of equipping homes for the aged, it has been found almost impossible to keep within the limits laid down by the Government. I believe that greater assistance should be given to welfare organizations not only for the building of homes but especially to enable them to furnish and equip these homes. I understand that in special circumstances the Government has been prepared to increase the maximum of R90 per subsidizable inmate and I do hope that the Minister will be prepared to assist these welfare organizations to a greater extent to finance the establishment of these homes.

On the question of welfare organizations trying to establish more homes for the aged, I would like also to mention to the hon. the Minister the difficulties that these organizations experience in establishing themselves, the long delays that take place before they are registered as welfare organizations. In Durban an association has been formed, the Home for Retired Durban Citizens, the aim of which is to build a large home for the elderly citizens of the city sometime during the course of next year provided they can get the necessary financial assistance from the Government and from the community as a whole. This association was formed as far back as 1963 and they are only now beginning to show a little progress.

Order! Is the hon. member not drifting too far away from the motion?

With respect, Sir, I am trying to indicate the great shortage of accommodation that exists for pensioners. The motion moved by the hon. member for Durban (Point) refers to the urgent necessity of providing accommodation for pensioners, and I am trying to indicate that the shortage of accommodation has necessitated the building of very large institutions. The welfare organizations are having to build large institutions which I believe is not really the best way of providing suitable accommodation for these people. For instance, this organization is now having to build a home that will cater for 464 pensioners, and it is going to cost in the region of R1,000,000.

These dedicated people are also faced with the difficulty of having to raise R25,000 towards the cost of equipping this proposed institution. This whole effort has been slowed down to a certain extent because of lack of financial assistance. I believe that the enormous shortage of accommodation for social pensioners is a very vital problem for the people of South Africa and particularly for this type of person who has to depend entirely on his pension for his livelihood and who has no alternative but to turn to welfare organizations which in turn have to turn to the Government for financial assistance. I do hope that the Minister of Community Development will give us some indication as to what urgent steps he intends taking to try to alleviate the plight of these people.

All in all I do not have much fault to find with the statements of the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) and the requests which he has made. However I think that the person who will want to criticize him will be the hon. member who moved this motion, i.e. the hon. member for Durban (Point) because the hon. member for Umbilo, as was apparent from the fact that he was called to order, by no means spoke in support of the motion of the hon. member for Durban (Point). I shall not therefore go any further into what he said.

I am really rising to support the amendment moved by my colleague, the hon. member for Stellenbosch, and since I am doing that I want to say in the first place that I do not deny the need which exists for more and better housing. I admit that readily, but I want to add immediately that if the need for more and better housing does not exist, and this is something which applies to any country in the world, it is an unmistakable sign of stagnation and deterioration.

This motion of the hon. member for Durban (Point) contains certain points of criticism in regard to the action and the policy of the Government. He accuses the Government of not having the necessary insight, of its planning being defective in many ways, and of not taking action rapidly enough. We must also see this matter in the light of other assertions made in this House. The hon. member for Newton Park referred in the Censure Motion to a crisis which had allegedly arisen in regard to housing, and he asked why we always wait until a crisis has arisen before we take action. Last year the hon. member for Rosettenville also criticized the achievements of the Government in regard to housing. I can also mention the hon. member for Umlazi, who still has to serve out his court sentence in this House. He also came forward with criticism of the Government’s housing policy. I maintain that this attack of the hon. member for Durban (Point) seems to me one which can quite readily be compared to the attack made by Don Quixote on the windmills. You will agree with me that when we consider the hon. member for Durban (Point) and we take his good grooming into account, then he does not really fit into the role of that lean and hungry old knight of former days; and if we look at the hon. member for Umbilo, who had to support him but who left him in the lurch, then we cannot place him in the role of the old squire Sancho Pancho either. But the fact remains that the attack from that side of the House on the housing policy of the Government can quite readily be compared to the attack of Don Quixote on the windmills. When one talks about such a matter surely one must try to take the true background of the problem into consideration, and one must place one’s problem and one’s solution in the correct perspective. Otherwise one cannot arrive at a real solution. I do not therefore want to compare the hon. member for Durban (Point) with Don Quixote, but I do want to say that he and his supporters on that side are really political Rip van Winkels.

You would rather play at politics than provide housing.

The hon. members are fast asleep, not only because it is late in the afternoon, but because they have been fast asleep since 1948. Apparently they do not know what has been happening in regard to housing since 1948. I want to contend that no Government before 1948, and that includes previous Nationalist Governments, has done as much in regard to housing as this Government has done. No Government has a prouder record in regard to housing than this one has. The achievements of this Government in regard to housing do not only compare favourably with those of any previous Government, and even with all those governments put together, it also compares favourably with the best in the word. But what I want to charge the Opposition with is this, that no other Opposition which this country has ever had, has acted in such a negative way as this very Opposition which we have in this House to-day. The Hansards are full of their obstructionist tactics. I need only to refer to certain acts which we have amended, such as the Slums Act, and I can refer to the Housing Act and the Community Development Act. I ask you, Sir, have we not listened ad nauseum to phrases such as, “bypassing parliamentary control”, “overriding the powers of the Minister”, “infringing upon the rights of local authorities”, and similar phrases which they have used in those debates? I say that the Opposition have during this whole period been a handicap to a determined and purposeful Government as far as housing is concerned.

In the form this motion before us takes, no mention is made whether it relates to Whites only or whether it also relates to non-Whites. The hon. member said that one of his speakers would in fact talk about non-White housing, and that is why I want to refer to it only in passing. The National Party Government made provision not only for the non-Whites but also for the Whites. It inherited post-war conditions, conditions which we all remember, where there was over-population in every back-yard as far as Whites were concerned and where slum areas and shanty towns had sprung up around our cities. Those problems were almost unsolvable. For the United Party of that time they were unsolvable. One of the esteemed city councillors of Johannesburg, Mr. Patrick Lewis, wrote—

Who supplied the solution? Not the United Party with insight and its preparatory work. The solution was supplied by the National Party who came forward with three measures in particular to cope with those conditions. I am referring to the Native Building Workers Act of 1951, which made it possible for non-Whites to be trained so that they could build houses for their own people in their own areas. I am referring, in the second place, to the Native Services Levy Act of 1952. Sir, can you remember what complaints went up from the Opposition and how they held it up as an injustice which was being perpetrated? The third measure I want to refer to was the plot and service scheme which came into operation under the direction of Dr. Verwoerd. Can you remember how ridiculous they tried to make that measure seem and how they tried to pretend that it was a useless measure which would give rise to further-slums? What were the results of those measures? The result was that it became possible to clear all the slums surrounding our urban areas and re-establish those people in proper houses. And what is more, and this is actually the bitter irony of life, those hon. members opposite find great pleasure to-day in showing overseas visitors that which has been achieved as a result of the resourcefulness and energy of the National Party Government and pretending that it is all their own doing. However, we wish them joy with that. It is the legacy of all of us in South Africa. I have a book here which was published by the Johannesburg City Council, a beautifully illustrated brochure, and in this book is set out the way in which these major problems were solved. No mention is made of the fact that the resourcefulness and the brains behind all those schemes actually came from this Government, but we wish them joy, because we are grateful to have solved the problem. The Republic of South Africa is indeed—and I defy anybody to prove the opposite—a world leader in the field of housing, and particularly of low-cost housing for the Bantu. A number of the standard plans of the Department of Housing are on display in the United Nations Building in New York and they are recommended for world use. Although South Africa is no longer a member of the C.C.T.A., the committee for technical cooperation in Africa, that committee still consults South Africa in regard to housing problems because they acknowledge that we are their superiors.

I have said that the Nationalist Government has not only taken care of the non-Whites, it has also taken care of the Whites. What has it done in regard to the housing question? I want to mention a few small matters quickly. With the consolidation of the Housing Act in 1957 the Government reinforced the State’s housing task and introduced central control over all Government-supported housing. It went even further than that. As a result of that legislation the National Housing Fund and the National Housing Commission, and subsequently also the Bantu Housing Board were established. In November, 1961, this spadework led to an independent Department of Housing. The other day we heard about lack of foresight. Does that testify to lack of foresight? In 1964 the Community Development Board was added to the Department of Community Development, which is now carrying out the housing policy of this Government. We have not forgotten that that side of the House opposed all these organizational steps which were necessary to cope with this problem. But now those hon. members come along and presume to criticize the planning and farsightedness of the Government.

Is there a shortage of houses?

If the hon. member had not been fast asleep, he would have remembered that I said right at the outset that I conceded that there was a great need for houses, but I also said that if such a need had not existed, it would have been proof that we are stagnating and deteriorating.

This side of the House has accomplished other achievements as well. With the help of its experts it undertook research and it has accomplished the proud achievement that, in spite of rising costs of materials and wages since 1948, it has made possible a decrease of 20 to 25 per cent in the construction costs of houses for Whites. The task of this Department has been to help local authorities to provide housing for the lower income groups in particular. In addition its task was to undertake schemes and development work itself where necessary—and that side of the House has been up in arms about that. What did the Government do? In 1962 the hon. the Minister—and he must bear in mind, Sir, that we are being criticized for lack of foresight—had a circular sent out by the housing commission to all local authorities in South Africa. He asked them to make a survey of their requirements as far as houses for Whites were concerned. He stated emphatically in the letter that he was satisfied that enough was being done for non-Whites. They had to make a survey of the needs in regard to housing for Whites and they had then to consider to what extent they could utilize the money from the housing commission for both economic and sub-economic housing. Unfortunately the reaction on the part of many local authorities to this well-intended appeal was very poor. Now it is unfortunately the case that the United Party has for many years not been in office in this country and have no hope either of taking over the government. That is why, if we wish to draw a comparison, we must draw a comparison in regard to the places where they are in fact in office. Do you know what the reply of the Johannesburg City Council to that appeal by the Minister was? I shall paraphrase a passage from what they wrote to the Minister at that time. That was in 1963, and now I want those hon. members who had so much to say about lack of foresight, to listen very carefully. They wrote to the hon. the Minister informing him that the Council was fully aware of the need for accommodation for the various income groups in Johannesburg and were convinced that sufficient accommodation could be provided in the existing dilapidated areas by establishing families in the various groups receiving low incomes there without tackling new schemes in areas situated far away from the city centre. We have here in our midst a former mayor of Johannesburg, the hon. member for Johannesburg (North), and he will be able to confirm this, as he was implicated in that decision. It is a pity that his two predecessors are not here at the moment. I hope the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) realizes now what a devastating effect this place can have on a man if he has been a former mayor of Johannesburg. At the same time the Government began with the development of the old Sophia-town which subsequently became known as Triumph, and let me say this in honour of the hon. the Minister and his Department, that there are already almost 800 houses in Triumph to-day out of the contemplated 1,200 and all of them are occupied by people who are happy and satisfied to stay there. There are a great many people who are endeavouring to get in there. It stands as one of the show monuments of the Government, and the hon. member for Johannesburg (North), whom I know as a fair man, will admit it.

Sir, do you know what the criticism of the Johannesburg City Council in regard to that undertaking of the Government was when it made a start with Triumph? I want to paraphrase it for you. They said they could not understand why Sophiatown and Martindale should be developed immediately. They wrote further that it was very possible that the provision of additional accommodation in Sophiatown could come to grief in the long run. That was the foresight displayed by the United Party. Those were the kind of preparations they made for coping with the housing problem, and now we are being reproached and called upon to consider the advisability of considering what can be done to solve the problem. This Government has already done everything the hon. member for Durban (Point) is asking for. What has the hon. the Minister’s predecessor, he himself and his Department already done? My colleague from Stellenbosch has already mentioned the particulars. He neglected to mention the particulars dealing with the Department’s achievements in collaboration with the building societies, and he has further neglected to mention the figures dealing with what the Railways had achieved in collaboration with the building societies. If he had not omitted to do so, the picture would have been that from 1948 more than 100,000 houses had been built with public money to the value of more than R400,000,000. I defy any of the speakers after me to refute that figure. In 1966-7, in this Budget which has been before us, we found that out of the housing fund and the development fund jointly no less than R67,000,000 will be spent. Now I ask the hon. member, who maintains that more should be done, where the money must come from? He made no proposals in that respect. He complained last week about excessive capital spending by the Government; now he is asking for more money for housing. I want to ask him where he thinks all the workers must come from to assimilate in a productive way all that extra money he wants.

I want to conclude by saying that this hon. Minister as well as his predecessor have succeeded in persuading and convincing the larger municipalities of the great need to make the best use of the finances at their disposal. At the same time they have been brought so far as to realize the need for co-operation, because without co-operation this problem is made even more difficult. Here I want to say that the Johannesburg Town Council has now asked for and received R2,600,000 from the Housing Commission, Benoni R1,700,000, Alberton R1,400,000 Boksburg R570,000 and Elsburg R500,000. I can also mention a number of others but I am limiting myself here to the Witwatersrand because that is the area which I know best. As far as housing is concerned, the Nationalist Government has a service record which is far better than that of all the Governments before it put together. In addition I am convinced that the Nationalist Government will go from strength to strength. We will even remove the problems and the spectres which hon. Members on the opposite side think they see, as we have had to do in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) and I must say that I am surprised that a politician of his experience should fall into the trap of mentioning Bantu housing as far as the Johannesburg City Council is concerned. I believe that the record of the United Party City Council of Johannesburg in respect of Bantu housing is something which we can be proud of. The hon. member conveniently omitted to mention that the success of the Resettlement Board in Johannesburg was to a very large extent due to the co-operation of the Johannesburg City Council in so far as the provision of services is concerned.

Why then was it necessary to create the Resettlement Board?

I have only a short time allocated to me for this speech and as the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) said so little I do not think I should devote more of my time to it.

In all enlightened countries it is an accepted principle to-day that the eradication of slums and the provision of good housing at a price which the people can afford to pay is the soundest investment that cities and indeed the country itself can make. Because of the effect which good and properly organized housing has on the character and moral fibre of the nation the provision of such housing is justified, I think, at almost any price. It is therefore with a deep sense of dismay that one learns that this year there is a drop of R47,000,000 in building plans in South Africa. This news comes at a time when there is the most urgent need for housing for all sections of our population and should be coupled with the fact that the Government is making every effort to attract large numbers of immigrants to our country. These factors cause one to doubt seriously whether this serious problem of housing is receiving the attention of the Government which it deserves. When the Government introduced building control in 1964 it was obviously done to encourage and assist the building of homes for the lower income group and naturally local authorities saw in that the green light and, in fact, accepted the challenge to build as many houses in the shortest time possible. Can one, in the circumstances, imagine anything more likely to dampen the enthusiasm of local authorities in overcoming the serious backlog of housing than a circular which was sent out by the Department of Community Development on 12th August, 1966? It is a circular which was addressed to all Town Clerks and Secretaries of Divisional Councils and is headed “Conservative Handling of Capital Expenditure on Housing Schemes”. It reads—

One can well imagine the embarrassing and difficult situation in which the Johannesburg City Council, for instance, finds itself as a result of this ill-timed circular. Having embarked on a sound five-year R30,000,000 plan for essential White and Coloured housing and having over a period of 18 months prepared the necessary plans, having negotiated the purchase of land and having obtained the loans and holding tenders of more than R5,000,000, it now finds that as a result of this slowing down process all their plans are being affected. Can one imagine the reaction of the 4,000 odd White families in Johannesburg who need houses desperately when they opened the Star and read—

When we look at the position of Coloured housing the position is equally alarming. Indications are that there is a need for 7,150 houses for Coloureds in the metropolitan area of Johannesburg. If to this is added that 550 houses will be needed annually to cater for the natural increase in the Coloured population, it is apparent that unless there is complete rethinking on the part of the Department of Community Development the already serious housing position in the Johannesburg complex will grow even worse.

I realize of course that the problem of housing is a national one but on account of the limited time at my disposal I can only touch on certain aspects of the problem. By confining myself to the housing shortage in the metropolitan area of Johannesburg I am not being parochial in my approach but only motivated by the fact that I have an intimate knowledge of this problem in this particular area. Evidence is mounting that the standard set by the Department of Community Development in its housing code is far too low. Let me quote an example. In terms of the code a three-bedroomed house may be 605 sq. ft., that is for a family of from five to six. This standard is startling if one compares it with the Parker Morris standard in England, namely 810 sq. ft. plus 50 sq. ft. for storage.

To illustrate the gravity of the housing position in Johannesburg, I have drawn up the following schedule reflecting an analysis of 1,713 families falling within the economic group on the waiting list for houses of the City Council of Johannesburg. In the income group R81 to R150 per month there are 975 applicants on the waiting list, i.e. 56.9 per cent of the total. In the salary group R151 to R180 there are 657 on the waiting list, or 28.3 per cent of the total whereas in the income group R180 to R250 per month there are 81 on the waiting list, or 4.8 of the total. On the basis of this analysis it appears that the City Council of Johannesburg is virtually unable to house some 60 per cent of its population. Taking an area of 850 sq. ft. for a family of five, the cost of building the house, plus the cost of the services and of the land, will be to the order of some R4,700 to R4,800, or a rental of approximately R40 to R42 per month. Such a rental is from 28 per cent to 50 per cent of the earnings of the group earning R80 to R150 per month. Obviously, rentals of this magnitude can only lead to non-payment of rentals and other social upsets.

The present ceiling set for housing for the physically fit aged also needs the urgent attention of the Government. Despite the fact that the per capita cost per unit was raised in January, 1966, from R1,100 to R1,475 the Johannesburg City Council finds that it cannot build a satisfactory old-age unit for letting to a single old-age person. This position is serious if regard is had to the fact that there are about 12 single persons for every couple requiring this form of accommodation. At present approximately 1,134 persons require some form of accommodation and if these are to be properly housed the commission should urgently reconsider its per capita ceiling for single persons. It is surprising that although sociologists are agreed that it is virtually impossible to place two aged physically fit people in a double room, this, in fact, is the solution which the Department of Community Development has suggested. The fallacy of fixing a per capita charge is apparent when it is realized that it requires only about 30 to 40 sq. ft. of extra space to make it suitable for a couple and that the cost of this extra space is only between R120 and R180.

The motion by the hon. member for Durban (Point) which is now before the House has come at a very opportune time. In my mind there is no doubt that the urgent need for housing which he stated there was, does in actual fact exist. I can only hope that as a result of this debate to-day the Government will take note of the position and that something will be done very shortly to overcome the very very serious housing crisis.

Let me say at once that I am very well aware of the fact that there is in South Africa a shortage of housing for all race groups. There are various reasons for that and that is why various measures are taken from time to time to meet the position. It would have been much better if we had had more time than we have at our disposal in this debate for going into this problem more thoroughly. In the limited time at my disposal—in terms of the agreement between the parties I only have 30 minutes at my disposal—I find it impossible, for instance, to deal at all fully with all the aspects mentioned here to-day. Under these circumstances hon. members will perhaps allow me to speak for slightly more than 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is the hon. member for Umhlatuzana entitled to read a newspaper while his provincial leader is speaking?

Order! The hon. the Minister may continue.

I am also thoroughly aware of the social problems arising from the shortage of housing, because it has been our experience that where proper housing has been provided there is a considerable decrease in the incidence of social maladjustment. That has been our experience as regards all population groups. The ideal we are therefore aiming at is to be able to provide all sections of the population with sufficient housing. But now the question arises whether it is in the first instance the duty of the Central Government to provide fully in those needs. Everybody will agree that it is in fact the duty of the Government to assist in the provision of housing.

However, under no circumstances should the impression take root in the public mind that the provision of houses is the duty of the State alone. It is essential that every person should aim at obtaining his own house, without the mediation of the State. What the State does in fact do, is to assist him and thus make it easier for him to obtain a house. In the first instance, however, it ought to be the wish of every head of a family to obtain a house on his initiative. Under no circumstances should he be under the impression that he should simply leave it to the State to assist him. The suggestion made by the hon. member for Durban (Point) that instalments which are being paid off on housing loans should be taken into consideration when such a person’s income-tax is being assessed, I shall convey to my colleague, the Minister of Finance.

Then I am of the opinion that it is also the duty of the employer to assist in the provision of housing for his workers, particularly where new industries are being established. That is happening in the mining industry and I think that new industries should likewise accept responsibility for providing proper housing for the people who take up employment there. That will have the effect that they will have at their disposal a more settled and stable and reliable labour community.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) referred to the large number of railway officials who fall in the category of people who ought to be able to obtain houses of the type provided by the National Housing Commission. Let me point out to the hon. member that the South African Railways Administration is in fact one of the bodies which accepts its responsibility towards its officials. Since the 1st April, 1948 until the 31st December, 1965, the S.A. Railways Administration provided its officials with a total of 20,682 houses at a cost of R137,500,000.

That is under the various schemes.

Yes, that is under the various schemes. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I say that the Railways is accepting its responsibility. The mines are accepting their responsibility. The State is accepting its responsibility, since it is increasingly providing its officials with housing, where other housing is not available. That is why I think it is essential that industrialists, too, should to a greater extent than has perhaps been the case up to now, assist in the provision of housing for their employees.

We admit that we have this backlog in housing, a backlog which developed as a result of various circumstances. There is the influx of immigrants. There is, as the hon. member for Stellenbosch said, the temporary influx of inhabitants from rural areas, of inhabitants of farms, to the cities, where they have to find a temporary refuge until better conditions prevail in the rural areas once again, until it has rained once again. These things cause a temporary congestion in urban areas. But there is also the tremendous industrial development in our country, which is making tremendous demands on the building industry. New factories are being erected. Owing to the increase in population there are new schools, hospitals, office buildings, churches, and so forth.

We have in South Africa an appreciable, a considerable and a very serious manpower shortage, not only in the field of the building industry, but also in all other fields. No matter what measures one may take, one always encounters the problem that one cannot do more than one is in a position to do with the available manpower in South Africa. If we consider that approximately 150,000 artisans are employed in the building industry in South Africa and that the unemployment figure remains roughly between 200 and 300 at any time, it is clear that those are only the people who become unemployed through their own doing. We know that there are such people in every group and in every community. There is therefore virtually full employment as far as the building industry is concerned. I am concerned about the fact that, apparently, insufficient numbers of young Whites are entering the various trades in the building industry as apprentices. I am concerned about that, because it can aggravate our problems in the future very seriously. What are we doing to meet this problem?

In the first instance steps have been taken in the building industry itself in that they paid higher wages to their artisans. Higher wages were paid to obtain the services of artisans and to encourage young people to take up those trades. But as a result of the higher wages, building costs have increased. As a result of rising building costs, one can build fewer houses with the same money and once again one has to contend with the eternal vicious circle. In the second place the State intervened. My predecessor took the initiative and the State actively encouraged pre-constructed building methods for the very purpose of being able to provide more housing with less skilled labour. The hon. member for Durban (Point) complained that factory-constructed houses, pre-constructed houses were more expensive than conventional houses. He referred to the scheme at the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam in particular. That is an isolated scheme, but if those houses were built under the same circumstances as conventional houses, I doubt whether they would be more expensive. We must remember, Sir, that material has to be transported there over long distances, and that is why material is more expensive at that particular scheme than at other places. If somebody in the conventional trade had to erect those houses, he would also have had to transport his material over the same long distances. He would have to pay his artisans housing or board and lodging allowances while they were being employed there. That would also have sent his costs soaring. In other words, conventional houses would also have been more expensive there than they normally are at other places. The pre-constructed houses there cannot be compared with conventional houses elsewhere. Conventional and pre-constructed houses should be compared with each other when they are in the same surroundings and where the same circumstances are found. In that regard it has been our experience that pre-constructed houses tend to bring down the cost structure of housing. Up to now it has not succeeded in doing so to a large extent, because we must remember, Mr. Speaker, that factory-constructed or pre-constructed housing is still in its infancy. It still has to go through a period of growth. It still has to adapt itself to our circumstances. It still has to find its way. But even at present it can compete with conventional methods on an equal footing. Even at this stage it can do that. Where tenders are called for, the builders of pre-constructed houses are the people who get the contracts purely on the basis of price competition. We are therefore making progress in that direction. In that respect the State has taken a tremendous step forward. But the State has also taken a further step and that was to introduce building control. Buildings to the value of R62,000,000 have been postponed for one to two years. That caused a delay in the erection of other kinds of buildings. We have therefore given attention to all those problems.

Mr. Speaker, the first part of the motion deals with the aged. As the hon. member for Umbilo said, it is primarily the duty of welfare organizations to see to that. I do not want to go into the details. On a previous occasion, namely on 5th August, I furnished figures to show how there has been an increase in the provision of old-age homes. I do not have the time now to go into that matter in detail again. I just want to refer to the question of the hon. member for Umbilo who wanted to know why such a golden opportunity was lost in that the R750,000 which had been voted as a donation for the purpose of accommodating welfare organizations, was not used. The reason for that is obvious. In every case the welfare organization has to plan its scheme first. The planning must reach a certain stage, and so forth, before it can obtain that amount. That is why the withdrawals made since that amount was made available were very small initially. However, the amount is still available. Up to now only R185,000 has been withdrawn. We find that applications are coming in faster now that people are getting ready to avail themselves of that money. With any scheme it happens that when it is introduced, it takes time before the organizations which can make use of it, are attuned to it, and we are now beginning to reach that stage. With the aid of this measure I therefore anticipate that the problems experienced by private welfare organizations in the past, will be made fewer, and that we shall be able to make available more old-age homes at an increased rate. I also agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member that we should not only place the aged in old-age homes, but that we should in actual fact build a cheaper type of house in each housing scheme so that the lower income groups, inter alia, the pensioners, may live in the community itself. That is the policy of my Department. Where the National Housing Commission undertakes schemes, it sees to it that a certain percentage of the houses in that scheme falls in the sub-economic group. That has the effect that the inhabitants of sub-economic houses can be scattered among the economic group, so that one does not build up separate economic or sub-economic communities, but one integrated community. Not only does that apply to pensioners, but also to the very lowest income groups which we, for social reasons, do not want to place separately, but integrate in the community. That is why the National Housing Commission follows that method.

In respect of housing for the lower income groups where the State grants assistance, and where the State grants assistance through the National Housing Commission’s assistance to local authorities in the first instance, we are now indirectly being accused that the State has neglected its duty in this regard. But what is the position? Mr. Speaker, I do not want to occupy the time of the House with a long list of data. I have a very great deal of very illuminating data here. But I just want to point out to you that in 1962-3 the housing commission had to pay back to the Treasury more than R4,000,000 of the funds it had available, since local authorities had not taken it up. In 1963-4 R10,750,000 of the available funds was not taken up by local authorities to start schemes of this nature. It was as a result of the very fact that the State had voted funds for this purpose, but that local authorities did not accept their responsibility and carry out their share of the task, that the State started singling out special officials for the purpose of approaching municipalities one by one and to activate them in this direction. They were asked: “Please start these schemes: they are your responsibility. The State is helping you with them.” That is why it was possible to show an improvement from 1964-5. But even in 1964-5 R2,750,000 which was available, was paid back. Last year, for the first time, the amount used exceeded the estimate by R2,750,000. By means of virement it was possible to supplement that from other sources.

But, Mr. Speaker, what is the position this year? The position this year is that according to the estimates of the local authorities and the Housing Commission in regard to schemes they felt themselves prepared to commence, a total of R8,500,000 more than last year was made available to the Housing Commission and the Community Development Fund. That is the additional appropriation plus the larger amount which revert to the two funds. That means that a total amount of R73,000,000 is available for housing in the two funds this year. That is considerably more than ever before, Sir. Now for the first time we find ourselves in the position—and now I come to the argument of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North)—that local authorities are drawing much more rapidly against the fund than they have ever done in the past. That could not have been foreseen in advance. In the past and now again they have entered into contracts with contractors to hand over schemes over a period of 18 months or two years. The Department provided them with money on that basis, but instead of completing the scheme over a period of 18 months or two years, the completion has now suddenly been accelerated and withdrawals against the fund are taking place more rapidly than anticipated in terms of the estimates of both the local authorities and the National Housing Commission. If we should allow matters to continue in that manner, we shall be heading for a deficit of some R8,000,000, and with the condition of our economy in general it is simply not possible to increase the allocated amount of R73,000,000 with an additional R8,000,000 in this financial year. We were, therefore, faced with this problem that where one had to urge people on previously, where we begged them year after year to do the work, they suddenly started to work faster this year than had been anticipated both by them and by us, and the result is that we are faced with this problem this year. I am very unhappy about this situation and wherever it is possible we shall try to economize on schemes which are not intended for the lower income groups. As far as it is possible we are trying to make the money available to the lower income groups instead. Let me also reply to the hon. member for Durban (Point) who said that among the number of houses made available by the Department, there is a considerable number which falls in a higher category than the category for which we should in actual fact make provision, houses which are more expensive than those which should be provided for the lower income groups. Mr. Speaker, that is quite a different matter; those are houses which the Community Development Board has to buy up from unauthorized persons in group areas to assist those unauthorized persons to establish themselves in their own areas. Those properties which have been purchased, which fall in the higher category, have to be repaired and renovated and then sold to members of the authorized group.

Half of them were built by the Department.

Where the Department builds houses of that nature, it is to be able to resettle people and it is for that purpose that that money is voted, and that is why it is a separate fund. The Community Development Fund is not the fund from which houses should be provided exclusively for the lower income groups; it is for all groups. One has to help a certain number of people with their resettlement; that is what it can be attributed to, but that has no effect on the amount we make available or can make available for the lower income groups. Allow me to show hon. members in the light of these figures, what progress we have made during the last few years. Between the years 1960 and 1966, i.e. over a period of six years, 7,700 living units have been provided by local authorities with the aid of housing funds—I am talking about Whites; it will take too long to furnish data for other races. In other words, a little more than 1,000 houses per annum. That is the figure for the entire Republic. Hon. members will realize how tremendously slow the rate has been. It is estimated that in this year, 1966-7 3,325 will be provided by local authorities with the aid of National Housing Funds. In other words, we have almost trebled the rate. Since local authorities went too slowly, the National Housing Commission itself had to step in with its crash building programme and up to last year 2,481 houses were completed, and a further 1,857 living units are being planned. That is over and above those which are being provided by the local authorities. I can furnish the hon. member with particulars in regard to every city and every town, but if I am to go into all those particulars, it will take too long. Let it be sufficient to say that we are dealing with a situation in which there was initially a measure of sluggishness on the part of the municipalities, as the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) has quite rightly said here. Two to three years ago municipalities said, “We cannot build, because if we do we shall incur losses; we shall not be able to let all those houses.” They said there was no demand for houses. We had to beg them to build, and it is only since last year really that we have succeeded in speeding up the rate. Hon. members may perhaps ask me why we have not speeded up the schemes undertaken by the National Housing Commission. Apart from the shortage of material and manpower, we were faced with a considerable number of additional problems.

The National Housing Commission does not own land; it had to obtain land in the areas of the various local authorities; it had to provide services there or it had to negotiate with the local authorities for the provision of the necessary services. It had to overcome restrictive provisions in respect of the type of house one was allowed to build there. We had to introduce special legislation in this House to meet those problems, and all those things had a retarding effect on the plans and the planning of the Housing Commission, where the Commission itself had to step in. Those are problems which the local authorities do not have, or where there are in fact problems, they are problems which they themselves can quite easily overcome. As a result of these problems, the crash building programme of the National Housing Commission was hampered considerably. We are overcoming those problems; we are obtaining land for building purposes everywhere and we are engaged in various schemes all over the country.

At the moment there are areas in the country where the National Building Commission has more living units under construction than the particular local authority for those areas. I do not want to mention the names of the areas; I do not want to compare areas tonight, but there are such large urban areas where the National Housing Commission has more living units under construction than the particular local authority. We are overcoming these problems. A tremendous deal of work has already been done and we shall continue along those lines.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) made certain suggestions. I have already dealt with two of them. He said that the pegging of rentals would have a discouraging effect on the provision of new housing, but, Mr. Speaker, there is no question of pegging rentals. I want to make it clear that hon. members and also members of the public are under the misunderstanding that, in terms of my announcement of the 5th August, rentals will remain pegged at what they were on the 31st May. That is not a correct interpretation of my announcement. It only means that as soon as the necessary legislation has been passed and the necessary proclamation has been issued, rentals which were in force as at the 31st May, will be the valid rents until such time as the Rent Board determines other rents. There is therefore no pegging of rentals; there is merely rent control, and that is why I believe that it will not deter investors from making further investments in that field. I should rather say more about that at a later, more suitable opportunity.

The hon. member also referred to the problem that existing housing is often destroyed in that a building is demolished, and he asked that my Department should rather buy such a building instead of allowing it to be demolished. The hon. member is probably aware of the fact that the Department has the right to forbid the demolishing of any building which provides living accommodation. We are doing that in numerous cases. We do not allow a building, of which the living accommodation is of a reasonable standard, to be demolished unless the owner of that building is able to provide alternative housing for the inhabitants of such a building. [Time limit.]

Sir, I should just like to have clarity in connection with a question asked by the hon. member for Durban (Point) while you were not in the Chair. He asked whether it was in order for me to read a newspaper. I have a report here, the heading of which reads, “Indian Housing Scheme”. I should just like your ruling as to whether I may read this report.

Order!

In spite of all the impressive statistics given here this afternoon by the hon. the Minister in reply to the debate the fact remains that he admitted himself—he was quite objective and fair about it—that he had said in an interview given to the newspapers that there was a shortage of 90,000 houses in South Africa at the present time, 50,000 for Whites, Indians and Coloureds and 40,000 for Africans. Sir, you can try your best to talk this away but that is a practical fact and the hon. the Minister has admitted it himself.

The hon. the Minister asked whether it was the task of the State to provide housing for all. Of course, I agree with him that we do not want to find ourselves in that position. But, with respect, this Government has been in power for nearly 20 years. Why have they not done anything about improving the earning capacity of our working class people so that they can contribute more to the cost of the housing which the State is attempting to subsidize? Sir, it goes right back to the schools, to the question of vocational training and to the shortage of apprentices in the building industry as the hon. the Minister has admitted himself. The hon. the Minister went on to say that industrialists must play a greater part than they are playing to-day. Might I remind the Minister that a few years ago Mr. Harry Oppenheimer donated something in the nature of £3,000,000 to the Johannesburg City Council for the purpose of subsidizing sub-economic housing in that urban area? Sir, what about the mining industry? The mining industry houses its employees at no cost at all to the State.

I said that industrialists should do what the mining industry does.

I accept that, but there are other industries in this country too, as the hon. the Minister knows, which do quite a lot to subsidize the housing of their employees. Sir, how can the hon. the Minister come here and make a plea about the shortage of trained manpower when his colleague, the Minister of Railways, got up in this House ten days ago and told the House, in reply to a question, that there were 23,000 White men working on the Railways earning less than R100 a month? Can you tell me why, Sir? I will tell you why. It is because they have no qualifications to enable them to earn a higher salary. Why are they not skilled people? Because this Government has failed not only in the field of housing but in the field of education, in the field of agriculture, social welfare and in every other field.

We inherited these people from the United Party Government.

When the hon. the Minister talks about this vicious circle, I would like to know who created it? The fact of the matter is that all the excuses the Minister made this afternoon are simply part and parcel of the general inefficiency and maladministration of this Nationalist Government, and it is no good the Minister saying that the Budget produced by the Minister of Finance has made life more difficult for him and his Department. Now, on 1st February this year the then Minister of Community Development told the House that there was no shortage of housing in the sense that no families were without roofs over their heads, but he went on to admit that there was overcrowding and housing of poor quality and he gave us some of the figures. When the Minister’s predecessor stated that everyone at least had a roof over his head, one wonders whether he realized the sordid and appalling conditions in which so many people, including Whites, are living in South Africa to-day. I have seen them in our big cities while canvassing during elections. You would be shocked, Sir, if you went into those homes. There are thousands of non-Whites also living in outhouses, garages, cellars, pondoks, in wood and tin shacks, without any power and with primitive communal toilets and washing facilities, and living in conditions which can only be described as a health hazard to the rest of the country. I have seen some of these houses occupied by Whites in which the floor-boards are so rotten that in places you could not step on them: houses with cement floors which are as cold as charity, and with water running down the walls.

And is that all this Government’s fault?

In these houses there are many children who are always ailing because of these conditions. I have come across, in my own immediate vicinity, families who are paying from R12 to R20 a month for the privilege of living in a three-roomed wood and tin shack, a mother, father and eight children. I am quite aware that the Minister’s Department has made and is making genuine efforts to catch up with this very large backlog, but we accuse the Government of shortsightedness in not handling this practical matter and making plans for the future when they first came into office. They planned the boom, but this maladministration and lack of efficiency is typical in so many fields.

This Government is only too happy when there is a debate on colour, but when it comes to housing it is not so keen. Apart from inefficiency, the same lack of planning is apparent in other fields as well as housing. We are faced in South Africa with a situation in which many countries overseas have found themselves, namely that private enterprise has now virtually ceased to provide houses for the lower-income groups and the general mass of the people. The reason for that is that the demand for housing is too great and building costs have gone up and it does not pay a private contractor to erect houses of the simpler kind for the lower-income groups. That is generally accepted and it is nothing new in South Africa, nor is it “socialism” to assist the lower-income groups in regard to housing. But how is the Government handling the matter?

I want to make an entirely different point here from the ones made during this debate to-day. I would say that unfortunately most of the housing schemes sponsored by this Government suffer from fundamental defects caused by the financial limits and the restrictions imposed by the Central Government upon this Minister and his Department. Of course we do not expect him to build palaces, but what is happening is that townships with poor building standards are erected, and within a period of years they are in danger of deteriorating into slum areas. This is what is happening and it will prove to have been false economy, it will defeat the Government’s own ends. We consider that it is high time for the Department of Community Development to take steps to raise the standards of accommodation for all races.

This Minister, within the last few weeks, has raised the qualifying income limits for sub-economic units. In these assisted schemes we consider that the Minister should give serious consideration also to a further reduction in the interest rates on housing loans initiated through his Department. I hope the Minister will give that matter some consideration. Many homes are being built to-day with Government assistance, but right from the beginning they often prove to be too small for the families occupying them.

This is one of the problems and flat-life, as the Minister will agree, has always been inimical to a free and happy family life, particularly when there are children. In urban areas many people engaged in private enterprise have assisted the housing problem considerably in that they have concentrated on the erection, especially in the poorer areas, of increasingly large numbers of warren-like blocks of flats. The conditions of existence in many of these flats are anything but healthy. There are often too many children, and before you know where you are there is not enough living and playing space and these flats rapidly deteriorate into slums. Unfortunately this happens only too rapidly and I wonder whether the Department does enough to control it.

The situation among the Whites in the heart of our urban areas is very pitiful in many cases. The hon. members for some of the Port Elizabeth constituencies will agree with me here. In many cases families of eight and ten people live in two rooms. I wonder whether I may raise another issue. Why does the Government not use its imagination and initiative to subsidize young married couples who are trying to acquire their own homes? They could inaugurate some sort of scheme, and this is very important when you consider that one of our objects in South Africa is to increase the White birth-rate. There is no encouragement to young couples to increase their families if all they can afford to live in is only two small rooms or a small flat.

The Minister said that people themselves should do as much as they could to acquire their own houses. Of course he is perfectly right, but what about the credit squeeze? Does the Minister not know that for the past 12 months or more the building societies have been refusing loans to people of undoubted integrity and reasonable financial standing, people holding good jobs, but with no surplus capital with which to buy a house? They have asked the building societies for loans but they have repeatedly been refused on the grounds that the Government’s credit squeeze forbids them to lend any further money for housing.

Surely this is to be deplored. The majority of salaried people who are willing to assume the responsibility of acquiring their own homes, without any assistance from the State, cannot do so, but if they were able to the burden on the Minister’s Department would be lessened and obviously more funds would then be available for the subsidization of sub-economic housing. The willingness and the capacity to buy a house out of one’s own income is surely one of the best ways of doing two things, of saving money by putting it into fixed property, and of keeping money out of circulation in a very good cause in a time of inflation. It seems to me that the Government has lacked imagination altogether by not having thought out some scheme whereby the building societies might have been permitted to handle their funds in a rather more generous fashion for housing purposes, a scheme which need not have impinged in any way upon the Government’s subsidized plans for housing for the lower-income groups and the sub-economic groups. We have been told so often that this Government planned the boom, but could they not really have foreseen that this housing shortage was likely to happen?

That is why we begged the municipalities to start with their schemes.

Could the Minister not have foreseen that we would, before long, land ourselves in a crisis in regard to housing for our employees in an expanding industry? It is a universal problem, but this Government was too busy with its ideological schemes to deal with it. [Interjection.] The unfortunate thing is that the Minister talks about the municipalities and tries to put the blame on them for the shortage of housing. Good heavens, Mr. Speaker, the Provincial Administrations have the power to exert pressure upon the municipalities and the Minister has the power to bring pressure to bear upon the provinces. There is nothing to stop him. Look at the pressure that is being brought to bear in various quarters right at this moment. So he cannot blame the municipalities. But the unfortunate part of the situation is this, that according to the Minister in 1965, whereas R3,000,000 was set aside by his Department over the past two years to enable South Africans in the R180-R200 a month income bracket to obtain housing loans, only about half that money was taken up. The basic down payment for a Government house of this kind is R200. The hard fact of the matter is that the average worker earning up to R250 a month simply does not have enough money to pay that initial R200 out of his monthly pay-packet. The extra taxation now being imposed on all householders in terms of this Budget and the phenomenal rise in the cost of living over the past 12 months will make the position even worse. Those unfortunate people in the middle income group, of whom thousands have bonds on their properties, hope to pay them off before they retire, but now they will have to pay 81 per cent interest on their bonds, which means that they will take two or three years to pay if off. Many of them will be pensioned off at a given time just like that in terms of existing legislation, members of the Public Service and others. What will they do then? Out of their pensions they will have to go on paying 81 per cent interest on their bond for another few years. This will hit them very hard indeed. It will mean an extra R1,000 or R1,500 added on to their bonds. As far as the Cape Province is concerned, according to the Minister’s statement, there is a shortage of 42,700 houses for people of all races, and of course the largest backlog is for Coloureds, 21,200. In the municipal area of Cape Town alone there is a shortage of about 11,000 houses and over 8,000 Coloured families have put their names down on the waiting-list of the City Housing Manager. The Government has just gone and built a second railway station in Cape Town costing R2,000,000 for the non-Whites, who all have to use the expensive new concourse and end up by getting into different carriages on the same train. What could you not do in the way of housing with an extra R2,000,000? That is the sort of thing which I we consider to be absolutely ridiculous. [Interjections.] For hundreds of years people have gone to their respective coaches and there has been no trouble, but this is the sort of example of a wastage of money, when they all go up the concourse through this beautiful concrete building and end up in the same trains but only in different carriages. Sir, I think they should appoint a woman as Minister of Housing. She would be more able to cope with these things than the Minister. May I say that the Mayor of Stellenbosch, who is no doubt a friend of the Minister, addressed a meeting in June of the local mayors, officials and educationists. He said that more than 23,000 living units were still needed for Coloured people in the Western Cape, and he stated that in 1937 it was found that only 5 per cent of all Coloured people were housed satisfactorily. Twenty-five years later the Secretary for Housing estimates that there is still a shortage of 50,000 houses for Coloured people.

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

I move—

This motion at first glance seems to be quite innocent as it simply gives details of the further sitting hours of this House. The hon. the Leader of the House, as usual, has tried to seek agreement and he has been informed that this side of the House does not agree with this motion. As a matter of fact, we have the greatest objection to it. Let us examine for a moment what has caused this situation. The hon. the Minister has not seen fit to explain to the House why he is moving this motion.

Let us examine the position. Before the election the Government fixed the 29th July as the opening date for the Session and having been returned to power once again they left that date unchanged whereas they could easily have set an earlier date for the commencement of the Session. It has happened on previous occasions after elections that the date for the commencement of the Session has been brought much closer to the date of the election. That would have given us ample time to get through the business of the House. At the start of the Session the hon. the Minister was helpful and he gave us a list of the Bills which the Government intended to introduce. We were told that there were some 29 Bills which had to go through this Session. Our first reaction to that was that what the Minister was trying to do was to put a quart of legislation in point of time into a pint bottle. It was almost trying the impossible right from the word “go”. But over and above that we were informed on Friday that the Government had to get its financial legislation through by the 14th October, and moreover it has to get that legislation through both Houses, not just the Assembly. Sir, when was this known? It seemed to me that the Minister did not appear to be aware of the fact that he had this date line. He had not been informed by the Minister of Finance prior to this that it was necessary and had to be done. Mr. Speaker, this is not good enough. If ever there was a classic example of lack of foresight, we have it in this case. This motion does not allow the House sufficient time to deal with legislation in the ordinary way and to give sufficient thought to the legislation which is brought before the House. If we examine the time available to us during the present Session we find that if we go on sitting the present hours until the 21st October we will have 190 hours, which is obviously insufficient time from the Minister’s point of view. With the added time we are going to sit 217 hours if we go on until the 21st October, but if we sit a week longer, the sitting hours will be just over 250. It is true that the Minister gave us a list of the measures which have to be put through, but that list was merely descriptive and did not itemize the various Bills as such. One would like to know whether notice has been given of all Bills which the Government proposes to introduce this Session. Is the Government going to introduce other Bills, of which notice has not yet been given and which the Government feels must go through? I hope that the Minister will give notice of as many Bills as possible, even if he is not going to proceed with them, because I believe that under our parliamentary system—I think most members do—it is a very useful and a very good thing and it redounds to the credit of Parliament if the Government gives notice of Bills as long as possible beforehand even if they are held over at the end of the Session. This enables the various interests to study the Bills and to make representations to the Government. There are outstanding examples of such cases. For instance, take the Planning Bill of the Minister of Justice. I think it was held over for two sessions, and by the time it was dealt with in the House it had become a much more acceptable Bill owing to representations made by various parties. I believe that generally we tend to be too hasty in getting on with legislation. It seems to me that this Government regards the number of Bills that it nuts through the House as the yardstick which determines its achievements. That is the aim and the goal of the Government: The more Bills it can churn out the better. In fact, the yardstick of good government is this: The fewer the Bills that are put through, the less the legislation, the better the government.

Then let us examine for a moment the committee which sat on the revision of the Rules of the House. As you will remember, Sir, the new Rules became operative in 1964. What was the purpose of this all-party committee which ed the Rules? It was stipulated that there must be unanimous agreement with regard to the proposals put forward. It is history now that there was unanimous agreement with regard to the proposals put forward. They were eventually adopted and these are the Rules under which we operate in this House to-day. Speaking from memory I think we altered some 170 of the 216 Rules. We altered many of the archaic observances of the House as well as making some fundamental changes. What did we do in order to make Parliament more efficient and to speed up the work? We limited the time of the debates on the second and third readings of Bills. There was a reduction in the length of time allowed for speeches by individual members from 40 minutes to 30 minutes. There was a limitation of 30 minutes on speeches in the third reading, and there was a limitation placed on the number of times when a member may speak in Committee. There was a limitation of the time allotted to the Railway Budget, to the Committee of Supply and for the Main Budget. Of course, the basis of the adoption of these new rules was that we would no longer have the unseemly scramble at the end of the session, sitting night and day. That was quite clearly understood, that we were streamlining the rules to make the procedure more efficient. It was not providing an opportunity for the Government simply to pile in more legislation because we had taken less time. That was not its purpose, and I say that most emphatically, having been a senior member of that Select Committee. I am one of the few remaining members, unfortunately. Most of the members of that Committee have disappeared and I think there are only about four of us left in the House.

I think it is a great pity that the hon. the Leader of the House has not been a Whip and was not a member of that Committee, because otherwise he would not be doing to-day what he is doing. In the 1964 session, after these rules had been adopted, the then Leader of the House proposed that we should sit in the evenings. We only sat three evenings. We did have morning sittings for approximately three weeks and I believe we sat one Saturday. But then in the 1965 session, when the present Leader of the House took over, we sat on nine evenings and approximately for two weeks, and that was after objections had been made from our side because his proposals originally were to sit for far longer than that in the evenings as well as in the mornings. I want to ask the Leader of the House whether he intends that at a later stage of this Session he will pile on the morning sittings on to these extensive evening sittings which he is suggesting now? Because if that is so, it makes the position quite impossible for the staff as well as for the members, and particularly for the members of the Opposition. Government members have not the same difficulties as the Opposition. They have Ministers who take responsibility for introducing the legislation and they have all the Departments of State behind them to provide them with the necessary information to use in this House. Also, for a long period beforehand, in the process of producing a Bill, it is discussed by the Cabinet and by Departments, and they know a long time ahead and they have the information. The Opposition receives the information when the Bill is published after the first reading, and they have to discuss it very soon afterwards. I will give the hon. the Leader of the House this credit. He is accommodating in so far as he can be, in order to give us an opportunity to study these Bills. I may say the co-operation between the parties, as it stands at the moment, has been excellent.

The Government accommodates the Opposition and the Opposition accommodates the Government in regard to the business and the running of the House. But I regret to say that this sort of proposal tends to destroy that atmosphere. You cannot put Parliament into a straitjacket. If you propose this sort of thing and there is opposition to it, then it breaks out somewhere else and in some other form, whatever the rules may be. I can only come to one conclusion. As far as the Leader of the House is concerned, every now and again he demonstrates that he is a person with a mailed fist in a velvet glove. I believe that a motion such as this, creating once again legislation by exhaustion—that is all it is—does not enhance the prestige of Parliament outside at all. It is to be avoided. I do not think we should indulge in this at all, and I believe that the Minister to-day in proposing this motion has broken faith with the intentions, the promises and the understanding arrived at when that Rules Committee sat. I cannot but come to that conclusion, and I believe he is doing a great deal of harm to the system by doing this. While obviously one tries to co-operate for the good of Parliament and its smooth running, he is making it more than difficult to do so. It is up to the Government to plan its affairs better than this and not to land Parliament in this situation where it is a case of holding a pistol to the head of the Opposition and saying: If you do not pass the Estimates by 14th October there will be no salaries for anybody. That is not a position any Opposition should be placed in by a Government. It is not democracy. That is not the way to run Parliament and therefore we protest in a most emphatic manner to this motion which is before us now.

I want to associate myself with what the Chief Whip on this side has said. I am not going to cover the ground he has already covered. After the Select Committee to which he referred had finished and its proposals to alter the Standing Rules came respectively to hon. members on that side of the House and to members on this side, certain assurances were given in good faith by the Chief Whip, who had been a member of that Select Committee, and by those of us who were members of the Standing Rules and Orders Committee. What were we driving at? It was to save the time of the House and to avoid this kind of thing; it was to avoid all-night sittings and all that pressure and trouble. As the hon. member has pointed out, it was to avoid that rush at the end of the Session. That is what we sought to achieve.

Last year, when the Leader of the House came with a similar motion to this, but rather less restrictive than this, we pointed out how we resented the fact of this introducing a motion of that kind with that background and that history, when we on this side had placed all our cards face upwards on the table with a view to seeing whether we could get agreement with the Government and relying on the assurances we had received from the highest authority on that side of the House, that there was to be mutual agreement or there would be no change in the rules. We met that fairly and squarely and we came to agreement without any attempts to try to score a point here and there. I want to be fair to hon. members opposite and say I believe that they came equally fairly and openhandedly, and with their cards face upwards. But already last year there was an attempt just to gain a few extra hours in order to pass legislation.

I want to say again that I resent very strongly indeed what I consider is an absolute breach of faith now with the Minister bringing this motion before the House. I remember very well indeed some three or four years ago what the then hon. member for Humansdorp, when he was Leader of the House, said in regard to a motion which came towards the end of the session in terms of which there was to be time taken in the mornings and in the evenings and where there was to be just one flat-out hammering, as much as human beings could bear, from first thing in the morning until half-past ten at night, day after day, to try to get legislation through, and to which we objected.

The hon. member for Humansdorp in those days got up and said: “When we were in opposition we made the same kind of objection to what your Government did, which is precisely what we are doing to-day. We expect these objections from you. You are the Opposition. We made the same objections in those days when we were in opposition. But it is all part of politics, it is all part of Parliament, it is all part of the game.” That is no longer the case to-day, Sir. It was no longer the case once these new rules were adopted. That is the point. When once the new rules were adopted, then the old objections and the old principles fell away completely. There was a new deal. And we want that new deal to be adhered to.

If the Government wants to see this legislation through, then, as the Chief Whip has pointed out, they have had ample opportunity. There was no compelling them to wait until late in July before they came along with their legislative programme. They could have called Parliament together before then. The elections took place at the end of March. What were they doing all that time? They could have come along earlier. But no, they did not do that. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister even now to decide which legislation can be dealt with properly, as Parliament ought to deal with it, within the time that is available between now and whenever the hon. Leader of the House wants Parliament to rise. If he wants Parliament to rise on the 21st October, then let him work it out so that we have finished on the 21st October. But let it be done decently. Already there is a strain on the Opposition, Sir. [Interjections.]

That is the spirit in which hon. members on the other side are viewing the situation. They view the matter as a laughing matter, as a matter of no consequence. The hon. member who laughed has not yet learned what the dignity of Parliament means. He is a new member who has only just come here.

He does not know what dignity is.

We are trying to uphold not only the dignity of Parliament but also the traditions of Parliament. We are trying to uphold a way of life in our Parliament. I again wish to appeal to the Leader of the House to withdraw this motion. I want to ask him to work out exactly what legislation he wants to see on the Statute Book by whatever date he is fixing for Parliament to rise. It is not for this side to fix the date. We are not fixing the date. That power is entirely within the hands of the Leader of the House. But if he goes on with this motion, then I repeat that this is a complete breach of faith in respect of all those negotiations which took place in the past before the new rules were adopted. I charge the Government—because the Leader of the House is the mouthpiece of the Government in this matter—with that complete breach of faith. Moreover, it is a warning to us for the future as to what we are to understand when hon. members on that side of the House give us their assurances and ask this side to accept those assurances at face value. How can we do such a thing, Sir? I say that the Opposition are already under pressure. What is more, the staff are going to be under pressure. Will hon. members on that side now laugh?

Yes.

The hon. member says he will also laugh if the staff, too, are under pressure. The whole thing is a laughing matter. The same hon. member is prepared to laugh if the staff are under pressure. But it is no laughing matter for the staff to be under that pressure, Sir, pressure lasting day after day for the last month or whatever period it is that the House will be working under pressure. I appeal to the hon. Leader of the House to treat Parliament with the dignity which it deserves. I ask him to treat Parliament in the manner in which it deserves to be treated. That is what I appeal to him to do.

Mr. Speaker, I had the honour to serve as a member of the Select Committee which made these recommendations to the Standing Rules Committee. I think serving on that Committee was one of the most pleasant experiences I have enjoyed in this House. We had as Chairman the Leader of the House. I remember that at that time I was much impressed by the guidance he gave us. He said that he himself had served in this House in a small Opposition, and that whatever we did in drafting these rules he would always have in mind the rights of the Opposition. The result was that we reported unanimously to the Standing Rules Committee. What did we do in our report? We streamlined the procedure of the House. We introduced shorter speeches. We even gave Ministers in charge of Bills the right to curtail debates if they wished to do so. There was no difficulty. There was no question of any further all-night sittings. Those days were past. They were regarded as the dark days of our Parliamentary system. Now we have this proposal before the House. I want to say, Sir, that I am very disappointed that this motion should have come so early in the Session. I do not know whether there was any undertaking about the length of the Session. The length of the Session is rather like an open-end trust. The Government can start earlier or finish later as they wish. But it is unnecessary to act against the spirit of these rules. It is the spirit of these rules that matters. If there is anything worthy of the standard of the recommendation of the Select Committee, then it is the production of these rules wherein it is laid down in a crystal-clear way what the position is. It is an excellent piece of work. I sincerely trust, Sir, that the hon. Leader of the House will revise his decision and give us a chance to do our work here in a normal manner.

Mr. Speaker, I was also a member of the Select Committee that dealt with this matter of the revision of the rules. Now, one person I hold responsible for this matter is the hon. the Prime Minister himself. The hon. the Prime Minister gave a lead when that Select Committee was appointed. It is a Parliamentary tradition that there are more Government members than Opposition members on a Select Committee. But in this case the Prime Minister made an exception. Not only did he express the wish that the two sides should have equal representation on this Committee, but he also hoped that the Committee would be unanimous. The Leader of the House sat as Chairman of the Comittee. At the end of its deliberations the decision of the Committee was unanimous. The hon. the Prime Minister gave the lead, and he gave the lead because he hoped—I feel sure—that the revised rules would be acceptable to both sides and that no majority rule would be apparent in coming to a decision. But the very spirit of that Committee is being broken now.

You see, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me as if the Government has faced this Session without making the necessary calculations. I submit that it was only a day or two ago that the Leader of the House knew that we had to get the financial measures through by the 14th October. We were certainly not told that at the first meeting of the Whips, at which the Leader of the House was present, at the beginning of the Session. I think that the Leader of the House only learnt that recently. Surely it shows bad management on the part of the Government? Surely they should have made their calculations earlier? Surely the hon. the Minister of Finance should have told the Leader of the House and the Cabinet that the 14th October was the limit? You see, Mr. Speaker, certain assurances have been given by the Leader of the Other Place to the members of the Other Place. They wanted certain time to discuss financial measures in that Place, before the whole of the financial legislation was disposed of. Certain assurances were given in the Other Place as well, assurances which are not the subject of discussions here. You see, Sir, the calculations which should have been made long before Parliament commenced were obviously not made.

The Government would know which legislation is essential, they would know which legislation is contentious. They would be able to estimate, according to the rules, the amount of time that would be taken up by these legislative measures. By means of a simple addition sum they would know the total amount of time which would be required for proposed legislation, legislation which was essential and in the Government’s interests. As far as financial legislation is concerned, the different periods of time are covered by the rules. The time allowed for the Railway Budget is a fixed time. The time for the Estimates is a fixed time. So also the time for the financial measures, for the Budget debate, and so on.

These periods are all fixed in the rules, and no estimating is required. But it is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that the estimating has not been done. Either the hon. the Minister of Finance has not told the Leader of the House until a late date, or else he has been caught unawares. But, Sir, he should not have been caught unawares. So we find ourselves in a position where we have to take the time factor into consideration when dealing with financial legislation. And that is quite inexcusable. It is quite inexcusable that we should be out in our calculations with regard to financial measures. The times are laid down in the rules, Sir. The Committee that dealt with this matter felt that it was essential that the times on the Railway Estimates should be cut down. It felt that we should cut down the times for financial measures. We drew a distinction between the time allowed for Ministers and that allowed for members. Every effort was made by this Rules Committee to anticipate what should be done with regard to financial measures. So that all the Government had to do was to estimate the time that would be required for essential legislation. It is quite clear that they have done neither. They have neither made a proper estimate of the financial legislation nor have they made a proper estimate of the other legislation, and here the Minister’s fond hope that we are going to adjourn on 22nd October is not going to be realized; it cannot possibly be realized even if we are going to deal with the financial measures alone; it cannot possibly be realized even if we sit until 29th October, and so we are going to have extended hours, and I would like to know from the hon. the Minister when he replies what his estimates are for the end of the Session because, Mr. Speaker, the Minister should when coming with a motion of this kind give some indication of what legislation is essential.

At the beginning of the Session when he told us what he hoped would be passed, it was quite clear that no careful estimate had been made of the time required. I support all that has been said by other members on this side to the effect that to force this motion through, as the Government has the power to do, is a breach of faith in itself. It is a breach of faith in that in the initial stages when we decided to amend the rules, the lead was given by no less a person than the Prime Minister himself—it was a very successful committee; it was ably led; my regret is that the present Leader of the House was not a member of that committee. I say that in no disparaging way, but I think if he had been on that committee, he would have a better appreciation of what was done. The hon. the Minister has been most co-operative during this Session, but to push this through at this stage, Mr. Speaker, in the light of the background those of us who have worked on this Select Committee have had, is a breach of faith. I am sorry to say that to this Minister. It is a great pity that he was not a member of that Select Committee, because it is not in accordance with the spirit of that Select Committee that a resolution of this kind should be pushed through, because it boils down to, as hon. members have already said, government by exhaustion.

It is the wish of those of us on this side of the House who did not serve on the Select Committee, to state our point of view too. At the time when the members of the Select Committee came to the caucus with the amended ruled of the House, with proposals which were of a revolutionary nature and which created entirely new machinery with the object of expediting the work here, there were many members who were concerned and who asked the members of the Select Committee what it would mean in future. The members of our side who had served on the Select Committee gave us the assurance that it signified an attempt in good faith to streamline the work of Parliament and to prevent the spectacle of overworking in undue haste at the end of sessions. The entire object was to facilitate the business of Parliament and to make its functioning more dignified. When we were given that assurance, we asked what the Government’s attitude was. They then told us that we should accept that the Government members of that Committee, that is to say, the Government itself, had the same object in view. It was being done in the interests of Parliament, it was being done to prevent the kind of spectacle we are having to-day. We as an Opposition therefore accepted those rules, because to us it was out of the question to doubt the good faith of the Government or the Opposition when it came to the business of this Parliament. For no matter how much we quarrel, no matter how much we differ, we always try—and that is one of the traditions we have created in South Africa and to which you, Mr. Speaker, referred that day at the beginning of this session when you were reelected as Speaker—to safeguard the dignity of our Parliament, and as members we deal with each other in the utmost good faith. Today we feel that we may have been misled to some extent, and that the members who represented us on that Committee were also misled, and that they would not have given us the assurances we received in our caucus if they had known that anything of this kind could happen on the part of the Government.

Mr. Speaker, a conscientious member of this House simply cannot carry out his duties day after day and week after week unless he is prepared to work hours that would horrify any trade union in South Africa. [Laughter.] Of course there are hon. members who do not take Parliament seriously; I regret to say that, but there are members who regard Parliament as some kind of glorified club and who can laugh when one says anything like that. But conscientious members on either side of the House have to work exceptionally long hours in order to finish their work. They have to come here at 9 o’clock and even earlier in the mornings, and they leave at 7 o’clock, and even then they have to take work with them to do at home. It is a mistaken impression on the part of the public that a member of Parliament works only during the hours Parliament is sitting. Apart from select committees on which they have to serve two or three mornings a week, there is secretarial work, there is research work, there is preparation to be done; and anybody who has sympathy with the work of the House of Assembly should realize that it is asking rather much that in a session of 12 weeks, as seems to be planned for this session, there should be only seven normal sitting weeks in accordance with the aims of the Select Committee, but that five of the 12 weeks should be weeks of abnormal working hours and activity. That is unfair and unreasonable. Not only is it a disservice to individual members; it is also a disservice to the institution of Parliament, something that we, no matter how wide our differences may be, cannot tolerate. We want Parliament to be an ornament in the public life of South Africa. We should like to appeal to the Government, to appeal to the Leader of the House, to recall the spirit in which that Select Committee sat and completed its deliberations, the spirit in which Parliament adopted these new rules unanimously, although they meant a tremendous curtailment of the rights and privileges of the ordinary member. We did that because we had the dignity of Parliament at heart, and we did that because we believed in the good faith of all the members of this House. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that it will not be necessary to feel that in future we shall no longer be able to rely on the good faith of at least one Party in this House.

I am not aware of any assurances given to the Opposition that Parliament will not sit any additional hours during an ordinary session. I have no knowledge of that. I have no knowledge of any assurances, and I reject the accusation of a breach of faith. Why did hon. members not accuse this side of the House of a breach of faith when it was proposed last year that the House should sit additional hours? Why did they not make an accusation of a breach of faith this year, during the last session, when a motion was proposed for the House to sit additional hours?

Almost 50 per cent of the time of the House.

But what is the difference of a breach of faith whether it is 50 per cent or 5 per cent? That is absolute nonsense. There is no breach of faith. I reject that accusation. I think hon. members must be realistic; I am not aware of any assurances that the sitting hours of Parliament would only be those provided by the Standing Rules and Orders, and it would be absolutely foolish for any Government to give such an assurance. Mr Speaker, one cannot predict from session to session what amount of work is going to come before Parliament. You cannot plan three or four or five years ahead, and hon. members must realize that the activities of the country are continually expanding whereas the number of months that Parliament is in session every year remains static.

Why should that be so?

I have been in this House for the past 23 years and under all previous governments it has always been the position that legislation is rushed towards the end of the session.

That was before the new Standing Rules and Orders came into force.

The new Standing Rules make no difference in that regard. Of course not. I repeat that no assurance was given that the House would only conform to the sitting hours laid down in the Standing Rules and Orders, and if that were not the position, then hon. members should have made this accusation of a breach of faith last year when I proposed that the House should sit additional hours. Last year as a matter of fact we sat nine evenings in addition to the usual Wednesday evenings.

Only on nine sitting days.

The hon. member reminds me of the saying that if you steal five shillings it is not theft, but if you steal R5,000 it is. There is no breach of faith, and hon. members must be realistic. What I am asking the House to do is to sit six additional hours a week. That is all, three additional evenings of two extra hours.

Do we only sit two hours in the evening?

On Monday, Tuesday and Thursday.

Until what hour do we sit at night?

Hon. members know that when there are evening sittings, the House adjourns at 6.30 instead of at 7, that means half an hour less as far as the usual sitting hours are concerned, and from 8 to 10.30 means 2½ hours, from which the half hour has to be deducted. The hon. member’s facts are wrong again.

Let me say that I have every sympathy with hon. members. There is only one consolation, Mr. Speaker, and that is that what I am asking them to do, I have to do myself.

No.

I attend the sittings of the House probably more regularly than most hon. members and in addition I have to do my ministerial work too, and what hon. members must remember is that we come down to Cape Town, to Parliament, to do a job of work, and when there is a job of work to be done, it has to be done.

Not by exhaustion.

I feel that I have been most accommodating to the hon. members. I have given them every possible opportunity to study the Bills. I have even asked them to tell me what Bills they would like to discuss at any particular time, as the hon. member knows. I realize that as the number of Opposition members is so small, through no fault of ours, but because the public did not elect more of them, they are quite obviously finding it a considerable strain to deal with all the legislation. But if hon. members look at the list of Bills that have to be passed, they will see that they are not all contentious measures. Quite a number will be passed as a mere formality.

Hon. members say that we should have planned ahead, that I should have known in time that the Appropriation Bill must be through both Houses of Parliament by 14th October. But these evening sittings have nothing to do with that. There is ample time even without evening sittings to get the Estimates and the Appropriation Bill through both Houses of Parliament by 14th October.

Why then these extra hours?

Because we have to deal with other legislation in addition to the Appropriation. There are certain Bills that must be passed by the House before the end of the Session. Hon. members have asked why we did not start the session earlier. Then there would have been more legislation to be dealt with, because I can assure hon. members that a number of Bills are standing over in any case until next year. Hon. members wanted to know what other Bills are still coming forward, if any. Hon. members of the Opposition know that there is one Bill dealing with the political activities of parties in regard to Coloured elections. That Bill has still got to be dealt with during this Session and must be passed this Session. Notice of that Bill will probably be given during next week, or so. There might be another Bill amending the Price Control Act, but for the rest all the Bills have been given notice of and they appear on the Order Paper.

What about the Rent Control Bill?

I do not think it is necessary. I think the Minister has the necessary powers to deal with rent control. But it might easily be necessary to have morning sittings towards the end of the Session. That is quite possible.

*Hon. members referred to the dignity of Parliament. What does this have to do with the dignity of Parliament? The dignity of Parliament depends upon the conduct of hon. members in this House, and the dignity of Parliament depends upon proper discussion of matters by hon. members, and hon. members have all the opportunity of discussing matters properly. The fact that there will now be three additional evening sittings every week does not detract from the dignity of Parliament in any way. If we consider the sitting hours of this House before the rules were amended, we find that before the rules were amended the House sat longer hours than it is sitting under the new rules, together with these additional hours that are now being proposed. I cannot believe for one moment that hon. members are being overworked.

Did the hon. the Minister say that we were now sitting shorter hours under the new rules than before? That is not true.

I am not saying that we are sitting shorter hours. I said that we were sitting shorter hours under the new rules than was the case under the old rules, together with the additional hours proposed. That is a fact.

†As I say, Mr. Speaker, I have every sympathy with the hon. members. I was also a member of a small opposition and I know it is a considerable strain to study all the legislation and to deal effectively with it, but it is simply a job that has to be done, and I am afraid that these Bills will have to be passed by the House. In conclusion I want to say that I came across a quotation from the works of Goethe this morning: “Enjoy what you can and endure what you must”. I commend that to hon. members.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I want to reply in brief to what the hon. member for Orange Grove said yesterday. Viewed superficially, what he said would appear to contain a reprimand for the Treasury in that it was made out that the Treasury did not collect all the money which it could collect! I am afraid, however, that that somewhat oversimplifies the matter. As regards the minting of proof sets, I want to point out that proof sets are something which one cannot simply produce and sell in large quantities each year, and then expect to have a regular clientele for such sets. The value of these proof sets lies in the very fact that only limited quantities are minted from time to time. Prior to 1964 we minted 5,000 of these sets each year, and even then we were sometimes saddled with proof sets for which there was no demand. In 1964, however, there was a sudden increase in the demand, especially from abroad, and one year later also in this country. In 1965 we minted 25,000 of these sets, and it is our intention to mint the same quantity for 1966.

Did you not say previously in reply to a question of mine that only 15,000 would be minted?

No. We intend minting 25,000 of these sets in 1966. Prior to 1964 we had a list of regular clients. These people were always kept informed of any changes, and priority was given to them as regards buying new proof sets, just as one usually gives priority to an old client. In 1965 we then had to mint 20,000 additional sets and after some of the 5,000 persons on our list had been supplied with sets, other applications were executed according to the date on which such applications had been received. The largest allocation which has been made to a person in South Africa is 140 sets. It is difficult to see how a person can make R500,000 from 140 sets! I am of the opinion that the natural result of an increase in the production of these proof sets in any particular year would be that such sets would lose their value by the next year, and that one would not be able to sell even one’s normal quantity the next year. I have made inquiries in order to ascertain what the position is in other countries. Australia does not mint any proof coins at present, a fact which is interesting, because Australia too has a new set of decimal designs at present. All that Australia did was to issue sets of uncirculated coins in plastic containers on the introduction of their new series of decimal coins. In Canada so-called “proof like” coins are minted which are also sold in plastic containers. Hon. members should understand that the primary function of the South African Mint is to mint coins to be used as token coins in South Africa. As opposed to that the minting of proof sets is a subsidiary, and not only that but also an incidental, undertaking. It requires rather a great deal of time and care to mint the proof coins, place them in their proper containers and offer them for sale. From an economic point of view the value of these proof sets is dependent on their rarity. Let us assume that the Mint did have the time to mint 750,000 of these sets this year. In this connection hon. members should bear in mind that up to last year the Mint was working on a basis of two to three shifts in order to ensure that the ordinary coins would be available. However, even if we did have the time to mint 750,000 of these proof sets, people would realize that it was only a way for the Treasury to make money. A further consequence would be that there would be far fewer applications for the subsequent year, and in such a case we would have been saddled with the superfluous sets. Any collector will tell you that the value of these sets is dependent on their rarity.

How many applications for proof sets have you received in 1966?

I think it is more than 1,000,000. If we had to meet this demand, it would mean that the Mint would have to be employed on something other than its primary task. It would also mean that people who bought these sets this year because they were still a rarity, would find out next year that the sets no longer had any rarity value. That would cause them not to buy any more sets again. This is the simple economic principle which is at the basis of this matter. I want to give the House and the hon. member the assurance that if the Treasury had seen its way clear to making money from this in an honest and fair manner, it would not have failed to do so. But we do not want to make a great deal of money at the moment and then have to pay for it in subsequent years.

I am not in the least satisfied with the reply of the hon. the Minister particularly in view of the fact that he now has to admit that he has already received applications for more than 1,000,000 of these sets for 1966. These sets he can sell at a profit of 67 per cent and yet he is having only 25,000 of them minted. The Minister tells me that one cannot expect a regular number of customers every year. That I admit. But the position is that during the past three consecutive years there were a large number of applications, viz. 750,000 for 1964, about 1,250,000 for 1965, and more than 1,000,000, it may be even 1,500,000, for 1966. Surely, these applications must establish a certain pattern. Furthermore, if we are now going to satisfy only one out of 60 applications, then we are certainly creating a very unsavoury type of black market in this country. The hon. the Minister stated that up to the year 1964 the number of applications was small. But does he realize why that was the case? The reason is that many of these proof sets were turned down by the American collectors’ associations because they were so poorly made. It was only after the Mint had learned how to make these proof sets properly that the demand for them started to increase. I do not like this idea, as I said yesterday, of giving priority to favourites, to old clients. Why cannot these sets be supplied on the simple basis of “first come, first served’’? As things are now, I take it, any member of this House or a member of the public can apply for a set for 1978 or 1990. There is no clear list of priorities. There is no notice in the Gazette to the public that they can only apply from a certain particular date. Mr. Chairman, this is a most unsatisfactory position.

The hon. the Minister said it meant a lot of trouble to make these things. But if one can make a profit of from 60 to 70 per cent and if businesses outside can make a profit of up to 1,100 per cent on these coins, he as Minister of Finance should be able to go to some trouble in this connection.

There is another aspect of the matter to which I should like to draw attention. In 1965 our new coins were minted. More than 50,000,000 were printed of each of the following coins, namely 20c, 10c, and 5c. Of the 1c, however, only 26,000 were minted. Then something strange happened to these 1c coins, especially to the Afrikaans ones. The Minister told me that an equal number of the English and Afrikaans coins were minted. That I accept. However, somebody must have cornered the market in the 13,000 Afrikaans 1c coins because do you know, Sir, for what amount these Afrikaans coins minted in 1965 are being sold to-day by recognized dealers? Not for R1 each, neither for R10 each, but for R135. Surely there is something wrong here. Surely there must have been some reason why so few of that one particular coin was minted. Why was the accepted practice followed in the rest of the world not followed here as well, namely to overflow the market whenever there is danger of a black market being established? If the market is overflowed with a particular coin, no black market can result. The Minister talked about the loss of revenue. There are more than 1,000,000 people who are prepared to pay R3.20 for a set of these coins and if these sets can be resold in a month’s time for R30 or R40 then surely there is something wrong. Surely an unsavoury market is being created.

Let me repeat: I am not satisfied with the Minister’s reply. First of all, he did not reply satisfactorily to the question why so few sets were being minted and why he did not want to mint more; secondly, he did not satisfactorily reply to the question why he is following a policy which is deliberately helping this monopolistic feature in our economy; thirdly, he has not replied to the question why he will not allow these coins to be sold according to the principle of “first come, first served”; fourthly, he has not replied satisfactorily to the question why he refuses to inquire into this matter. I can assure the hon. the Minister that if this practice continues, we on this side of the House, at least I for one, will not remain quiet about it.

In this matter I prefer to accept the advice of people who have knowledge, experience and imagination and who may have a better knowledge of arithmetic than the hon. member for Orange Grove. If these people gave me certain advice, I would prefer to accept that rather than the shortsighted and in many instances rash remarks of the hon. member.

And John Citizen may simply suffer.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 10,—“Inland Revenue,

R5,347,000.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to give us some information in regard to the Department of Inland Revenue. The last report of this Department was published in, I think, 1963 for the year 1961-2. That is a long time ago. A lot has happened since the report was published. We have now had three full years of PAYE and we have had the data processing system in operation since the 1st April, 1962. I think it is only right that the House should have some knowledge of what is going on in the Department. One thing that has perturbed us for many years in regard to the Department of Inland Revenue, is a feature which has been common to many departments but perhaps not so serious, and that is the staffing situation. Last year the Secretary for Inland Revenue, when he appeared before the Select Committee on Public Accounts, was very frank in giving us some information with regard to the position of the Department. He told us, for example, that at that time he had some 1,281,000 individual accounts that he had to look after for tax purposes, some 78,500 companies and well over 300,000 provisional taxpayers. This represents a vast number of accounts to look after. He also told us what his staff problems were. He told us that he had authorized posts for 207 senior clerks but only 140 permanently filled and 45 temporary people and 22 vacant posts. There were 113 authorized posts in respect of clerks, only 71 of them permanently filled. He also told us of the problems with regard to trained personnel; he said that some assessors were doing work after they had only been trained for a very short while. We would like to know what progress has been made since last year and what the position is at the present time.

When we look at the Estimates of the Department for this year we see that there are some fairly radical changes on the staff front in that the number of administrative control offices has been stepped up from seven to 30. We would like to know whether these posts have been filled or are going to be filled. The number of posts for administrative officers has been stepped up from 138 to 157.

Then there is another item in the Estimates which is of great interest to us and that is on page 31 where provision has been made for tuition fees in the sum of R3,800. We would like to know what programme is envisaged and whether this amount is considered to be sufficient. All this leads up to another point. I put a question on the Order Paper last week in which I asked the Minister whether he could tell us what the amounts standing to the credit of taxpayers’ accounts were at a particular date. The answer was given very fully and very fairly, but it is quite obvious from the answer that one is not in a position to know what credits are standing to taxpayers’ accounts where they have been completely assessed and where those credits are in fact refundable to them. As we understand the position, in so far as the PAYE taxpayer is concerned, he gets an automatic refund if he has overpaid. I would like the hon. the Minister to confirm this. But in so far as the provisional taxpayer is concerned he has two difficulties and the first is that very often he does not know the state of his account.

Sir, I have two assessments here. One shows a credit of some R1,329 and the other shows a credit of some R1,129 on the account, but the problem is this: Provisional tax has to be paid by the 31st of this month. If the assessment has not been completed for the period ended 28th February of this year, the taxpayer does not know how much of the credit reflected on his statement of account he is entitled to set off against his payment for this year because he does not know what his tax is for last year. You have this problem: You may have a credit of R2,000, on account of revised assessments, which are very often made; your tax liability may only be R200 for the previous year but you do not know how much to deduct, and consequently you have the position that the hon. the Minister is sitting very happily with large amounts of the taxpayers’ money. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us whether something is being done or can be done to alleviate this position.

The second feature, as I understand the position, is that you have to make application for a refund, I think that is incorrect. If the account is in credit after all the assessments have been made, a refund should be made. Then one other very simple question: Why does the hon. the Minister not pay interest on these credits? Sir, if you are one day late in paying your income tax, you have to pay interest, and not at these low rates of interest that were frozen by the Minister, but at 10 per cent, I think, although here I am open to correction. The taxpayer pays interest when he is late but the Minister does not pay us interest when he is holding our money. He holds it for a considerable period of time. He may have administrative problems—I do not know. Possibly the accounting system may have to be revised in part or in whole, because what obviously happens to-day, as one sees from the Minister’s reply, is that the total amount that is paid by taxpayers is credited to their accounts; when they are assessed a debit is raised and the difference is what is owing or owed, and until such time as the debit is raised the taxpayer is always shown to be in credit. I realize the Department’s problems. It is not an easy problem to overcome but I hope that the Minister and the Department will give some consideration to the question of these overpayments.

I want to support what has been said by the hon. member for Parktown and I hope that the Minister, in the course of his reply, will give us an indication as to whether the backlog of assessments has increased. Some years ago there was a considerable backlog of assessments and then the Department managed to get them up to date. Then we were told that the Department hoped to overcome all its difficulties with the introduction of a computer. We know what happened to the computer. They had teething troubles with the computer. For some time the Department was in difficulties and then they found out that the computer was underpowered; that it was inadequate for the purpose and then they got additional equipment. We would like to know what the position is today. However helpful the computer may be, a computer is of no use unless it has the information fed into it in the first instance. In that regard I would like to ask the Minister whether we can have some explanation as to why the vacation savings bonus has increased this year from R144,000 to R260,000. That is a substantial increase. I am informed that the Inland Revenue Department is on a five-day week and that many members of the staff are working over the week-ends. In other words, whereas formerly they worked on Saturdays, they changed to a five-day week and now they are still working on Saturdays and they have to be paid overtime. I am not complaining about the fact that civil servants have to work overtime but I want to know how long this overtime is going to go on; to what extent is there a shortage of staff; what is the backlog and what are the prospects of overcoming the backlog? Because it seems that so long as the Minister is in the happy position of having a credit in the form of taxpayers’ money, which is more than the tax which is due to be paid, he is in the happy position of being able to afford a backlog for a certain number of years, but eventually when the backlog is overcome, the refunds which may have to be made, may place the Minister in a position where he has to make a considerable refund in one particular year and his Estimates may be affected thereby. I think that the time has arrived when the Minister may have to give some consideration to a revision of the remuneration paid in his Department because he is not getting sufficient qualified staff. The hon. member for Parktown has already referred to tuition fees, and the question of training. Anybody who knows any of the senior assessors in various parts of the country will know that they are facing an increased load year after year. Many of them find that they cannot leave certain classes of work to junior assessors, many of whom are not adequately qualified. One must pay tribute to the senior assessors for the tremendous burdens they are carrying. Many of the members of the inspection staff are not doing the inspection that they should be doing because their time is taken up in assessing. The whole purpose of the Act is that a certain amount of inspection should be done. I submit that not only are the assessments in arrear but that the inspection work, which is a necessary part of supervision in the tax collecting organization, is not being done because the Department, through sheer physical inability to cope with the tremendous volume of work, is not able to do the job which it is there to do. Sir. there is no criticism of the members of the staff themselves. Many of them are doing their best, but I submit that an onerous load is being placed upon loyal servants, and the impression one gets is that the backlog of tax assessments is growing and is not being overcome. I hope the Minister can reassure us in this regard and indicate whether the backlog is being overcome; whether he has been able to obtain additional staff; whether he has been able to appoint additional senior assessors so that the tidying up of the tax department can be achieved as soon as possible.

In reply to the last question, I can say at once that we have caught up on the backlog and that we are still improving on the position. The computer, of course, does not do the actual determination of taxable incomes; that must still be done by the assessors. I agree with the hon. member that tribute must be paid to the members of my staff who have to work under the conditions under which they have to work at present, with all this pressure of work, and that in all the circumstances they are still doing such an excellent job.

The hon. member for Parktown wanted to know what the position was with regard to the staff. There is an increase of 25 in the number of administrative control officers, from 5 to 30. The increase is due to the creation of one additional post and the upgrading of the remaining 24 posts. The 25 posts have all been filled. There is also an increase, as he has rightly pointed out, of 19 in the number of administrative officers, from 138 to 157. The increase is due to the creation of 16 additional posts; the remaining three represent a reallocation of posts. Apart from two vacancies which have occurred as a result of the death of the former incumbents, all these posts have been filled. With regard to the general personnel position, let me give the Committee the latest figures: The number of posts on the authorized establishment is 3,001; permanently filled 2,289; temporarily filled 565, and vacant 147. We have found as from the beginning of this year that there has been an improvement in the recruitment of staff under the new conditions of service. We have had better recruiting results than we have had for some time in the past. As hon. members know we also give recruits every opportunity of equipping themselves for the tasks that they have to perform. We have a training scheme and they are helped by a kind of intensive training to enable them to acquire as soon as possible the necessary knowledge for the position. Where circumstances permit, they are also withdrawn from the regular duties and given full-time intensive training for approximately one month. During their training period, their progress is determined by means of tests. Those who are found suitable, are placed on assessing duties. In addition to this intensive training of the beginners and the presentation of lectures to juniors, seniors and the registry staff, tutors check the assessments of junior assessors to determine, inter alia, what errors in principle or errors in procedure they have made so that the necessary guidance can be given by means of personal tuition or further lectures. Officers of the Department are also being continually encouraged to equip themselves by qualifying either in an appropriate degree course or in the diploma course in accountancy and auditing.

The hon. member has also asked what the position is with regard to provisional taxpayers’ accounts. He points out that when they have to make their provisional payments, they do not know what amount stands to their credit. The hon. member has rightly remarked that refunds are not made automatically to provisional taxpayers; they have to apply for them. I do not know what the position is with regard to the two assessments to which he referred here. I should be glad if he will give them to Mr. Wessels to see what is wrong in that case, but generally where a man does not know what payment to make to escape liability of a penalty the position is this: We have evolved a means which the taxpayer can use to avoid a penalty. Where a provisional tax payment is due to be made and the taxpayer has not yet received his assessment for the preceding year, he can approach the Receiver of Revenue for a preliminary determination of any credit which may be due to him. By arrangement with the Receiver the amount so determined can then be set off against the provisional payment to be made without the risk of the taxpayer being called upon to pay interest or a penalty if it should ultimately be established that the amount of the credit has been wrongly calculated. A circular to this effect was issued to Receivers of Revenue by the Secretary on 13th June, 1966. I think that will remove there irksome little points which occasionally crop up.

The hon. member has also asked whether we are not prepared to pay interest on the amounts standing to the credit of the taxpayers. I do not know whether the hon. member is aware of the fact that although this system is called Pay-as-you-earn, it is not really a pay-as-you-earn system. There are two provisional payments during the year. At the end of the first month of the tax year, the taxpayer actually owes the fiscus a certain amount of money; at the end of the second, the third, the fourth and the fifth months you owe the Treasury so much more; it is only at the end of six months that you make your first provisional payment, but the taxpayer is not charged any interest! If your first provisional payment is a little more than the amount you should have paid, we adopt the attitude that that will probably carry you through in respect of the first, second or third month of the second period of six months. I think we are being very fair to the taxpayers. We are not trying to get an undue amount of interest from them. Although our system is called pay-as-you-earn the provisional taxpayer only pays tax on what he has earned over the previous six months.

Are you personally quite happy with the system?

The hon. member for Parktown also raised the question of experienced assessors. The Secretary reports that there is a slight improvement in the position in comparison with last year. I think that is probably due in part to this system of training that we have inaugurated.

I think the hon. the Minister has overlooked one matter. I did ask him to explain the reason for the big increase in vacation bonuses from R144,000 to R260,000. The amount has nearly doubled and yet the salaries have not doubled. I asked the Minister to give us the reasons for this increase. If the Minister will refer to the Vote he will find that there is an increase from R3,686,500 to R4,099,800, an increase of approximately 10 per cent, but the increase in the savings bonus is nearly 100 per cent. I should like the Minister to let us know the reason for this increase.

Before the hon. the Minister replies to the question put by the hon. member for Pinetown I should also like to say something, but before doing so, I want to associate myself with what he said in connection with our staff. From the nature of my profession I have considerable knowledge of that Department, and we on this side of the House also want to pay tribute to all our Receivers of Revenue for the manner in which they perform their duties. I am not so sure whether we should not regrade this Department, and with that I mean the following: This Department is an entirely technical one. I think we ought to have more senior assessors. I know that it is very difficult to find those people. The senior assessors work under tremendous strain. We cannot run this country of ours if we cannot collect the taxes, and the persons responsible for collecting the funds are few in number. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister, in consultation with the Public Service Commission, will not give consideration to investigating the possibility of upgrading some of these posts in order to get a larger number of senior assessors. The result of that will be that assessments will be issued quickly; the public will be more satisfied; the State will collect its money more quickly, and many of the problems which arise these days and many of the arguments we hear across the floor of this House will be eliminated.

Then there is one other matter which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister, and it is in connection with the collection of taxes; it really deals with a new source of taxation. We know that everyone pays income tax on his salary, but that as regards other income two principles are involved. We know that capital income is not taxed. Another principle is the source from which the income is derived. If the source of income is in this country the taxpayer will be assessed here. Another principle is that of the profit motive. Sir? The senior assessors do not have sufficient time to check whether or not the profit motive is involved in every transaction. If we have sufficient numbers of trained staff, they will have the time to be able to determine whether the profit motive is involved, and then many cases in which it is in fact involved will not be overlooked. Under the existing Act the profits are assessed but there is not enough time and an insufficient number of trained staff in the Department to check such cases properly, with the result that many people evade paying taxes in respect of the type of scheme in which the profit motive is in fact involved and in respect of which they should have been assessed. Because it is not possible to go into these matters properly they evade paying their taxes and the profits they make pass as capital profit. The necessary provision is already contained in the Act; we should only have a larger number of trained staff to check such cases.

In reply to the hon. member for Sunnyside I just want to say that, as I indicated a short while ago, we have already started regrading posts on a small scale, and if there is any justification for doing so, and if we can get past the Public Service Commission, we shall continue with that. It is quite true that we are able to absorb much more staff, but the difficulty is that there are so many other employers competing with us. However, as I indicated just now, our staff position is no longer as bad as it used to be. I think a slight improvement is noticeable.

†The hon. member for Pinetown raised the question of the increased amount in respect of the vacation savings bonus. The increase is due firstly to the bonus increasing as scale increments fall due; secondly, the increase in the establishment, thirdly, the bonus is now payable to those persons with pensionable emoluments exceeding R6,150 (married) and R3,240 per annum (unmarried) and, fourthly, the fact that the bonus is also payable on a pro rata basis. The provision has been arrived at as follows: Originally provided, R150,000; add Transferred from salaries, wages and allowances, R110,000. That brings it up to R260,000.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 11,—“Customs and Excise, R8,591,000”.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to page 36. Under the item “Miscellaneous Expenditure” there is an item of R20,000, “Incidental Expenditure in connection with transfers of officials.” If the Minister will refer to the Estimates for previous years he will find that there is no item under this heading. This is a new item under this heading. Are we to presume that there was no expenditure in connection with transfers in the past, or what is the reason for this item of R20,000?

If the Minister will refer to the column he will find there is nothing under it for the previous year. It is a new item. I want to know the reason for this appearing as a new item, or whether, if provision was made for it in previous years, it was made under a different heading.

Then we have Item “F”, payments to neighbouring territories under customs and excise agreements, Bechuanaland, Swaziland and Basutoland, R3,800,000. I should like the Minister to tell us what are the payments to each of those three territories and at the same time to indicate to us whether there are any other territories with which there are customs agreements in terms of which payments must be made.

It is incidental expenditure in connection with the transfer of officials. The increase is R20,000. If you refer to paragraph 6 (i) of the Estimates circular dated 5th August 1965, that is when this new item was inaugurated, expenditure incidental to the transfer of officials was previously provided for under Sub-head “B”. This item includes expenditure incidental to the transfer of officials and payable in terms of Chapter F of the Public Service Regulations.

In regard to the Protectorates, it is the usual thing. There is a fixed percentage which goes to each of them. I do not know whether the hon. member wants me to give a full explanation. Basutoland gets 0.88575 per cent of the total customs and excise collected. Swaziland gets 0.149 per cent and Bechuanaland gets 0.27622 per cent. Prior to the financial year 1956-7 these payments were made as a drawback from revenue as required by the South Africa Act. As the result of discussion in the Select Committee on Public Accounts, it was decided to make provision therefor in the Estimates of Expenditure, and we have to pass it every year. The increase is due to the net increase in the customs and excise revenue on which the payments to the neighbouring territories are based. The estimated amounts due to the territories are as follows. Basutoland gets R2,480,000, Swaziland gets R470,000 and Bechuanaland gets R850,000, making a total of R3,800,000. Does the hon. member want to know about South-West also?

No, that is shown as a separate item in the Estimates. I wanted to know about the Protectorates and the Minister has now given us the amounts. I now want to ask him whether there will be any difference in the allocation of this revenue now that Basutoland is becoming independent, or does that not affect it all?

That will depend on whether any revision is made of the Customs Agreement of 1910. Until such time as a new agreement is arrived at. these are the percentages payable. But if a new agreement is arrived at now that they are becoming independent, naturally this will have to be revised.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote 13,—“Transport, R27,200,000”.

Loan Vote L,—“Transport, R1,790,000”.

May I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? I take it that in due course the Minister will be here or is his Deputy acting for him?

I understand that of necessity discussion on this very interesting Vote will have to be somewhat curtailed during the present Session of Parliament because so many of the matters which are of concern to Parliament and to the public are at present being investigated by a commission dealing with the co-ordination of transport. Obviously it would be futile for us to discuss the very matters which are under consideration, because the answer will inevitably come from the Minister that he does not want to comment upon it now because it is under consideration by this Commission. That will tend to curtail discussion, but I think that we on this side of the House, who had something to do with the appointment of this Commission, having pleaded for it over a period of years, will be permitted to say that we sincerely hope that the results of the deliberations of the Marais Commission will be a new approach to the whole question of transport in South Africa; for South Africa faces problems in connection with transport as a vital part of our economy, the solution of which cannot be delayed much longer.

It is very difficult to accept that a modern economy such as has been developed in South Africa over the years, can be fitted into the construction of a virtual transport monopoly like the S.A. Railways and Harbours. Road transport, and therefore also a truly adequate road system, for a modern state like South Africa has to be faced and considered, even if it means a considerable change in the attitudes to which we have become accustomed. We should bear in mind, and I sincerely hope that the people who will consider the Marais Commission’s Report when it eventually comes will do so, that the S.A. Railways and Harbours Act dates back to the time of Union. There have been amendments, but the major principle of the monopoly established for that great organization was laid down at the time of Union when motor transport hardly existed. There has since been a complete revolution in South Africa. We feel that we have been slow in South Africa in adapting ourselves to this revolution.

I remember how we had to plead from this side of the House years ago to the Minister and his predecessors for relaxations in the Motor Transportation Act, and how difficult it was to get what we have to-day, for example that many people can convey their own goods for 30 miles. We still have those difficulties. It is our sincere hope that the outcome of the Marais Commission’s investigations will be a new approach to transport in South Africa. We do not want to do the Railways any harm. We wish it well; it is an enterprise in which every South African takes pride; but at the same time we also wish South Africa as a whole well; we wish the economy of South Africa well and we want efficiency in this tremendously important aspect of our economic life. It will be interesting if the Minister will give us some indication of when he expects this Commission to complete its work.

I do not know.

Then perhaps the Minister will in due course have a talk with Dr. Marais to find out when the report can be expected, but we hope it will not take too long. Before the Minister came in, I was saying that it would be difficult to deal with many of the points we want to raise because they are really in a way sub judice and the Commissions still considering them, but I hope that the existence of this Commission will not be a funkhole for the Minister in which to hide and to avoid answering questions. Some of the evidence being led before the Marais Commission at the moment is so obvious, from what has become public, that I believe there can be action on the part of the Minister, and I want to give him an example.

It was in Cape Town that the petrol companies gave evidence about one of the problems they have under the Motor Transportation Act. They pointed out that being limited to 30 miles for deliveries of petrol from their depots, they have to resort to something which is criminally uneconomic, and that is what is termed “backhauls”; they have to take things back along a route already traversed. Some slight adjustment in the distance they are allowed to transport petrol will remove much of that problem. To my mind, that is something which could be dealt with immediately, but it is not so serious as another matter they raised. I cannot believe that this is so. I hope the Minister will tell us they are under a misapprehension. Apparently every petrol company was told that if it wanted to avail itself of the right to transport its product over a limited distance it had to use its own petrol lorry. It means that even from small depots, four or five companies must use five different vehicles, which is uneconomic and must be contrary to the public interest. These people have suggested that they should be allowed to use neutral vehicles which can be used by all the companies concerned.

Are you referring to road tankers?

Yes. Surely if one tanker can do the work for four or five companies it would be wrong to insist that they should now use five vehicles to do the work of one vehicle. It adds expense to their working and to the wear and tear on our roads. It is unnecessary and uneconomic. Therefore I hope the Minister and his Department will watch the evidence that comes before the Marais Commission on simple matters like this, where immediate action can be taken to remove what is probably an oversight but which gives the impression of stupidity. Surely the Minister and his Department can act forthwith and not wait for the Commission to report.

I think the time has come for the Minister to tell the public what his future plans are in regard to our national roads. I do not want to go into detail because I know there are some hon. members who would like to canvass the matter with the Minister extensively. But it is common cause that much of our national road system, constructed from 1936, is completely out of date, particularly some of the older roads, and that they are utterly inadequate and dangerous. We have had experts testifying that many of our national roads have become death-traps. I myself over the week-end travelled over the National Road to Port Elizabeth, but only as far as Riversdale and back, and having become used to the more modern national roads I was surprised to find how narrow and tortuous and dangerous this road is in many places. The road surfaces of these old roads are still fairly good and there is the temptation to speed in modern motor-cars beyond the capacity of the roads. What are the future plans of the Minister? Coupled with this, although I do not want to go into it deeply, is the question of freeways and roads with limited access. Surely the time has come when there should be a general new approach and a dynamic and imaginative plan for the reconstruction of the older roads and for more modern plans for the new roads.

I notice that the Department pays a subsidy of R500,000 a year for the elimination of level crossings. I was gratified to notice that we are eliminating level crossings on our roads at the rate of 22 a year. But is the Minister satisfied that this is fast enough, that enough money is being spent and that enough of our labour resources are being devoted to the elimination of these death-traps? We were all shocked in June when we read about a level crossing accident near Potgietersrus, where a bus containing some 60 passengers was dragged along by a train for hundreds of yards and 6 people were killed and many injured. One does not expect these things to happen. To-day with faster roads and more trains, particularly goods trains on our railways, surely the time has come that we should go a little faster in removing these death-traps. I think the country will be grateful if the Minister will give us a progress report in regard to this matter and also an indication of what can be done to speed up the elimination of level crossings.

Some years ago I made a suggestion that the trains on our railways should be asked by the Minister of Transport to do what articulated road vehicles have to do, and that is to have reflectors on the sides of the trucks and coaches. I speak from experience which we must all share when I say it is very frightening when you go along an unknown road and you suddenly find yourself faced with a level crossing over which a long goods train of some 60 trucks is moving and which is invisible until you are almost on top of it, whereas if we could have reflectors on the sides of these railway trucks they would be visible over a much longer distance and it would contribute much towards greater safety at these unprotected level crossings. I was interested to see how many other organizations now support this idea. I have read about it in the magazine The Open Road and I have seen industrialists pleading for it. I cannot believe that it can be terribly expensive. Every motor-car owner to-day has to fit reflectors and articulated vehicles have to fit reflectors on the sides, and I fail to see why there should not be reflectors on the trains. Is it too much to expect for the Minister of Transport to have a talk to the Minister of Railways about fixing reflectors on the sides of his trains?

I have not only talked to the Minister of Railways, but we have been examining the matter for several years.

I am glad the Minister is in touch with his colleague and I hope that these talks will not be fruitless. I cannot imagine anything more futile than that two Ministers should have talks with each other without anything happening. I also want the Minister to tell us something more about the present policy of allowing the delivery of coal by road by private enterprise. There seems to be some confusion in the minds of the public as to whether it is the intention that relaxation of the Act to permit the delivery of coal by road is to be a permanent feature or not.

Yes.

Then I want to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that this will be healthy under present circumstances because the delivery of coal by heavy trucks is ruining our roads. Is it right for us to anticipate the construction of new roads which can carry these heavy loads, or should we wait until the roads have been completed before we make this a permanent feature of our economy? Secondly, is it right that the consumer’s levy will become permanent? Is it the intention that the consumer’s levy which is paid by the consumers of coal should become a permanent feature of our life? I am worried about it because the S.A. Railways have a tremendous advantage over these private hauliers. If you look at the amount of money paid by. the motorist and the private haulier in taxation, it is a staggering figure. I saw somewhere that for the maintenance of the roads alone, private enterprise, motorists and the owners of other vehicles, pay about R110,000,000 a year, and our road construction only costs about R100,000,000 a year. I do not want to be bound by these figures, but the point I want to make is that high taxes are paid by these private hauliers, whereas the S.A. Railways which also uses our roads pays, no taxes at all. So any comparison of costs and of efficiency between the two systems would be unfair. Therefore, whereas the Railways cannot cope with the coal traffic to-day and, contrary to their policy in other directions, they need the help and support of the private haulier, is it fair that the consumer who is forced to use a more expensive form of transport has to continue to pay a levy like this? I should like the Minister, to give us a statement on his policy.

I am not responsible for the levy; it is the Minister of Economic Affairs.

It is so difficult to have a Cabinet which does not accept Cabinet responsibility. I will raise it under another heading, but I would still like to hear what the Minister’s policy is in regard to this matter. Is that to be a precedent, or can we look forward to further relaxations of the monopoly of the Railways? Or will those relaxations only come when the Railways are in difficulties, or will some of them be made in the true interests of the public? I am curious, and perhaps this Minister can help me here. While these private hauliers have to convey coal, why are they penalized? They are doing a job the Railways cannot do. I understand that many users of coal have managed in the past to hire sites near stations where the coal can be dumped. I understand that the private hauliers have been prohibited from doing this.

I have given instructions that the status quo must be maintained.

I am glad to hear that. Sir, here I need your guidance and also that of the Minister. When the Railways needs private vehicles to deliver goods in the cities, where their cartage service cannot cope, I take it that exemptions are necessary?

No, we have a cartage levy.

So it would not be proper to discuss with the Minister here the more efficient delivery of goods?

That falls under the Railways.

What I want to ask the Minister is what progress is being made in regard to night deliveries. The situation in cities like Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban is one of drastic congestion, which is becoming such a problem that it is giving people grey hairs. It is becoming apparent all over the world to-day that a thriving business community and a thriving industrial community can generate so much business requiring so much transport of goods that the roads normally simply cannot cope, and you have this continuous snarl of traffic. Cape Town is very fortunate with its remarkable system of freeways in which it is leading South Africa, but when you come nearer to the centre of the city you find congestion which at times is unnerving. The result is that the Railways have great difficulty in effecting deliveries of goods in their possession and there is a tremendous waste of time and severe embarrassment to the city authorities. You often get trucks with three trailers which are obstructions in themselves. Somewhere there should be a solution for all this. I am wondering whether the Minister of Transport cannot use his influence with the municipalities and with the Railways to bring about a system whereby private enterprise, and particularly people who take delivery of huge quantities of goods, take delivery at night.

It does not fall under this Vote, but I am quite prepared to do my best.

It is not only the Railways which are concerned but all other forms of transport. The free movement of transport in the cities is involved. I do not think the Minister should only consult the other parties, but he should also bring a little pressure to bear. I know it is very difficult for private enterprise to have staff available at night to take delivery, but the situation is developing in the cities where unless something like this is done it will be impossible to effect deliveries at all. [Interjection.] If after proper negotiation it is not possible for the Minister to find a solution, legislation will become necessary. I think that is inevitable because the cities are becoming over-congested; anybody with experience will confirm this. I think the Minister can be assured of the sympathy of the Opposition if he has to take action in this regard.

Now I should like to ask the Minister something about Jan Smuts Airport. Is it really necessary for us to wait until 1972 for the completion of the new airport? That seems to be a very long time. Apart from that, what can be done to improve the land link between Jan Smuts and the City of Johannesburg? It would be trite for me to point out that it now takes as long from Jan Smuts to Johannesburg as it does to fly from Johannesburg to Durban. I have seen suggestions that the Minister should consider constructing a monorail between Jan Smuts and Johannesburg. It was done in Japan, but I understand the cost would be prohibitive.

It has not been a success in Japan.

I was prepared to eliminate it on the grounds of cost. But there is a good railway line from Johannesburg to Kempton Park. Is it not possible to build a short line to go underground to Jan Smuts and to have special express trains? If it is not absolutely necessary to-day, I think it will be to-morrow. It is time to plan now because the traffic between Johannesburg and Jan Smuts is developing fast and is becoming a problem to the authorities. Something should be done timeously to meet this problem which will become even more acute in the future. It is of course the biggest passenger port in the country. I have been told that more people enter and leave South Africa at Jan Smuts than in all the harbours of our country. Therefore I feel that there should be fast traffic between Jan Smuts and Johannesburg. The matter needs serious consideration and I should like to know what the Minister has to say on the matter.

Then I want to raise another question. I see the Minister is paying over R8,800,000 to the Railways for the transport of Bantu passengers under the guaranteed line system. Has the Minister investigated what other forms of transport can be efficiently used to transport these people, and if so, what have they found? It seems strange that the Railways should be carrying the major burden of this, and the lines to stations like Soweto are becoming over-burdened, as the Minister knows. I have seen suggestions that a different signalling system should be tried in order to have more trains running on that line. I have seen how many trains run on those lines every hour. The figures are quite frightening. We have referred to this matter in other debates and I do not want to return to it, except to ask the Minister what the plans of his Department are for the future. Will more Railway transport be encouraged or will there be more alternative forms of public transport for these areas?

Then I want to raise one matter in regard to the new Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, namely the administration and implementation of the provisions in that Act. One cannot at this stage of the proceedings discuss the Act itself nor criticize the legislation itself. It is a pity, because I would have liked to do that. Is the Minister quite happy about the people who are being appointed as agents for the issuing of third-party insurance. In the month of May, I had a strange experience. I went into a barbers shop and found that I was being canvassed for the renewal of my third-party insurance. I saw charities undertaking the renewal of third-party insurance. Road houses were renewing third-party insurance. There is something wrong. Surely it was not the intention of the Minister under this Act, and surely it was not the intention of Parliament when this Act was passed, that people who have no connection with insurance organizations should be doing the work that is normally the work of the insurance companies? Then there is the question of disks. What guarantee has one that barber’s shops and road houses are really fit to administer something as complicated as motor vehicle insurance? I should like the Minister to give us some reply to-day on this Vote, in regard to the workings of this Act, and to tell us whether he feels that the administrative aspects of this Act are satisfactory. It is a most profitable business, Sir. When the motor vehicle insurance work was done in South Africa by some 60 insurance companies, the business was thinly distributed and they were not keen on it. Now that it is limited to 11 or 12 companies—and I am not criticizing this; it is a fact—it has become a most lucrative business with an assured commission of 20 per cent, very little expense and no risk whatsoever. Is the Minister satisfied that all odds and sods should be appointed as agents for the issuing of insurance, disks and licences? The time has come for the Minister to take this into consideration, and to tell us what his views are. I think, Mr. Chairman, I have given the Minister a little entrée in this debate in regard to the matters in which we are interested.

Are you also becoming a chef?

No. I would become a chef, Sir, only if I thought I could cook the hon. the Minister’s goose for him. I find the Department of Transport one of the most interesting we have in our Government organization. I find it an efficiently managed department. I think the Minister should be very proud of the staff in that department. I think they have a very difficult task in managing and co-ordinating the tremendous transport system of a developing country like South Africa. I think, Sir, they must often be embarrassed because of the tremendous consideration they have to give—almost disproportionate consideration—to one form of transport, which happens to be owned by the State. I believe that the debate on the Transport Vote should be an occasion which the Minister should welcome in order to inform the public about plans to overcome the problems that arise in our national transport system. Therefore I have put these questions to give the Minister and his Department an opportunity to take the public into their confidence. I can assure him that other members on this side of the House will adopt a similar attitude. We will be critical, when necessary, but we also want the public to know about the workings of this very important department.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville has adopted a very reasonable attitude here. I want to agree with him that this department is a very interesting one. The hon. member asked the hon. the Minister quite a few questions and I do not think it is necessary for me to react to those questions. But he mentioned, inter alia, the problems being experienced by private hauliers at present. I also want to bring a matter in connection with private hauliers to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I am particularly concerned about the enormous proportions unauthorized transport has assumed throughout the Republic of South Africa to-day. When I speak of unauthorized transportation, I am referring to transportation undertaken by road-hauliers without their being in possession of the necessary permit or exemption. I think it will surprise us to know what an enormous tonnage of goods is transported unlawfully in South Africa to-day. One finds an indication of that in the statistics which are available in the latest report of the Department of Transport and of the National Transport Commission. During the period 1st April, 1964, to 31st March, 1965, transport inspectors inspected 5,000 more vehicles than in the previous year; 11,085 warnings were issued, 4,136 prosecutions were instituted and R50,589 was collected in fines. The attitude adopted by the Department in respect of these matters is reflected on page 16 of the report I have mentioned. According to instructions issued to the transport inspectors they act in the following manner—

These statistics do not really reflect the true state of affairs. There are only approximately 50 inspectors in this division of the Department who operate throughout the Republic and therefore they can only take action against this pirate transport very sporadically. I want to point out that the Railways at this very moment are experiencing a decrease in high-rated traffic and that this type of unlawful transport affects the revenue of the national transport system very adversely.

I also want to point out that considerable concessions have been made since October, 1964, in respect of private transport services. The exempted areas in urban complexes have been extended to a large degree. Control over the transport of certain goods has been relaxed to a very large extent. During the past year 10,000 more applications for annual and temporary exemptions were approved by the road transportation boards. Exemptions were granted in respect of no fewer than 62,000 vehicles. In spite of all these concessions which were made in respect of private transport there has been a tremendous increase in such unauthorized transport throughout the country.

I now want to ask: “Has the time not arrived for taking stricter action against these offenders in the interests of the national transport services? Is it not possible for action to be taken not only against the hauliers who carry out pirate transportation, but also against those people who make use of it? Is the Minister not empowered to take action also against bodies and persons who wilfully make use of such unauthorized transport?” It is not fair that the haulier who undertakes the unauthorized transportation should be the only one to be punished. The other people who are so keen to make use of unauthorized transport should also be punished. I am concerned about this aspect and I want to submit it to the Minister for his consideration.

In the second place, I want to ask the Minister whether he perhaps intends to give consideration to the establishment of a central traffic bureau. The Deputy Minister recently made a speech at Bellville. The deductions I made from that speech were that the Minister was thinking in that direction. To-day I want to put on record here that there is a real need for anything which would lead to more central control over road traffic, and to more uniformity in traffic laws, traffic penalties and fines. If the Minister is thinking in this direction, namely the establishment of a central traffic bureau, something about which there have long been speculations, he will receive our wholehearted support.

The third matter I want to mention to the hon. the Minister is the 70 miles per hour speed limit. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the provincial authorities intend to introduce a speed limit of 70 miles per hour on all roads, i.e. on national roads as well, as from the beginning of next year. I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot intervene to prevent or delay this step, in order to obtain more unanimity about the question whether this attempt which will be made will in fact achieve its purpose. I am asking this question because I am not sure whether there are sufficient facts and sufficient reason to justify this measure being taken. I am asking this question because I am not sure that sufficient attention has been given to this matter and that this aspect has been thrashed out properly. The purpose of this measure to introduce speed limits on national roads is to promote road safety and to prevent accidents. I do not know whether we are going to achieve those aims with these measures. In expressing doubt here as to whether this matter has been thrashed out sufficiently, Sir, I want to tell you that a few years ago the provincial authorities were obsessed with the idea that all motor vehicles should have safety-belts. They immediately wanted to make provision for that by way of legislation. Eventually representations were made and the matter was kept in abeyance. To-day those authorities have cooled off a great deal in respect of this matter. I think that further consideration should first be given to this matter of introducing a speed limit of 70 miles per hour. I am afraid that a speed limit of 70 miles per hour on national roads will only make a very small contribution towards preventing road accidents. What I am more afraid of is that this speed limit would only degenerate into an outrageous process of exploiting motorists.

Sir, we have experience of traffic fines with a view to financing budgets. That is something which has assumed scandalous proportions in this country. It is very late in the day—and I merely want to refer to this in passing—if ordinary municipalities these days collect from R80,000 to R100,000 in respect of traffic fines in one year. I want to remove any doubt there may be. I am not talking about my own municipality, but we cannot allow this matter to go any further. We are all road safety conscious. However, we are not quite convinced that some bodies and persons who profess to be aiming at promoting road safety are applying the best and the most effective methods for achieving that aim. Basic things which should be done to promote road safety and to prevent accidents are not always done first. I can give you examples, Sir, but the time allotted to me will not allow me to do so. I want to say that I have a high regard for the work being done by traffic inspectors. They are people who often have to perform a thankless task. They act under instructions but advantage is often taken of them. I do not believe that we are seeing road safety and the prevention of accidents in the right perspective. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Parow dealt with a number of subjects under this Vote. The last with which he dealt was the 70 m.p.h. speed limit that is now going to be applied throughout the Republic. A lot of thought has been given to the question whether a speed limit should be imposed or not. With the very high accident ratio we have in our country the powers that be felt that some limit should be imposed. Personally I feel that such a speed limit will not reduce our accident ratio because you can have an accident even at 10 m.p.h. A lot depends upon the driver. I should, however, like the Minister to give this new speed limit a trial. But it is of little use having a speed limit if it cannot be applied. It will be like it was in the old days when cigarettes were sold everywhere on Sundays although forbidden by law. Therefore, if this new limit cannot be policed adequately it will be abused to such an extent that we might be faced with a further increase in our accident ratio.

I want to say something about our national roads. As the hon. member for Yeoville said, we have a commission appointed by the Minister sitting at present. Its terms of reference are wide but whether the commission will report on national roads is a matter between it and the Minister. Part of its terms of reference read: “Any other matter which the Minister of Transport may refer to the Commission”, However, it is interesting to note that the Minister himself has said during 1963-4 that our national road system was completely out of date. I would say, like the hon. member for Yeoville, that we have come to the crossroads to-day in so far as road development plans are concerned. In this connection it is interesting to read the report of the Chief Engineer when he addressed the Road Federation in 1965. On that occasion he gave a complete survey of our road position in this country to-day. It reads like a blueprint for future planning of our national roads. He made no bones about the position. We over the years have clamoured for black-topped roads. These we have got. Demands made on highways have expanded beyond the wildest expectations. When we started building our national roads we did not have any idea of the measure of this expansion. As a result our system of national roads is out of date and they have to be reconstructed completely. What is more, we have reached the age of the free way. We are seeing it all over the world, these giant free ways that are being constructed. It is interesting to note what the Chief Engineer said in the paper to which I have already referred, in this connection. He said—

He also pointed out that when our roads were built originally they cost about R30,000 per mile. To build a free way to-day costs about R300,000 per mile.

He also referred in his paper to the wasteful influence of the control of our road system. There are various authorities controlling roads. In the Cape, for instance, we have local authorities, Divisional Councils, the Provincial Council and the Road Transport Commission. In this paper the Chief Engineer said the following about this aspect—

So, notwithstanding the fact that the Transport Commission paid 100 per cent of the charges, there were still delays, delays which proved costly. The Engineer of the Transport Commission felt that we had now reached the stage where we should have a new road authority. I am inclined to agree with him. I think we should approach this matter on a much bigger scale than we have done hitherto. You will remember, Sir, that when national roads were first mooted, there was considerable opposition to the method of applying moneys collected from the motorists in licence and petrol taxes. Now we have reached the stage where this whole position should be reviewed. If we look at the Minister’s Vote we will notice that an amount of R44,000,000 is exceeded to come from the motorist in the form of indirect taxation, moneys which will go to the national road fund. On every gallon of petrol a motorist buys, he pays indirectly 14c in taxation. But with this new freeway concept coming about the motorist cannot be expected to carry the full burden and the Minister will have to go to the Minister of Finance to find the extra money. I think it will be wrong to place a further burden on the motorists at this stage in order to pay for these expensive free ways. The money, however, has to be found. Therefore I feel that the Minister will have to go to the Minister of Finance. I think there should be a more even spread of taxation.

But to construct free ways and roads, staff is required. In this connection it is disturbing to read the report of the Department of Transport for 1965. On page 19 thereof the shortage of technical staff is dealt with. The Engineer of the Department in his address already referred to also made mention of this fact. The shortage has reached a very serious stage. The position is that the salaries of these technicians and engineers are linked to certain Government-fixed scales. It is something that the Government will have to give very serious attention to if they want to retain their technicians. The position is now that technicians and engineers leave the Department and join other concerns and the Government has to consult with the concerns and to pay very much more for those services. Time limit.

We find an interesting anomaly in the way in which the Opposition is acting to-day. The hon. member for Salt River just gave another interesting example of that when he insisted on more services being provided. He said that it was not fair that the South African motorist should bear the expenses and he said that the hon. the Minister of Transport should consult with his colleague, the Minister of Finance, and should obtain more funds for increased expenditure. This we hear after they talked for days against increased expenditure by the authorities. How can one reconcile these two ideas?

You do not understand it.

What I do understand is that when a person blows hot and cold he cannot understand himself.

However, I want to proceed to another topic, and I leave the hon. member there. Il is my unpleasant duty to refer once more to the alarming proportions being assumed by accidents on the roads in South Africa. It is necessary to quote a number of figures to stress the seriousness of this matter once again. In the Second World War, from 1939 to 1945, a war which lasted approximately six years, 23,269 South Africans were either killed or wounded, and if one compares that with the dreaded disease, poliomyelitis, also over a period of six years, from 1954 to 1960, one finds that 6,136 cases were reported, 600 of which were fatal, but when we come to road accidents we find that the comparative figure for road accidents is shocking. If we once more take a period of six years, from 1958 to 1963, we find that 246,460 people were injured in accidents, of which number 19,717 received fatal injuries. These are alarming figures. If we analyse the statistics we find that it is mostly young people who are involved in accidents and we find that the cream of South Africa is slaughtered on our roads in motor accidents. For the sake of emphasis I just want to make one other comparison. If we take the period of 30 years from 1935 to 1964, we find that more than 49,000 people were killed in accidents, enough people to equal the number of people in a city such as East London. If we consider the fact that the accident rate increased by more than 400 per cent during those 30 years and that it is increasing by approximately 14.8 per cent per annum, we realize how serious the matter really is. Then there is still the material aspect of the matter. Various authorities calculate that the material loss to the country comes to an amount of between R50,000,000 and R100,000,000 per annum. This means that since 1935 we have lost approximately R2,500,000,000 as a result of road accidents.

In 1964, under Standing Order No. 25, I made an appeal to the hon. the Minister that he should assume more powers for combating and eradicating this evil, and on that occasion the hon. the Minister said the following, as reported in the Press (translation)—

Mr. Chairman, we cannot allow the autonomy of the provinces and their sense of independence and jealousy in regard to any powers they may possess, to stand in the way of road safety in South Africa any longer. It is becoming absolutely essential that the hon. the Minister should assume more powers, and in this respect I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Parow, who pleaded for a central traffic bureau.

Investigations in the Western world have shown that approximately 85 per cent of all motor accidents are caused by only 35 per cent of the drivers. In his reply on that occasion the hon. the Minister also said that he was convinced that approximately 90 per cent of accidents in South Africa were caused by the human factor, and because this is so, it is necessary that the most important steps should first be taken in respect of the human factor. It is therefore essential that the human factor should receive the most attention, because it is responsible for at least 85 per cent of the accidents. For this reason we need a central bureau where all motor licences will be subject to review, where a record will be kept of every driver in South Africa, and, Mr. Chairman, the activities of that central bureau should be extended to include a periodic revision of licences. We have a fine example of licence control in South Africa in the case of the Department of Civil Aviation. There a pilot has to satisfy certain requirements from time to time. In order to retain his licence he has to satisfy certain health requirements from time to time; he must have the required number of flying hours over the year and must gain experience in order to be able to retain his licence. But in practice it happens that a driver of a motor vehicle may develop some ailment which makes him totally unfit to drive a motor vehicle, and yet there is no manner in which and measure whereby such a person may be deprived of his licence if the matter is not brought to light or if he is not involved in an accident as a result of which it is revealed. To-day it can happen that a person may develop one of numerous ailments which makes him totally unfit to drive a motor-car. Through this central bureau a medical test should also be introduced. This bureau must be a central bureau which is not administered on a provincial basis as that would frustrate its entire purpose. As long as separate statistics and separate control over licences and the issuing of licences exist in each province, it is possible in practice for various offences to occur and to continue for many years before anyone finds out about them. It can happen in practice to-day that I take out a driver’s licence in the Cape Province and that it is suspended in some way or another, and that I then take out a driver’s licence in another province and if that does not come to light by chance the position that I hold a licence in another province while I am not allowed to drive in the Cape may continue for many years. For this reason we need a central bureau from which control over motor licences and all related matters will be exercised on a national basis. Then we may perhaps introduce a points system on the same basis as that on which certain insurance companies to-day load their policies. Those persons who are the guilty ones, the 35 per cent that cause 85 per cent of the accidents, can then be pinned down and a points system may be made applicable to them and when they have committed a certain number of offences they should simply not be allowed to drive a motor vehicle in South Africa. The direction which we should take is to record offences against their names and to have everything on record and to endorse anything in which such persons have been involved against their licences in a central bureau, and also to make it compulsory to endorse their drivers’ licences which they carry with them. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Middelburg dealt with the question of road safety and has made certain suggestions to the hon. the Minister. Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House also are very concerned and view with alarm the continued increase in the serious accident rate that takes place on the South African roads. On this particular Vote we are asked to vote R250,000 for the Road Safety Council and we feel that this is an opportunity to put forward certain views and certain aspects in regard to road safety. The hon. member dealt with the alarming figures, and it certainly is a fact that when one studies these figures and realizes the enormous loss of life and the enormous damage caused on our roads, one feels very alarmed indeed. You know, Sir, that our fatal accident rate has now reached 5,000 deaths per year on the South African roads and the material loss is estimated at R60,000,000 as far as damage and repairs are concerned. The point is to try and ascertain whether more efforts cannot be directed towards road safety, also whether the hon. the Minister is satisfied that everything possible is being done to try and reduce the incidence of road accidents, and whether the results that are being achieved are commensurate with the money that is being spent on road safety. I think that this important aspect also has a great deal of bearing on the new national roads that are being built in an endeavour to try and eliminate certain failings of the past and outdated and outmoded designs and techniques of road construction, The question is whether we can achieve a decrease in the accident rate by ensuring that the new national roads wherever possible eliminate certain bad features of the roads which, as I mentioned earlier, have now become inadequate and outdated for modern high speed traffic.

Mr. Chairman, the new approach as far as new vehicles are concerned is to attain higher speeds; the erection and establishment of new national roads is also aimed at bringing about higher speed, and I think that the experiment of a 70 mile per hour speed limit is one that is well worth trying. We know that in the United Kingdom such an experiment is presently under way and also their conditions and their roads are perhaps not comparable with the conditions in South Africa, but it is interesting to note that they have discovered that there has been a decrease in the number of serious accidents since they have imposed a 70 mile per hour speed limit. As a matter of fact they claim that there has been a decrease of 16 per cent on the motorways and a 7 per cent decrease on other national roads. Therefore I think it is a worthwhile experiment, and the inter-provincial advisory board in regard to road traffic legislation would perhaps be wise to give this experiment a trial in South Africa. One can see that there will be several administrative difficulties, but if it is possible to have a greater number of traffic control officers on duty on the roads, in addition to the introduction of a 70 mile per hour speed limit, it may perhaps act as a deterrent to those persons who travel at dangerous speeds at times, so that when an accident occurs it undoubtedly usually is fatal and results in death at such a high speed.

There are other items which affect the safety of the road user and it is not altogether the human element that is at fault. We know that the double carriageways that are established are an elimination of a certain danger as far as head-on collisions are concerned and they also do prevent a certain number of serious accidents taking place. We know that it is a very costly and expensive method of construction and naturally a high road count has to take place before a double carriageway can be justified.

However, Sir, I think that wherever possible we should endeavour to eliminate dangerous intersections on some of our existing national roads. Financially it is not possible to replace all the existing national roads with new roads. But I believe that the first step towards reducing the accident rate is to reduce the number of danger spots that exist on our existing national roads. I think that here a careful check should be kept in regard to the frequency of accidents that occur at these various danger spots. We know that the elimination of a level crossing is the elimination of a road hazard. Similarly, Sir, if a count can be kept of accidents at spots which can be classified as danger spots, it should be possible without a great deal of expenditure to eliminate some of those danger spots. I have in mind for instance certain intersections and arterial roads that join link roads where these intersections can be staggered so as to prevent further accidents occurring at those points. I believe, Sir, that the research that is necessary to go into this whole aspect of eliminating danger spots should be given a high priority with a view to the reduction of the incidence of road accidents. The various motoring organizations, such as the Automobile Association, have made very strong representations to this effect. Now, in the United States of America they also have a large number of road accidents, and there they have been able, by employing a system aimed at the eradication of danger spots, to keep their ratio of accidents figure down to a reasonable level and a reasonable percentage. On the other hand, we find that in comparison that ratio is very high in South Africa indeed. Certain other factors definitely constitute road hazards, such as the use of heavy vehicles. Many of these heavy vehicles are poorly lit, and many accidents have been caused because of these heavy vehicles obstructing traffic and persons having to take chances. I believe. Sir, that it should be compulsory for heavy vehicles over a certain tonnage to have a flashing light, so that at night they can be clearly seen by approaching motorists. Similarly the heavy diesel vehicles which emit a large amount of black smoke, resulting in reduced vision because of the fact that the smoke is emitted on the right-hand side of the vehicle, should be compelled by legislation to have their exhausts so fitted that the black smoke is emitted vertically into the sky, thereby reducing the vision danger which occurs as far as these vehicles are concerned.

Now, Mr. Chairman, certain representations have been made by organizations such as the Automobile Association—which I mentioned before—which I think warrant the attention of the hon. the Minister of Transport. In the president’s latest address—that of June, 1966—the suggestion was made that a special Parliamentary committee should be established to consider the whole aspect of road safety. This committee should take into account whether the present position and system of road safety are satisfactory, whether more effective steps should be taken to reduce the accident ratio; consider evidence from numerous organizations who are interested in this problem; consider the experts’ advice—and a large number of experts have given their views as to how the accident rate can be reduced; and also what part the Central Government should play in granting greater assistance—including, if necessary, the voting of larger funds—to organizations who are investigating and doing research in regard to the question of road safety.

As far as the human element is concerned, numerous ideas and suggestions have been put forward by a large number of organizations relating to stricter driving licence tests and items of that nature. It has also been suggested that learners’ driving licences should be granted at a younger age—some suggest 16 years, others 17 years—so that when the driver reaches the age of 18 years he is then more experienced and has a greater sense of responsibility when in charge of a motor vehicle which often contains many passengers whose lives are in his hands. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise to make a few observations in connection with and in the interests of civil aviation under this Vote. In this instance we are dealing with something which has developed in the course of time, and especially in the recent past, into an undertaking which may be regarded as an integral part of both our transport and our commerce and industries in this country. We need only refer to services rendered in connection with our industries by civil aviation private companies in connection with the Orange River scheme in South West Africa as well as in the Transvaal Lowveld. I think that commerce and industry in this country will be affected adversely if we do not take positive and progressive action in connection with certain problems which may be experienced by civil aviation.

In another connection as well the services of this industry have already become important in the Republic. We are thinking, for example, of the training of commercial pilots and better equipping them to take up appointments in the South African Airways, for instance. There are also the services rendered by them in connection with emergencies. They render services in cases of sickness by conveying patients to better equipped medical centres where better medical treatment and care are available to such patients. They also provide an excellent feeder service to the South African Airways as far as passengers, freight and mail are concerned. There are already parts of our country where these services have developed to such an extent that they actually serve as a very important and regular feeder service to the South African Airways. However, there are certain problems to which we should like to see attention being given and in respect of which we are making an appeal to the hon. the Minister this afternoon. This service also makes a very important contribution to the country’s youngest industry, namely tourism, in the form of reservation services and, generally, by way of publicizing places worth visiting in the Republic. But we have found that as regards the supply of aviation fuel, civil aviation is not treated on the same basis in every respect as other concerns which may be able to obtain this essential requirement of the industry more profitably. I want to make a very earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister that this whole aspect should be investigated very thoroughly to see whether positive action cannot be taken in the interests of our civil aviation. You know, Mr. Chairman, that in the times in which we are living, this network of services may also become very important and may be exploited very fruitfully in times of crises. I think it is in the national interest that we should never turn our backs on this industry but on the contrary should do everything we can to expand and develop it further, also with a view to possible assistance which we may be able to obtain in this connection during times of crisis. It is already happening to-day that civil aviation renders assistance to Government Departments in certain centres. I am thinking for instance of the Police Force, of the Department of Defence, and of the Department of Bantu Administration. We are aware that such services are being and have been rendered to these Departments. I think that all these things justify a very thorough investigation into this aspect and into this matter. I should very much like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister in this connection.

In the second instance, Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a somewhat more contentious matter. I hope that you will not rule me out of order. We see in the Estimates that a certain amount of money is being provided under this Vote for the purchase of aircraft and motor vehicles for our Ministers. We recently read in the Press that one of the great Western powers—just as on a previous occasion—has prohibited the export of aircraft spare parts to the Republic via a well-disposed and friendly country. I personally hold the view, and I was brought up in this way and my parents taught me, that, in the words of N. P. Van Wyk Louw, it is only a dog that can lick the hand of one who hits him. I want to make a very earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister and to the Department concerned that as regards future orders for similar vehicles, consideration should be given to countries on the continent of Europe and that this attitude, an attitude which is unsympathetic if not hostile, should duly be taken into account in placing orders and when the funds appropriated under this Vote are spent. I want to say in no uncertain terms that I am referring to the attitude recently adopted by America as regards a ban on the exportation of certain ammunition and spare parts for aircraft from that country to the Republic. According to an arrangement of that state these things are not to be exported to South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell the hon. member for Randburg immediately that I shall instruct the Department to consider his proposals to see whether any further assistance can be granted to civil aviation, as he suggested here.

I was delighted that this very important matter of road safety was raised here this afternoon by so many members on both sides of the House. It is a matter about which everybody in this country should feel deeply concerned. After everything that has been done in the past years to promote road safety in South Africa and to reduce the number of accidents on our roads, and although it seems at the moment as though we …

Order! The hon. member for Carletonville must put away his newspaper.

I was saying, Sir, that it seems as though we have to a certain extent succeeded in curbing this problem, in keeping it within limits. In spite of everything that has been done in the past in respect of safe roads and everything that is being done by the S.A. Road Safety Council for the promotion of road safety in South Africa, we have not succeeded in reducing the number of accidents to any appreciable extent. Just think of all the money which is actually being spent every year to promote road safety; just think of the fact that the construction and maintenance of our roads in South Africa alone costs R120,000,000 per annum. If one considers that the traffic officers employed by the provincial administrations and the municipalities are costing South Africa R9,250,000 per annum, if one considers that the S.A. Road Safety Council receives an annual income of R500,000 from the authorities, it is truly alarming that road accidents still occur to the extent they do. And then I have not even mentioned the cost of the S.A. Police, which also has to be on the alert for dangerous offences, the services rendered by schools as far as instruction is concerned and the time and space devoted to road safety on the radio and in the Press. A great deal of time and money is indeed being devoted to the promotion of road safety in South Africa at present. But in spite of what is being done and what has been done, the road accident rate in the country is and remains much higher than in most other countries of the world. Even if it is true that we have succeeded in starting to force the road accident rate down, our rate still remains alarmingly high. If we compare this rate with that of other countries, we notice that South Africa’s accident rate is among the highest in the world. If we take the statistics for 1963, we find that South Africa’s accident death rate was 34.7 per 10,000 registered motor vehicles, while the rate in England was only 6.3, in the United States of America only 5.3 and in Canada only 6.9. However, for the purposes of comparison one cannot find a more significant manner in which road accident rates can be calculated than doing so in terms of the exposure factor, i.e. the number of vehicle miles performed. If we use this criterion, we find that the United States of America registered 14.40 accidents (fatal, serious and minor) per 1,000,000 vehicle miles performed, as against 10.71 accidents per 1,000,000 vehicle miles in South Africa. That does in fact reflect fewer accidents in South Africa, but if we compare fatal accidents, we find that South Africa’s smaller number of accidents included more fatal accidents, viz. .35 per 1,000,000 vehicle miles performed as against only .05 in the U.S.A. In other words, the fatal accidents on the roads in South Africa were approximately seven times as many as in the U.S.A, in the same period.

Can you perhaps give us an indication later as to how the vehicle rate is calculated? Is it an estimate or an actual calculation?

Yes, later. I say that this matter is a very serious one; it is a matter which threatens our national existence in this country like a canker. What is the significance of these statistics to the people and to society? We can calculate material losses in terms of concrete figures, but can we calculate grief, pain and sorrow, disruption of the personal lives of people, the disruption of the family life of people, in terms of money or other figures? It is not only the mortality rate and the material loss which are alarming; the tremendous burden caused by serious injuries should also be borne in mind. The hon. member for Middelburg made estimates of what road accidents in South Africa are costing us materially. I do not want to go into that again. I only want to say that in 1965 5,315 persons were killed and 47,403 persons were injured on our roads and in our streets; that means a daily average of 14 killed and 130 injured. This state of affairs simply cannot continue indefinitely; we cannot allow it to continue. We should at least try to bring the road accident rate down to a more reasonable and less serious level. In that respect I am in agreement with the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) that it is time that we in South Africa adopted a new approach in respect of this question as a whole. Should we not approach it from an entirely new angle and attack it on an entirely new front? What I find alarming is that prominent researchers in England have pointed out that if we applied the already known facts in regard to the problem of road accidents without delay and purposefully, the road accident rate could be reduced by at least half. The serious question we should ask ourselves is this: Why are the known facts not applied by the authorities concerned, by everybody or person in the country that is capable of making a contribution in this regard, by all road users, who have already been thoroughly informed by the Road Safety Council in regard to every aspect of road safety? Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all the good suggestions made here in regard to road safety by hon. members on both sides of the House. I must admit that I did not hear one new suggestion in regard to road safety, but I appreciate the spirit in which the suggestions were made—because hon. members are truly concerned about the position in regard to road accidents in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, you will recall that at a road safety week in Bellville recently I mentioned certain things with which we may make a start for the better promotion of road safety in the country, and I should like to repeat them for the sake of the record. One of them was mentioned here this afternoon by the hon. member for Parow, and that is the establishment of a central traffic bureau. I just want to mention them to you quickly and briefly: What I regard as the absolute basis for combating road accidents in South Africa are two things in particular. We must find a point from where we can make a start on a sound basis, on a sound footing, to combat road accidents in South Africa, and that is, in the first place, the establishment of road accident records. We must know exactly what the problem is. In this respect I do not only have mere figures in mind, but accident records including peak point maps which will give every authority a proper idea of the danger points and dangerous practices in the area under its control and which can therefore indicate where and how action should be taken in those areas. It is not only necessary that we should know the problem. The human factor is and remains the greatest cause of road accidents and that is why it is essential that we should establish a central register of licensed drivers of motor vehicles as soon as possible, and in respect of the matters I am mentioning here to-day I really want to appeal to the provincial administrations in the country to lend their co-operation in this regard. I want to make an earnest appeal to them. I think that they, just as this Committee, are convinced that we simply cannot allow the present situation in South Africa to continue. If one has a central register of licensed drivers of motor vehicles, more or less on the same basis as the criminal bureau of the S.A. Police, such a record can serve as a guide to the courts for imposing suitable penalties in cases of repeated contraventions of the traffic laws by the same person. The fact that a central register has not yet been established means that in many cases offenders cannot be punished properly.

The idea of a points system was also mentioned here by the hon. member for Parow and the hon. member for Middelburg. The records in respect of individual drivers which will have to be built up by means of the central register, should not only be made available to our courts, but also be used for a points system which ought to be introduced as was recommended by the Joubert Commission in 1958.

Is that the policy of the Department at present?

The hon. member should listen to me first. I said that I had mentioned these matters at the opening of a road safety week in Bellville and I should also like to bring it pointedly to the notice of the provincial administrations so that they may consider these matters and, where possible, cooperate in this regard so that we may effectively combat road accidents in South Africa. I went further and I expressed the conviction that there ought to be more effective punishments for people who cause road accidents. I do not want to go into that again, it appeared in the Press; I merely want to repeat it here. However, these should be punishments which the culprit would really feel, not merely fines but punishments such as the suspension and cancellation of drivers’ licences, the re-testing of drivers before a suspended or cancelled driver’s licence is re-issued; week-end imprisonment for extremely dangerous offences; the confiscation of motor-cars for a specified period according to the degree of seriousness of the offence; and corrective punishments such as compulsory attendance of schools for offenders. Mr. Chairman, a measure which will require urgent attention is the systematic elimination of danger points on our roads. It is my considered opinion that each province should single out a special unit to attend to the elimination of danger points, especially on the older roads, to which the hon. member for Yeoville also referred. Particular attention should be given to dangerous bends, narrow bridges and ineffective road signs. As far as our urban areas are concerned, I think that I am justified in appealing to our larger urban areas and the city councils which control them. It has been proved through research that in a city the period between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. is the most dangerous period of the day. That is the critical period during which most accidents occur in our urban areas. My appeal to the municipal authorities is to see to it that in all major cities enough traffic officers are placed on duty during these hours. The possibility of making provision for that ought to receive their urgent attention.

Why do you not help them financially?

That hon. member ought to know what financial assistance is already being granted to our urban areas, also in regard to their urban through-road schemes. I also want to emphasize another matter here, and that is in regard to uniformity in our municipal traffic by-laws. I am very glad that the provinces have now reached the stage where uniform road traffic ordinances are being placed on their statute books, but what is also essential is that there should be uniformity in respect of municipal traffic laws, because 50 per cent of our road accidents occur in our urban areas and I am convinced that many accidents occur as a result of. the confusion which exists in the public mind since certain municipal regulations which apply in one city do not apply in another. There is, for instance, the question of pedestrians, and many pedestrians are knocked down and killed in our cities. In Cape Town as well as in Pretoria pedestrians can cross the street anywhere, but in Johannesburg, in the city centre, they may only do so at pedestrian crossings.

One of the hon. members raised the matter of the allocation of traffic fines. I am convinced that the allocation of traffic fines to municipalities is a wrong principle altogether. The subsidizing of traffic control ought to be separated altogether from the revenue obtained from it, and the recommendation of the Road Safety Council that traffic fines should be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund ought to be carried into effect, so that traffic control may be subsidized quite independently of the revenue obtained from the imposition of traffic fines. If there is a matter about which one can feel really sad, it is that sometimes when one drives on very busy roads, with extremely heavy traffic, one sees very few traffic officers, and that while one is driving on those dangerous roads, traffic officers are being used in the city to fine people for trifling offences such as parking offences.

I also want to mention another matter for consideration by the provincial administrations, namely that our traffic officers should be trained effectively and should act uniformly throughout the country. They should be trained on a uniform basis. Early attention should therefore be given to the planning of a uniform system of training for traffic officers as well as the establishment of the necessary training facilities, even if it has to be done on a national basis if needs be. I think that as far as the work of traffic officers is concerned, there is a certain amount of overlapping. We probably all agree that it is desirable to increase the number of traffic officers to keep pace with the increase in traffic, but we immediately realize that the manpower shortage must necessarily be a restrictive factor. Therefore it is desirable that the existing manpower should be utilized as effectively as possible so that overlapping among the bodies and persons concerned with traffic control, viz. the S.A. Police, the provincial traffic police and the local traffic officers, may be eliminated. I am considering—and I should like to have the opinions of the provincial administrations in this regard—the appointment of a commission of inquiry to investigate the possibility of placing all traffic officers under one central control. If the provincial administrations are hesitant, i.e. if it cannot be central control, the possibility can be investigated at the same time—we know what their objections are and were when the hon. the Minister wanted to introduce legislation in regard to road traffic a few years ago—of placing all traffic officers under provincial control.

Those are the matters I wanted to mention in regard to road safety. Hon. members will appreciate that I have only been able to study this matter for a few months and that from the nature of the case I have not yet finished thinking about the question of road accidents as a whole and the promotion of road safety, but I should like to assure hon. members today that this matter is very near to my heart. As a matter of fact, I think that if all hon. members were to begin making a study of this matter, they would discover how near this matter is to their hearts as well. I think that one and all of us, all authorities which are concerned in this, ought to give immediate attention to the matter so that an effective foundation may be laid on which we can build further. It will not be possible to eliminate road accidents immediately; as long as one has to contend with the human factor, accidents will probably always occur, but I think that it is our bounden duty towards South Africa that we should one and all assist in seeing to it that this extremely high accident rate in South Africa is at least reduced to an appreciable extent.

The hon. member for Yeoville wanted to know what the future planning was in regard to national roads. He pointed out that many of the roads are extremely dangerous. I agree with him.

Out-dated.

But I just want to point out to him that during the present year R44,000,000 is being spent on national roads alone. I should like to assure him that the Central Government is thoroughly aware of the requirements and the necessity of modern communications for meeting the needs of inter-provincial or long-distance traffic and the provision of safe, fast and economic traffic facilities. Since we became a Republic five years ago, the National Transport Commission has considerably accelerated the rate of development as far as our national roads are concerned. During the past five years alone, 570 miles of national roads has been tarred, which brings the total mileage of tarred national roads to some 5,209 miles. As a matter of policy the National Transport Commission has undertaken—not only in order to provide roads, but also in order to ensure safe roads—the gigantic task of developing the country’s national road system into a hundred per cent tarred road system on which high speed traffic can be carried with the greatest measure of safety over the long distances between our larger coastal cities and inland centres. Consequently all new national roads on new routes are being planned as through-roads from the outset. Since 1961, 100 miles of national double-carriage through-roads has been congested as well as some 135 miles of national single-carriage through-roads, and in addition 500 miles of double-carriage through-roads and 1,350 miles of single-carriage through-roads are being planned or are already under construction. If within the foreseeable future the Republic has a national road system in which there are 600 miles of doublecarriage through-roads and some 1,485 miles of single-carriage through-roads, it is by any standard an achievement of which the entire country can justly be proud.

When do you think that will be achieved?

Within the foreseeable future. The hon. member can work it out himself according to the rate. A moment ago I mentioned what had been done within a period of five years. Having regard to the fact that the cost of constructing a through-road in peri-urban areas amounts to between R400,000 and R500,000 per mile at present and that in urban areas it is even up to ten times that amount, as compared to construction costs of only R20,000 per mile for roads in the thirties, hon. members will realize that these through-roads cannot be constructed overnight. The construction must necessarily depend on the availability of funds in the Road Fund, and it should be borne in mind that the maintenance of existing roads entails enormous costs. I want to tell the hon. member that planning in regard to our national roads is not static; it is continually in progress. The restrictive factor is not lack of planning, but lack of money—the funds available to the National Transport Commission for constructing those roads.

Is there sufficient manpower?

No, it does of course depend on the manpower position as well.

The hon. member for Yeoville referred to the question of faster and more efficient transport which can be made available between Jan Smuts Airport and Pretoria. I just want to tell the hon. member that the Transport Commission has already made a contribution of R1.400,000 to enable the province to construct a double-carriage through-road to the airport. A great deal of progress has already been made in that regard.

Then the hon. member complained that certain companies in Cape Town were restricted to 30 miles as regards the transporting of their petrol. The hon. member must be aware of the fact that these petrol companies may lodge an application with the Road Transport Board concerned for permission to transport petrol over a longer distance. As far as we can establish, no such applications from petrol companies have been received to date.

Then he asked that they should rather use road tankers for transporting petrol, and that they should be allowed to co-operate with one another in using road tankers. Such a company is, of course, at liberty to apply for permission to transport petrol in road tankers.

Then the hon. member experienced problems in regard to the agents selling third party insurance. I just want to tell the hon. member that the companies do, of course, enter into an agreement with the agents. The agents only fill in the application forms of the public, provide the discs and collect the premiums, which have to be paid over to the company immediately. There is a proper agreement between the company and the agent, but the agent is not concerned with the reporting of accidents or the settlement of claims. The companies are responsible for that. Besides, re-insurance has been taken out in respect of cases where premiums are not paid over by agents.

In regard to railway crossings and speeding up the elimination thereof, I want to assure the hon. member that everything possible is being done in this regard. For that purpose a special fund has been established to which the various authorities contribute: R500,000 by Transport, R500,000 by the Railway Administration itself and R500,000 by the provinces. That is R1,500,000 per annum. But unfortunately accidents still occur there, in spite of the fact that good progress is being made with the work.

As regards the hon. member’s idea about reflectors on trains, I want to say that apart from the fact that it will entail tremendous expenditure for the Railways—it is a Railway matter, of course, and does not belong under this Vote—it will not really help much, since many of the trucks are covered with tarpaulins and then one cannot see the reflectors.

Then the hon. member inquired about means of transport for the Bantu other than by trains. There is an inter-departmental committee which is constantly investigating the transport of Bantu workers and making proposals to the Cabinet in regard to special railway lines and services which have to be introduced. Where train services are not yet available, the service is undertaken by means of buses, and it has worked reasonably well so far.

The hon. member for Parow spoke about unauthorized transportation by road hauliers. I agree with him. We are aware of that. This unlawful road transportation has assumed such proportions that it is our intention to introduce in the next session an amending Bill which will make provision for much heavier fines and in terms of which courts will be obliged to impose the maximum fine at a third offence. I think I have already replied to the matter he raised in regard to road safety and traffic congestion.

I want to tell the hon. member for Salt River that I agree that our national roads are out-dated. All the new national roads which are now being constructed are being constructed as limited access single-carriage roads and provision is being made for converting them into full four-carriage through-roads at a later stage. Roads around and near cities which carry a great deal of traffic are immediately constructed as four-carriage roads. The hon. member also complained that more money should be spent on national roads than the R44,000,000 which comes from the Road Fund. However. I just want to point out to him that a great deal of the money which is paid into the Road Fund is, of course, paid out by the Central Government in the form of subsidies to the provincial administrations and that that money is also used for the construction of roads.

I think I have replied to everything now.

I was very glad to hear the Deputy Minister tell the House how concerned he was with road safety. We hope that now that he has come into the Department to take over this work, we will see more action taken to control road accidents. We appreciate that it is a very difficult problem. He said that he had had no new suggestions from this side of the House as to how accidents could be avoided. I want to give him one hint. I think he will agree that a number of accidents are caused through impatience. Drivers are impatient and overtake the vehicle in front of them often on blind rises. He cannot stop people from overtaking, but I think the Department can do something else to avoid drivers becoming impatient. We have many cuttings and passes and more and more use is being made of the national roads by heavy transport. We find that drivers of fast vehicles get impatient when following a slow vehicle through these cuttings. I found that in Rhodesia they provide for lay-byes and it is compulsory for the slow vehicle to pull to the side of the road, and these lay-byes are provided every three miles or so. We do not have the same system here, but I want to recommend to the Deputy Minister that he get the Transport Commission to provide for lay-byes, especially through our passes, and to make it compulsory for the slower vehicle to move to the left as it goes up the mountain.

There is another point I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister, and that is in regard to policing. We dealt with policing just now. What I cannot understand is why the traffic police were taken off the national roads in the Transkei. They were stationed at Umtata and patrolled the national roads from East London to Kokstad, but now they have been taken to Kokstad. which is now their depot, and we do not see them on the bottom road. The story is that the Province claims it is the duty of the Transkeian Government to look after that road. I submit that is quite wrong and that the Minister should see to it that the Province patrols that road. We have more and more unroadworthy vehicles on that national road and there are also many pirate taxis. I submit that the sooner the traffic police are put on that national road again, the better. We have enough hazards on that road as it is. The road is not fenced and there is always the hazard of animals on the road. I submit that we do not want to have the hazard of unroadworthy vehicles and reckless drivers and no traffic police at all on that road.

In regard to fencing, some time ago I was advised that this Department was consulting with the Provincial Administration and with the Transkeian Government, as well as the Bantu Affairs Department, in regard to the fencing of the roads in the Transkei. Anyone who has travelled on that road will confirm what I say, that the stock on that road are a terrible hazard. I had the experience, coming Hown to Cane Town for this session, where a horse strolled right in front of my car, seriously damaging it. We will have to come to some arrangement with the Transkeian Government or with the provincial authorities to see that the national road in the Transkei is properly fenced. I know there is the difficulty of dealing with the animals you find on the roads, but unless those animals are impounded they will continue to be there.

I would ask the Minister also what his plans are in regard to the building of a national road from Queenstown to Port St. Johns. In reply to the hon. member for Yeoville, the Minister stated that a certain amount was set aside for national roads, but the fund cannot be drawn on at will. But he will know that special provision was made for this road in the Estimates. Last year when I asked the Minister what the programme was, he said they were building the road departmentally from Engcobo to Baziya, but not onwards to Libode, and that they had appointed an engineer to map or relocate the road. I would like to know what has happened on that portion from Baziya to Libode and then down to Port St. Johns. It is most important that attention be given to this road. The Port St. Johns people find themselves in an isolated White spot in a Black area. The Transkeian Government has been promised its independence and the White villages and towns are being zoned for Black occupation. More and more White people are leaving the Transkei, and the people in Port St. Johns are a White community who will always remain there, but they are absolutely isolated. It is therefore incumbent on this Government to see that they have proper roads leading to and from Port St. Johns. The Government has promised to build a national road from Port St. Johns to Port Edward, but that road has not even been located yet. I would like to know what they are doing about locating that road. Have they considered employing private surveyors to do it for them? I also want the Minister to tell me what is happening about connecting the road from Brook’s Nek down to Bizana and to the new road proposed between Port Edward and Port St. Johns. The Divisional Councils of Mount Currie and Matatiele were building a tarred road from Matatiele to Kokstad. Now that road has been declared a national road, but my information is that nothing has been done in the last year and that all work has been stooped. I would like to know why that is, and is the Minister perhaps proceeding with the tarring of that section of the road and of the road from Matatiele on to outside the Transkei. It is most important that the Government should see to those roads because of the new government being established in the Transkei. This Government is responsible for maintaining that road. It was a divisional council road and now it is a national road. It is essential that these roads be kept in proper condition for defence purposes and other purposes. Therefore I ask the Minister to give me a detailed statement, as far as he can, as to what programme he has for the next year in regard to these roads.

If there is one subject on which all of us are agreed in this House, it is road safety and that tremendous carnage which is taking place on our roads. I think I am speaking on behalf of all the members in this House when I say that we owe a great debt of gratitude to the hon. the Deputy Minister for the way in which he has replied to all the various questions, and particularly for the great study he has made of road safety and all the plans which he has in mind. But what I want to say to-night is this: It has been many years now that we have been talking about road safety, and for many years we have been bringing the shocking death-rate to the attention of the public. For many years now we have been telling one another that we are exterminating one another, but nobody takes any notice. Even if we were to build better roads, even if we were to appoint more traffic constables, even if we were to use helicopters to control the traffic, even if we were to impose heavier punishments, even if we were to confiscate motor-cars, even if we were to introduce week-end imprisonment, even if we were to try and create central control. we would not be accomplishing anything in regard to these road accidents, because the spirit of goodwill and tolerance no longer exists amongst people to-day. The only way in which we can bring this problem home to the individual is to expose him to public contempt, to show the man in the street who the road-hog is, who the person is who is responsible for these accidents which occur on the roads every day. If I were to assault and seriously injure somebody to-night, I would be locked up by the police, but if I were to ride down the street and kill somebody in a motor-car accident, or wipe out an entire family, then I could drive my motor-car again the next day as if absolutely nothing had happened. That is why I feel that the time has come for us to take drastic measures to bring this serious problem to the attention of the public. To punish the man in court, where nobody knows about it, is of no avail. We must show the man that he is committing murder. If a murderer commits a murder, he is hanged; if a motorist wipes out an entire family, he might perhaps be fined, his licence might be endorsed or he might even go to prison. I want to plead for an entirely new system as far as this is concerned, and the system I am pleading for is that that man must be placed in public view, so that we can all see who it is that caused the road accident and who it is that is causing the carnage on the roads. Just as we have the system to-day where ambulances and police vehicles have a special red light on their roofs, the time has now come for us to introduce that system in this case too. If a motorist has killed another person, a black light must immediately be placed on top of that vehicle which he is going to drive in future, so that we will be able to distinguish him. [Laughter.] The hon. members are laughing at this suggestion. That shows how little they care about the carnage on our roads. When a person runs over and kills somebody and is found guilty, a black light must be placed on the motor-car which he is driving, and when he has committed a very serious offence which resulted in a serious accident a red light must shine on top of his motor-car. If it is a less serious accident it must be a yellow light. When we can identify those people on our roads, i.e. the type of man who causes accidents, then we will find that those people will drive much more carefully. It must be made compulsory that that light of his must revolve continuously and he must never be allowed to switch it off. I think that is the only way in which we can really put a stop to this tremendous carnage taking place on our roads. We must apply drastic measures and one can only do that if one is able to identify the man who has caused an accident on the road. If he is punished by the court, then nobody knows about it. If he is locked up over the week-end, nobody, except his family, knows about it, and on the day of his release he can proceed on his merry way. That is why I plead that the time has now come for us to take drastic measures in order to put a stop to this carnage on our roads.

I listened with interest to what the hon. the Minister and hon. members had to say about road safety. For a year or so I was a member of the S.A. Road Safety Council and I have also been a member of various committees, and there is not a single point mentioned here to-day which has not already been discussed by the S.A. Road Safety Council and its various committees. The Central Traffic Advisory Council has also considered various aspects of this matter, because all resolutions taken by the S.A. Road Safety Council are canalized to the Central Traffic Advisory Council. In regard to the 70 mile per hour speed limit, I can recall that the spirit of the resolution was that the limit was fixed at 70 miles per hour on account of the fact that the technical advice which the Central Traffic Advisory Council had at its disposal was to the effect that no road in South West Africa or in the Republic of South Africa had been built in such a way that a speed in excess of 70 miles per hour could be maintained on it. Furthermore, that if a road could be built which could carry vehicles travelling at a higher speed, the traffic ought to be allowed to travel faster. This speed is in no way a restriction on the traffic. If a road is built which can carry faster traffic, signs can be displayed indicating that the motorist may travel at 90 or a 100 miles per hour, in the same way as there are speed limits to-day. That, in short, is the spirit of the resolution which was adopted.

There is something in regard to the Central Traffic Bureau which I learned from the hon. the Minister and which disappointed me. I was also astonished to learn it, and in fairness to the various provinces and South West Africa, I want to say that when I was still a member of that Central Traffic Council—and I only ceased to be a member in February this year—we had already decided that a Central Traffic Bureau would be the ideal body to deal with traffic affairs, as is now being discussed here. Why that Traffic Bureau has not yet been put into operation I cannot understand, particularly if the resolution has already been conveyed to the relevant Government Department, and if the provinces have already adopted a resolution—I am not sure whether it was at the end of last year or at the beginning of this year. The idea expressed by the hon. the Minister in regard to having a central traffic control authority in Southern Africa is something I find very encouraging. I just want to ask that when the hon. the Minister appoints that commission of inquiry, he should formulate its terms of reference correctly in the sense that they should deal with uniform central control by one body and not central control by five autonomous bodies. That is a shortcoming at present, and in my opinion, it is also going to be the shortcoming in future in regard to the legal application of uniform traffic control. That was the shortcoming in the previous terms of reference of the Committee of Inquiry into Road Safety, Road Traffic and Road Traffic Legislation, 1964, i.e., that they had to investigate in what way the five autonomous bodies could exercise uniform control. I want to ask that attention be given to this matter in so far as the terms of reference should deal with the possibility of having a traffic force under the control of one body, under the authority of the Central Government.

I just want to refer to the Weather Bureau. I notice that there has been a decrease in the expenditure for the Weather Bureau. In view of the importance of the Weather Bureau and the long-term weather forecasts, which are so important to agriculture, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it will not affect the efficiency of the Department if there is a reduction in staff, because that is apparently what the decrease in expenditure here is due to. Or is the expenditure concealed under other items? I do not want to enlarge on the matter at all, but it is of the utmost importance to agriculture to know what the weather forecasts are, particularly the long-term weather forecasts, which are being aimed at by means of research, so that the farmer can adapt his farming operations to them in good time.

Mr. Chairman, whilst I sympathize with the principle expounded by the hon. member for Brakpan, I must say that I feel his methods of achieving it is a bit too enlightening. I fear that the consequences of an accident-prone person may be that that person has his car mistaken for a Christmas tree in due course. And as for a black light, Sir, not ever having heard of a black light, I think that the hon. member has been looking on the dark side of things for too long. However, I leave him to the tender mercies of the hon. Deputy Minister.

Now, Sir, as new members always like to do, I would like to pay a tribute. In this case I do believe that the men who thought of the national road programme were indeed very far-seeing at the time they considered this matter. One cannot help but admire them. Of course, like so very many things which stand out as solid foundations to the pillars of strength in South Africa, the idea was cast in concrete with the passing of the National Roads Act, Act 42 of 1935. The date, of course, clearly establishes who those men were. Now I wish to direct the attention of the hon. Deputy Minister to one of these national roads, a specific section, and that is the part between King William’s Town and East London. As he knows, this is a portion of route 2, but it is also the extension of route 6, which carries all the traffic to and from East London and the north. Furthermore, it is also the extension of the trunk road which goes from East London to Cookhouse and which carries all the traffic between the Karoo and East London. The initial part of this road from East London to Berlin was constructed round about 1931-2.

The other section, from King William’s Town to Berlin, was constructed by a national road unit in 1939. At the time construction took place, the standards of road-building were, of course, well below what is accepted to-day as necessary for a national road and for the demands of modern traffic. We have heard from hon. members here that our national roads are in fact to a very great extent outdated. Through the years nothing special has been done to this road other than a reconstruction of some 2.2 miles from Mdantsane to Reeston, which was completed in the course of this year. The provincial roads engineer of the Cape remarked in a lecture some time ago that the foundation and surface of a road tended to lose their shape after being in use for a period of 20 to 30 years to such an extent that reconstruction was desirable. Whilst I know that this statement is subject to the influence of many factors, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the factors here all tend towards the necessity for a speedier reconstruction rather than a delayed one.

Now, Sir, let us turn to some figures, some of which were quoted here this afternoon by the hon. Deputy Minister. This road has a traffic density of some 1,550 vehicles or approximately 1,800 equivalent vehicle units and this is increasing all the time. There were, during 1964-5 21 fatal accidents and 144 other accidents. During 1965-6 there were 14 fatal accidents and 141 other accidents. The average over a year is therefore more than the figure for the Republic for one day quoted by the hon. the Deputy Minister this evening. But possibly this is not a good comparison and I would turn to the other comparison he made. He quoted that in the case of the United States of America the fatal accident rate was .05 per million vehicle miles. He said how bad it was, how alarming it was, that South Africa’s accident rate was .35 per million vehicle miles. When we come to this portion of the road, Sir, do you know that at its best it will have a rate of .91 per million vehicle miles? That is at its best.

If we take it that the local traffic reduces the mileage to something in the region of 20 miles for each vehicle, then we arrive at a figure of 1.4 per million vehicle miles, which is four times in excess of the figure for the whole of the Republic and 28 times that of the United States of America. Is it any wonder, Sir, that this road has become known as the killer road of South Africa? What is being done to improve the situation? A speed limit of 50 miles an hour has been imposed. We have had a discussion about the effects of a speed limit and I will not go into the matter. The shoulders of the road have been broadened and we have the problem there that these shoulders are of gravel and, Sir, you know the effect of a join between bitumen and gravel where it is subject to heavy traffic, and especially now that our rainy season is coming.

For years representations have been made in this connection, and what has been done? It has been accepted in principle that the road must be rebuilt. I know that a freeway from Mdantsane to Gonubie Road was approved by the National Transport Commission as long ago as 14th April, 1964. I also know that the Transkei-East London Road which is under reconstruction was supposed to have been given to contractors from Gonubie so that the provincial unit could construct the freeway. But here we find the trouble. This cannot be done, because the unit cannot go over to the freeway side because the hon. Deputy Ministers’ other Department, the South African Railways, has not completed its planning and finalized what it is going to do about its marshalling yards at Cambridge. So nothing can be done about the road.

I was impressed this evening by the hon. the Deputy Minister’s statement on road development. He mentioned that R44,000,000 was going to be voted for national roads. But does he realize that at the cost figure which he gave himself that only means 114 miles of national road during the course of a year? Does he realize, Sir, that where we already have 5,200 miles of national road—also his figure—it would take 50 years without any extension of the national road network to come back to the one that we started off with? Indeed, he mentioned that this will be “binne afsienbare tyd”. But can one see that this is actually going to be done in the foreseeable future? Then the hon. Minister quoted money as a limiting factor. But I would like to point out what the Chief Engineer of the National Transport Commission said only a little while ago, in February of this year as a matter of fact. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to mention very briefly something in connection with the South African Airways under this Vote. It is a fact that the South African Airways is the pride of South Africa to-day. That applies to both its internal and external flights. It is my opinion that it is the duty of every South African to encourage and urge people who undertake external flights to make use of our own country’s Airways. It is a fact, Mr. Chairman, that although these services are streamlined they do lack some finish in certain respects. People who make use of these flights are of the opinion, and have told me on several occasions, that in comparison with the external flight services of other countries there are some delays. I should like to give two examples.

I just want to point out to the hon. member that he has strayed somewhat from the Vote. We are dealing with Transport now, not with Airways. That falls under Railways.

Mr. Chairman, I submit to your ruling, but …

On which item of the Vote is the hon. member speaking?

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk about airports. When aeroplanes arrive at the Jan Smuts Airport it happens from time to time that customs delays occur at the airport. I think I shall be making a positive suggestion when I say that these delays should be eliminated as far as possible. These passengers come from overseas, and their families waiting for them are very anxious to see them. It so happens that they have to sit and wait in the aeroplane at the airport for a considerable time, during which one officer comes along with a small spray to disinfect the aeroplane and, following that, another officer comes along to check the passengers’ yellow fever and smallpox certificates. If these matters could be attended to during the flight, it would go a long way towards making our Airways more streamlined than that of any other country.

If what the hon. member is discussing has to do with flights then it has no bearing on airports.

Mr. Chairman, I submit to your ruling, but these are things that occur at the airports. Delays also occur within the air terminal when a number of aeroplanes touch down one after the other. Passengers then have to wait at the airport for an hour or more before they are attended to.

Mr. Chairman, to come back to the question of transport, I want to say that I am sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister’s statement here to-night regarding some aspects of road safety will be generally welcomed throughout the country. But, Sir, if one takes that statement in relation to the Budget which is before us at the present time, I think one must go a little further and inquire into certain aspects of the expenditure which we are going to be asked to authorize. First of all, the hon. Deputy Minister indicated that he wished or wanted or hoped for a provincial investigation into the question of road safety. Perhaps he is not aware that there has existed for a number of years an inter-provincial traffic co-ordinating committee which has been charged with this particular problem in so far as provincial government is concerned. But I do not think that at this stage and with the very bleak picture which the hon. the Deputy Minister painted to us this evening, that commissions or committees are the answer. I want to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that the time has arrived when this problem must be tackled by trained experts on a professional basis and that there is no reason why we should continue with committees, ad hoc, inter-provincial or otherwise, which are achieving no results. That brings me to the one omission in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s statement, namely that from what he has said one would have assumed that he would say to us that the R250,000 which is to be voted again this year to the South African Road Safety Council should be omitted because it is achieving no results whatsoever. I make no apology for discussing road safety because as the records of this House will show it has been discussed repeatedly. Various suggestions have been made by hon. members of this House as to what might be done to alleviate the accident rate, but whether those suggestions have been futile or whether they have fallen on deaf ears, the fact of the matter is that nothing has been achieved. The Minister himself has given us the figures. What has the Government been doing? In 1964 the contribution to the Road Safety Council was R150,000. In 1965-6 it was up to R250,000. For the current financial year it is again R250,000. In addition to this amount the provinces are collectively contributing an equal sum because the Cape and the Transvaal are automatically levied with 17½ per cent of the total, the Government contribution being 50 per cent and Natal and the Orange Free State together paying 15 per cent. Bat, Sir, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, with an expenditure of R500,000 per year for road safety promotion we find that the estimated cost of accidents and results of accidents last year was approximately R60,000,000. That I think is a reliable estimate. Sir, the provinces are loaded with an unbearable responsibility and I should like to give the figures. At the Groote Schuur Hospital, for instance, in one year 12,800 casualties from motor accidents were treated. The hon. the Minister has given figures for the ratio per million miles, but in South Africa we have a further aspect of road safety which is a cause for concern and that is the ratio of fatal accidents as compared with the number of accidents. Again we are far in excess of the figures for the United States and Britain. Our ratio is 9.8 per cent. In Britain it is 2.7 per cent. In the United States it is 2.65 per cent. Sir, it is not that we are not spending enough money. The hon. the Ministe’ has referred to the millions of rands that are spent on traffic control. We in South Africa are estimated by the Automobile Association to be spending approximately 60 cents per vehicle per annum on road safety. The United States is spending 98 cents per vehicle per annum. But whatever the figure is, we are spending a colossal amount and I return to the inevitable conclusion that the money which is going to the South African Road Safety Council is achieving no results whatsoever. A uniform code is not the answer. There were suggestions this afternoon in this debate that there are various factors which should be investigated and I agree. During one weekend in the Cape Province there were fourteen fatal accidents and the causes of those accidents will show that the problem is so wide that it is beyond the powers of ordinary ad hoc committee to investigate. Death was caused in one instance by a deaf mute running in front of a motor vehicle; two were pedestrians who stepped in front of a motor vehicle and two were pedestrians on a public road who were intoxicated and staggered in front of a motor vehicle. Five of the accidents were therefore due to pedestrians. Two drivers were under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident. Three accidents were attributable to excessive speed. There was one where a driver did not observe a stop sign. In another case a driver entered a stream of traffic from a feeder road without due regard to the traffic on that road. In the case of two others, drivers overtook on concealed rises. It is therefore not only the motorist, but the pedestrian as well. The problem is not going to be solved merely by having more traffic policemen on the roads. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that in mining and in industry in South Africa, there has been tremendous progress. There has been a breakthrough in so far as casualties and man hours lost and the cost of accidents are concerned. There has been a successful campaign against accidents in industry and I can see no reason why that same success cannot be achieved as far as the roads are concerned. It will, however, not be achieved by the South African Road Safety Council, which over the years has been subsidized to this great extent, and, from the Minister’s own statement to-night, is achieving nothing.

This brings me to the next point and that is in regard to the accounts of the Road Safety Council. It is quite interesting, when one looks at these accounts, to find what the position is. One finds, for instance, that there is a large accumulated surplus. I do not know what the figure is now, but at the end of 1964 it was R105,000. Why do we then have to increase our subsidies? Why is it suggested that we should put R250,000 into an organization which is building up a reserve? I see that the accounts are audited by the Auditor-General, but there seems to be a great deal of expenditure on salaries, subsistence and transport expenses, expenses of meetings and entertainment as far as this Council is concerned, which is out of proportion to the expenditure. In regard to the literature which is produced and distributed, R42,000 has been expended, and this has certainly not produced any results. One wonders how much of that literature is read. The direct expenditure of the Road Safety Council on publicity, according to this audited statement, was R48 in one year. There was also an exhibition which cost R887.

Now that the Minister has taken up the attitude which he has in regard to this matter, and has indicated to us that something must be done, I hope that the first thing he does will be to see that we have a properly qualified, properly trained and efficient council to administer what subsidies we are prepared to vote.

Mr. Chairman, considering the size of our country and its geographic configuration, we should be astonished that we, as a small White population who are the real taxpayers, are capable of having South Africa intersected with asphalt roads from one end of the country to the other. One can only express one’s appreciation to the Minister and his Department for what has already been done in this field.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may I ask whether, in terms of Standing Order 131, hon. members like the hon. member for Vryheid and others may conduct an after-dinner discussion on their own while a member is speaking?

That is not a point of order.

Sir, may I draw your attention to Standing Order No. 131? It states—

That is not a point of order. I did not hear members conversing. If they had been conversing aloud, I would have heard them. The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister said here this afternoon that it would be the duty of local authorities and bodies to take note of and to eliminate danger points on our roads.

Order! Will the hon. member for Durban (Point) please be quiet.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to make use of this opportunity to discuss one of these danger points. I am referring to the road between Vereeniging and Vanderbijlpark, known as “the road of death”. As you know, Sir, that area has developed immensely and the population has increased immensely over the past years. If we were to make an estimate of the White population. we would find that in the Vanderbijl-park - Vereeniging - Sasolburg - Meyerton area there is a White population of more or less 90,000 and the figure in respect of the non-White population is more or less the same. So in that compact area we have a population of about 180,000 people. As you know, Sir, the national road between Vereeniging and Parys runs through Vanderbijlpark and divides the town into two parts. It so happens that, because of the development of that area south of the road, there are four dangerous crossings on that road. Sir, I should like to quote certain accident statistics. The figures which I am going to furnish are, firstly, in respect of the period 1951 to 1963 inclusive. During this period 32 people were fatally injured, 103 sustained serious injuries and 125 sustained minor injuries in accidents at these four crossings. As a result of the enormous development that has taken place there the position has become very much worse over the past years. During the past 18 months, i.e., from 1st March, 1963, to 30th September, 1964, 20 people were killed at those four crossings as against 32 during the previous 12 years. During the same period of 18 months up to September, 1964, 68 people sustained serious injuries and 232 people sustained minor injuries. In the light of the figures I have mentioned you will realize how seriously the position has deteriorated.

For years now there have been negotiations between the City Council, the Provincial Administration and the National Transport Commission in order to try to make these crossings safer. Only recently agreement was reached for the lighting of the crossings, and for the installation of stop and flicker lights there. Sir, I am not satisfied that this will solve the problem. As far as I am concerned, it can only aggravate the position. The road is a dual-carriage, one-way road. It is a large national road. If a stranger, not knowing the circumstances, were to drive through, he would expect the road to be open, as is usually the case with main roads. I believe that those lights will not have the desired effect. Local inhabitants, who are accustomed to the circumstances, will drive off when the light changes to green, and this fact may cause serious accidents in future. I want to make a very urgent appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider the possibility of giving immediate attention to this problem, and to see whether something concrete cannot be done to improve the position at these four crossings. During weekends the city folk go down to the Vaal River. We are all aware of the volume of traffic on those roads at weekends. We are also aware of the fact that, with the tremendous increase in the number of motor vehicles as a result of the higher standard of living which we enjoy to-day, the city folk are now aggravating the problems which we would not normally have experienced without this phenomenal development. I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to see whether he cannot improve this state of affairs. I want to emphasize the fact that the position there is critical.

Mr. Chairman, first of all I should like to draw attention to one of the points made by the hon. member for Yeoville in regard to the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. He mentioned the great number of agents and how inexperienced they were. I should like to draw attention to the fact that two-thirds of the insurance companies in South Africa, who are not members of the consortium, are not allowed to act as agents under the Motor Vehicle Insurance Act. I believe that since these people are the most experienced in the country in handling this type of insurance, they should at least be appointed as agents to members of the consortium.

The next point to which I want to draw attention is that, according to the reports, there is a shortage of trained personnel on South African registered sea-going vessels. I have had a report handed to me in which it is stated that an experienced ship’s master with ocean-going experience has been unable to get an appointment on a South African vessel, despite all his experience. I understand that a number of exemptions had been given for masters to be appointed to South African vessels. Here we have the case of South African masters with the necessary experience who have not been given the appointment.

Does that fall under Harbours? Under which item does that fall?

It falls under Item H. Sir, I have made the point I wished to make under this particular heading. I should like to go onto the next point, and that is in respect of airports.

I am quite certain, Sir, that you will agree that this falls under the vote. I was unable to bring up this point on the vote of the Minister of Transport. I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to an article which appeared in a recent magazine. In this article it was pointed out that the South African Airways and both Durban and Cape Town would benefit considerably if these airports were extended to permit them to be used for international travel and not just internal travel as at present. I am aware that the Minister did reply to a question raised by the hon. member for Umbilo in this connection, but I wonder whether all the aspects of this particular matter have been considered. The article points out that Jan Smuts Airport is 6,000 feet above sea level and as a result, the payload of big jets is reduced by 5,000 lbs. of luggage, or the equivalent of 25 passengers for each take-off. This results in a loss estimated at R7,500 in revenue on each take-off if the aircraft is fully loaded. This is the reason why South African Airways cannot schedule a non-stop flight between Johannesburg and Europe, although it can do so on the southbound run because the take-offs in Europe can be at sea level. With an average of about 40 big plane take-offs from Jan Smuts Airport each week for other continents the loss of potential payload is something like R15,500,000 annually. Three-quarters of that loss affects the South African Airways directly or indirectly because of the pooling arrangements and no matter which way it is looked at, this is a colossal amount. What needs to be done is to add 5,000 feet to the main runways at both Durban and Cape Town so that the big jets can take off from them with full payloads. The costs involved in constructing the new extension to the runways will be more than met by the increased revenue.

The article continues on another score in this manner—

I want to tell the hon. member for Port Natal straight away that the argument which he raised here in favour of the lengthening of the runway is incorrect in this respect, that he assumes that every jet aircraft taking off will be fully loaded. In most cases, however, that will not be the case owing to a lack of passengers and freight; it will not be as a result of any operational restrictions. None of the airlines making use of Jan Smuts Aerodrome have ever complained of being handicapped by a pay-load restriction. That can be attributed to the fact that the distance over the first sector flown over by aircraft after taking off from Jan Smuts Aerodrome is in no way dangerous, considering the type of aircraft which are used.

As far as the consortium members are concerned, they themselves decide whom they want to appoint as agents.

If the hon. member can furnish the Department with the name of any qualified captain who is unable to obtain work, while exemption is being granted to foreigners, then the matter will be investigated.

I have been acquainted for many years with the road which the hon. member for Vander-bijlpark mentioned here, the road which has those four dangerous crossings. I agree with him that it is a dangerous road. As the hon. member knows, traffic lights have of course been introduced there, and if that still does not help then I do not know what to do; it is a difficult matter to build traffic intersections on these roads. A traffic intersection in the rural areas costs a tremendous amount of money; it costs between R200,000 and R400,000 and takes up approximately 15 morgen. But we can go into the matter, and if any other solution can be suggested by the hon. member or by the Department when they investigate the matter, it will certainly be accepted.

The hon. member for Green Point said that I had allegedly implied in my speech that the Road Safety Council had in actual fact failed in its purpose. I do not think the hon. member is stating the position quite correctly. In fact, I have the greatest appreciation for the work which the S.A. Road Safety Council has done up to now. I think the position could have been very different in South Africa if it had not been for the constant attention which the S.A. Road Safety Council has given to this matter. The hon. member must realize, of course, that the Road Safety Council has no real powers. They only act in an advisory capacity after they have undertaken research and considered solutions which may relieve the position. Consequently it is the position that the Road Safety Council must in fact guide our democratic society with its own permission and approval; it cannot compel the community. At the moment there are already 33 road safety associations and 98 road safety committees in the country. By means of long-term publicity campaigns, the training of student teachers in the method of road safety instruction, instruction for established teachers, theoretical and practical road safety education at school, scholar patrols, road safety competitions, etc., the Road Safety Council is trying to provide instruction and guidance, with the purpose of promoting road safety. The hon. member is, of course, aware of the fact that the provinces are strongly represented on the S.A. Road Safety Council. There are five members of the executive committee …

I did not want to cast any reflection on individuals, but is the difficulty not that the Road Safety Council also has other matters to deal with? They do not deal specially and exclusively with road safety. They do the work on a part-time basis, as it were.

No. I can assure the hon. member that the S.A. Road Safety Council, the organization which has been created, is occupied with road safety on a full-time basis. If the hon. member has evidence to the contrary, then he must bring it to my attention.

He is talking out of ignorance.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Standerton that some of the air transporters are already undertaking the spraying in the air. Others, however, are not prepared to do it.

The hon. member for King William’s Town spoke about the section of road between East London and Berlin. The planning in regard to that section was given out to consulting engineers to undertake. The National Transport Commission has already decided that the route can be kept in good condition in the meanwhile by means of heavy maintenance, pending the reconstruction of the road, and I may just inform the hon. member that discussions have just taken place to-day between the Transport Commission and the Province and that it has been decided to take all possible steps to expedite the work. The problem in regard to the Gonubie Section was also discussed and we trust that the construction of the road will commence as soon as the planning has been completed.

The hon. member for Etosha said that he was strongly in favour of central control of traffic officers by one central body. I want to agree with him, but he will realize that the cooperation of the provincial administrations has to be obtained in this regard. That is why I also think and why I have expressed the view that the entire matter should be referred to a commission of inquiry for proper investigation. The hon. member for Etosha also emphasized the important work being done by the Weather Bureau. I agree with him. Weather conditions influence almost all human activities, and no proper planning can be done without taking weather conditions into consideration. Meteorological information is important for the tourist industry, water sources, health, recreation and sport, science and research as well as the requirements of the individual. The hon. member asked why the expenditure in respect of the Weather Bureau for the year has been decreased. I want to assure him that that is only in respect of certain staff members. There has been no curtailment of services whatsoever. In fact, the services of the Weather Bureau have rather been expanded.

The hon. member for Transkei spoke about places for stopping and places for pulling off the road. Such places for stopping and places for pulling off the road are already being introduced on existing national roads. At some places climbing lanes for slow-moving traffic are being built so that faster traffic can overtake slow-moving traffic.

Where?

At many places; particularly in Natal. As far as the Engcobo-Baziya road is concerned, this road is already under construction by a departmental ‘unit and should be completed at the end of the year. The basic planning in regard to the Baziya-Libode road has already been completed and the consulting engineers are still busy with the detail planning. R100,000 has already been made available this year for the construction of 51 miles of road south of Umtata. The work should commence some time during next year. As far as the road from Libode to Port Edward is concerned …

Port St. Johns.

Mr. Chairman, I am replying to the hon. member and if he does not want the reply I want to give him, then I am not going to reply any further. I just want to say that nothing has as yet been done to this road. It will pass through difficult terrain and it will cost a great deal of money. It will only be commenced with after the other roads we are working on have been completed. [Interjections.] I should like to know whether the hon. member wants a reply.

We want to know whether you can reply.

I am busy giving my reply. I have been courteous to all the hon. members and I do not know why this discourteous attitude should suddenly be adopted towards me. The 5½ miles south of Umtata will form part of a contract which will in all probability be given out this year still. As far as the road between Matatiele and Kokstad is concerned, that is outside the Transkei. The planning has been completed and negotiations are in progress with the Treasury for the necessary funds to be made available, since the money for these roads is provided by the Treasury and not out of the National Road Fund. The road between Brooks Nek and Bizana is not a national road. As far as the fencing is concerned, the National Transport Commission and the Department of Bantu Administration have agreed that the Commission will supply the wire and that the Department of Bantu Administration will have the fence put up and maintained. As far as the traffic control is concerned, that is a matter which falls under the provinces.

Sir, I hope I will not throw a pebble into the still pond which the hon. the Deputy Minister has been busy oiling, but I want to start off by saying that I believe that the Deputy Minister has not done his homework. Firstly, in response to an appeal by the hon. member for Green Point that the Road Safety Council should comprise persons who devote their full attention to it, the Deputy Minister says, “Of course, they do it, and if you can mention anyone who does not, then tell me about it”. Well, I want to help the hon. the Deputy Minister, and the first person I want to refer to is the chairman of that Council, who is sitting at the moment on his left, the Secretary for Transport, who apparently has nothing else to do, except for road safety, except being Secretary for Transport, chairman of the National Transport Commission, chairman of the Advisory Committee on Civil Aviation, in addition to doing a dozen other jobs, but otherwise he is engaged full time on the problem of road safety. I hope the Deputy Minister will not give us that sort of answer when a member on this side of the House raises a serious problem. Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Yeoville asked the Deputy Minister when the Marais Commission was due to finish its work and when he expected its report. The Deputy Minister’s Minister shrugged his shoulders and said, “I haven’t a clue; I have no idea.” The Deputy Minister had less than no idea. He did not have half a no-idea. Does the Deputy Minister not know that the Marais Commission has held its final public meeting in Pretoria this month, that it has no more public meetings scheduled; that it postponed some evidence which was to be heard in Durban and heard that evidence at its last meeting in Pretoria? Is the Deputy Minister in no contact whatsoever with that commission, because even we as members of the Opposition know that the commission hopes to compile its report within the next year? The Deputy Minister, whose commission it is, however, does not know. We in the Opposition have to tell the Deputy Minister what the position is and I tell him now so that he may answer the hon. member for Yeoville that his commission hopes to complete its work by about next August or September when it hopes to submit a report. That, Sir, is the measure of the homework which the Deputy Minister has done.

Now I want to come to his Department and draw attention to the fact that a very praiseworthy thing would have been done, if it had been done in the interests of efficiency and the conservation of money, and that is that the number of staff in the Transport secretariat has been reduced by exactly 100, from 294 to 194, so in true Parkinson’s law fashion the Deputy Minister or the Minister has now created a new position—or I assume that the Public Service Commission has created the position at the request of the Department. Because their staff has dropped from 294 to 194, it is now necessary to appoint a personnel manager to handle the 100 fewer people, so you have a personnel manager earning R5.775 a year in order to handle 194 people. The Minister also appoints himself a Deputy Minister. We therefore have a Minister, a Deputy Minister, a Secretary, three deputy-secretaries, three under-secretaries, two administrative control officers and seven administrative officers, all senior positions, but they cannot handle 194 people on the staff so they appoint a personnel officer at R5,775. This is not the sort of efficiency that we would expect, because I submit that this reduction of staff is to the detriment of South Africa and militates against a solution of the transport problems of South Africa. I put it to the Deputy Minister that there is seething discontent with the administration of civil aviation in South Africa. I put it to him that it takes up to four months—and in one case it took up to seven months—to get a reply to a letter to the Division of Civil Aviation. I put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister that in the field of civil aviation, the administration is still living at the pace of the ox wagon. In the one field in which we should be in the jet age, the one field where we are moving forward into the last part of the 20th century, the Administration is breaking down, and I challenge the Deputy Minister to deny that the administration of civil aviation is breaking down. If you talk to any person concerned with civil aviation, who knows anything about it, you will find that his one plea is that this administration should be divorced from the present Department and turned into a department which keeps up with the demands of the century and the demands of civil aviation. I would like to make an appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor (Mr. Sauer) and, before him, United Party Ministers, used to attend the meetings of the C.A.A.C., the Civil Aviation Advisory Committee so that they would know what was going on. Sir, I have here the report for this year, a report which, when you read it, sounds as though everything in the garden is rosy, as though everybody is happy. I put it to the Deputy Minister that if he were to attend those meetings he would find that this report—and I state it here as an undisputable fact—does not reflect the disagreement, the arguments and the discussions which take place in the C.A.A.C.; that in fact the non-Government members of that committee raise and discuss and debate with some heat matters which are reflected here in the report as though everybody was satisfied with the administration. I would like to appeal to the Deputy Minister to re-in state the old practice of personally attending these meetings, so that he can see for himself what civil aviation in South Africa really feels, really wants and really needs. Sir, I will tell you some of the things it needs. It needs, for instance, a divorcing of the control of civil aviation from its present red-tape hamstrung control by the Department of Transport: it needs a new organization, a new set-up, instead of the National Transport Commission for the hearing of licence appeals and matters of that nature.

When the Act was being amended I appealed to this House that reasons should be given so that people who appeared before the N.T.C. as objectors would know why applications were accepted or rejected. To-day only an applicant can get those reasons by applying, and as often as not he is told that no reasons will be given. Sir, some very strange decisions have been given but no objector, no interested party, can get any information. The decision is given and only the applicant is advised. [Time limit.]

I did not really wish to participate in the discussion under this Vote, but I feel I must say a few words after the antics of the hon. member for Durban (Point). The hon. member for Durban (Point) not only acted like a clown to-night, but also embarked upon a smear campaign against a senior official of the Department who is not in a position to defend himself in this Chamber. Mr. Chairman, when I launch an attack I like to cross swords with my adversary on an equal footing. Unfortunately, that does not correspond with the views of the hon. member for Durban (Point). For the information of the hon. member, I just want to put the matter straight, not to break a lance for a very able official, but to make it quite clear that the Secretary of the Road Transportation Board also acts as the Chairman of the Road Safety Council. That is an honorary position he has for which he gets no honorarium or remuneration. I should like to recommend that an allowance should perhaps be paid to the official concerned in future for the inconvenience he has to suffer in having to listen to such unfounded accusations here …

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to propose additional expenditure.

I submit to your ruling, Sir, and I want to ask the hon. member for Durban (Point) not to make such allegations against one of our senior officials in future again. I have had to deal with the Chairman of the Road Safety Council at local government level and I can testify that as Chairman of the Road Safety Council he has always acted in a dignified manner and rendered unselfish and loyal service. I trust that he will continue to render the magnificent service he is rendering in this sphere.

As usual, the hon. member who has just spoken, has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. It is typical of the Nationalist Party Government that when they are in a spot they try to turn the attack and present the picture in a completely different light. If that member could understand what I was talking about …

That “honourable” member.

Yes, this House gives him that title and I will give it to him. If that hon. member could understand what I was talking about he would know that I was making no personal attack on the ability of any official. My attack was made on the Deputy Minister for a statement which I stated was untrue. I was not attacking the abilities of any individual; I was dealing with the human impossibility of one person carrying out all the tasks which are imposed on this official, and if these hon. members had the slightest bit of sympathy for the public servants of South Africa, they would support us in trying to prevent the loading on to one individual of a cumulative series of responsibilities which no human being can possibly carry. Sir, I do not blame the official, but I blame the Minister and his Department. I blame the Minister for not realizing that it is impossible for one person to be a full-time expert on road safety, a full-time expert on the National Transport Commission for the granting of licences and exemptions and everything connected with road transport, and at the same time to be the genius of civil aviation. No human being can do those three jobs properly, and if that hon. member had been in this House a little longer, he would have joined me in trying to protect a civil servant from these unreasonable and quite unjustified demands which are being made upon him. The Minister would find that he would receive a great deal more assistance from the Secretary for Transport—even greater assistance than he is receiving at the moment—if he were to relieve the Secretary of Transport of this task of dealing with civil aviation and if he allowed him to concentrate on some of his other responsibilities.

I want to take this question of civil aviation a little further. I have here the latest report of the Civil Aviation Advisory Committee, and I want to refer to the question of the subsidy scheme, a subsidy scheme which is now being held to a mere R40,000 a year, and I want to ask the Minister to tell us why only R32,800 of this was spent; why, when there were 473 applications and there was sufficient money available, a surplus of R7.123 was unspent. In case the Minister tries to wriggle out of it let me say that that still leaves R5,000 when you have taken off the glider, for which an appropriation of R2,000 was made and which was not bought. I submit that more could have been done. This money was voted by Parliament; the applicants were available and the money should have been spent.

Now I want to turn to the question of navigational aids at our airports. This is a hardy annual; and I submit that this is another indication that civil aviation should be divorced from its present administrative control and should be given the opportunity to develop into the 20th-century Department which it ought to be. I have here the annual report to March, 1965; it is now August, 1966. but these are the latest statistics, the latest facts, available to us. Of course, the report has not been delayed because of overwork, but for some reason this report appeared some 16 months after the last statistics were made available. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister why we have not had a report for 1966. But allegedly there is no overloading of this Department. I say there is. I say his officials are overworked. I say that this Department has not enough staff, and I say that they are unable, physically, to cope with the work loaded upon them. That is the reason, I submit, why I have to quote now the figures going back to more than 14 months ago. Those figures reflect the installation of new navigational aid facilities at the various airports. I want to put it to the Minister that the Boeing 727s and Mirages fly at a combined approach speed of up to 1.500 miles an hour, and if the Minister should be in an aeroplane which meets a Boeing going in the opposition direction he will know what that means. If he watched two Boeings approaching he would realize the fraction of time those pilots have at their disposal to deal with any emergency. I submit that the time is past when we can plod along with R500,000, putting in navigational aids which, although good and necessary, do not provide the modern security and safety that only total radar control can provide. We now have air advisory channels, air-assisted airways, where there is radio control for those who want it, but at the speed at which a jet plane flies we should have to-day the positive control of radar—not just round the airport but for the whole of the flight from one airport to the other. I submit that when we take South Africans up into the air the control of the safety of that flying is a matter which should receive the total priority of the Department. In 1959-60 there were 49,000 landings made at our main airports. In 1964-5 there were 117,000. I submit that the navigational aids have not kept up either with that increase nor with the demands of modern jet flights. I submit that the reason for this is that civil aviation is being tagged along as a step-sister of Transport. Instead of being regarded as the forerunner of the new age, it is being treated as the step-sister. It is being carried along with the minimum which is necessary. But if you look at the registration of aircraft and at the part which civil aviation plays in our modern transport, it is not keeping pace nor playing its part in the development of the transport facilities of this country.

For the information of the hon. member for Durban (Point) I should like to make him understand very clearly that I not only understand English but that I am conversant in his home language.

I was not questioning your knowledge of language.

I want to give him the assurance that if he did not make a direct and very subtle accusation against this Government official, then I do not know what an accusation or an insinuation really means. As far as his sneering remark about a junior member sitting in the back benches is concerned, I would like to express the hope that after the many years the hon. member for Durban (Point) has sat in this House, by the time I have sat in this House so long I will never partake in debates on the political level that the hon. member for Durban (Point) has. (Interjections.) It is often said: There is method in your madness. I cannot understand the method in the political madness of certain members of the Opposition.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Vote now.

I just want to say that it is obvious that under this Vote which is now under discussion, the method in their political madness is simply this, that it is an attack on the new Deputy Minister of Transport.

On a point of order, Sir, are the words “political madness” parliamentary?

It all depends on whether it is an idiom or not. The hon. member may continue.

Under this Vote I should like to pay tribute to the hon. the Deputy Minister. The reaction he has caused on the part of the Opposition proves that he is going to be a very competent and able Deputy Minister and that he has a great future in this House.

There seems to be a good deal of confusion on the back benches on the other side. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat spoke of and accused us of lacking “method in our madness”. If I may also use the idiom, I accuse him of “madness in his method”. But I want to leave the hon. member at that, and I want to say that I am rather disappointed tonight. We are dealing with the Transport Vote tonight, and it is a Vote for which the Minister of Transport is responsible. This afternoon we on this side listened with interest to him as Leader of the House telling us that there were difficult times ahead, that there was a great deal of legislation and that we would have to work in the evenings. We then said that we would simply have to work in the evenings. I see hon. members on this side and hon. members on that side, but where is the hon. the Minister himself?

If we look at this Transport Vote, we realize—but I wonder whether the people outside realize it to the same extent—that this Vote deals with only a small part of the transport of the country. For example, this Vote does not deal with the Railways or the Airways or the bus services, and it does not deal with the thousands of motor-cars belonging to the provincial administrations.

But what does that have to do with the Vote? The hon. member must please leave aside those matters with which it does not deal.

Thank you for your guidance, Sir, and in view of that I shall not deal with the vehicles belonging to the post offices either. But in any case, if we read of the 84,000,000 miles performed, it only represents part of the large mileages performed by Government vehicles with which I want to deal. We find that the Department of Water Affairs performs high mileages per motor-car, and the same applies to the Department of Bantu Administration, which is actually the department that uses the largest number of motorcars. By the way, I see that the Government was so kind as to give the Transkei Government more than 300 motor-cars. Have they been paid for yet? Perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us about that. Nevertheless the figures are impressive: 84,000,000 miles are performed each year by 10,028 vehicles, and the book value of the vehicles is approximately R10,000,000, and this year no less than R4,000,000 is being requested for the purchase of more vehicles.

There are two things which I am particularly concerned about in regard to this Vote. The first is the large number of accidents in which Government vehicles are involved. We have heard a great deal tonight about what must be done in regard to road safety. I wonder to what extent the Government itself does its duty in that regard. During the latest financial year for which figures are available the 10,000 vehicles belonging to the Government were involved in no fewer than 1,600 accidents. Now, if 10,000 vehicles are involved in 1.600 accidents, it means that one out of every six of the vehicles belonging to the Government is involved in an accident each year. The other day we heard that the average for the year for the entire population is only one out of every ten. In that year accidents in which Government vehicles were involved cost the country R154,000.

The second is this, and it is an important one. It deals with ministerial vehicles, not only the aircraft, but more particularly the large black motor-cars, which have actually become the status symbol of the Government today. I think it is time the hon. the Minister kept this House and the country better informed about what is going on in regard to these ministerial vehicles. The last figures were made available to us almost five years ago, but at that stage already it appeared that for the 15 Ministers there were no fewer than 27 vehicles; 12 Cadillacs, nine Oldsmobiles, five Mercedes-Benzes, one Ford Galaxie—27 vehicles for 15 Ministers. I believe it is much more today. Can the hon. the Minister furnish us with the information in this regard? I think that basically it is wrong that more than one vehicle should be made available to a Minister, and if it should be that some of them have to get two—and I hear that some of them even have three—then I should like an explanation. By the way. I am not blaming the hon. the Minister of Transport, because he is one of the few people about whom I have not yet received many complaints in this regard. But I say that when an official vehicle is used for a political meeting or a Nationalist Party rally at the expense of the ordinary taxpayer, then that is wrong and indefensible. When a ministerial motor-car is used for other than official purposes, it is wrong.

I can assure the hon. the Minister that the people outside are concerned about these things. You know. Sir, our Members of Parliament make speeches and think that they have made a good speech, but then it is greeted in the newspapers with a deadly silence that one can cut with a knife. Yesterday I gave a newspaper an ordinary little report in regard to ministerial vehicles, and I wish I could tell you how many calls I have had and how many people got in touch with me in regard to that interview about what I called the use or, one could almost say, the misuse of ministerial vehicles. A person whom I do not know at all drove 100 miles to come and greet me here in the lobby today and say: “That is statesmanship.” And he is a Nationalist. No one has ever before called me a statesman, but it has happened today! The public is concerned and would like to be of assistance to the hon. the Minister of Transport in this regard.

Perhaps it is a case of auis custodiet ipsos custodes—who watches the watchman? If the public sees that improper use is being made of ministerial motor-cars, they would like to help in putting a stop to it, and to whom can they report it? Must they report it to the Prime Minister, or must they report it to me? I am certain that the Minister of Transport is also concerned about this matter and I hope that something will be done about it. because we all want to help to see to it that no improper use is made of these ministerial motor-cars. The poor man must pay more for his food and he must pay more for his train ticket, and while he is standing there in the street this shiny, black status symbol shoots past and splashes mud all over his clothes, and in the back of the car somebody is sitting in the lap of luxury smoking a large cigar. It is no wonder that the man in the street is saying today: Years ago I voted for that man, because I thought he was a friend of the poor man, but he is no longer that today. That vehicle in which he rides is today the juggernaut of the Haakenheimers which is riding us down. I hope that something can be done about this matter.

I want to deal with domestic affairs, matters concerning my area, and what has become a hardy annual relating to the East London Airport. I should like to say that at long last we seem to have taken one step forward in the development of that airport. The Public Works Department has progressed with the building of a new air terminal for East London. The new terminal, when completed, will bring East London at least three miles closer to its airport. I might mention that the old antiquated buildings are still serving their purpose and have done so for ever so long. It is to be hoped that once the new terminal has been completed, with the abolishment of the old buildings, the Department will see fit to lengthen the one air-strip on the airport. I speak particularly of the one running from north-east to south-west. This air-strip is too short for the high-speed aircraft using this runway today. I believe, and the public believes, that if it were not for the efficiency of our pilots, we would have had some nasty accidents on this run-way already. It is only due to the efficiency of our pilots that accidents have been avoided on this run-way. We all know that the East London airport serves as a link between Natal and the Eastern Province, and as a link between Natal and the Western Province, and generally serves as an artery in our coastline air route, and it is imperative that we should improve that airport with the least possible delay. I heard this afternoon—I stand open to correction—that the East London Airport when complete will be re-named, and it will then carry the name of Ben Schoeman Airport.

What? Before he is Prime Minister?

It has been mentioned here that he is not a Prime Minister. Here again I am open to correction, but if my memory serves me well, all the large airports of South Africa bear the names of ex-Prime Ministers.

Posthumously.

It would be creating a precedent if the East London Airport was named after the Minister of Transport. Nevertheless we do not know, it may be his intention to become Prime Minister in the near future?

Order! I do not see anything about the names of airports in these Estimates.

On a point of order, Sir, there is an amount on the Loan Estimates voting money for the building of the airport buildings. That is what the hon. member is referring to.

But there is no name mentioned here. The hon. member may continue.

We in the East London area would be filled with hope, because now at long last the Minister of Transport will possibly have some personal feelings towards East London, and devote his personal attention to improving the airport, which sorely needs attention.

While listening to the hon. member for Orange Grove I could not help recalling a certain article which I read in the Kruithoring before 1948 in which virtually the same things were said as he said in his speech to-night. At that time the hon. member pointed an accusing finger at the Ministers of the United Party who were driving about in large cars. Be that as it may, this is simply a habit of the hon. member and I do not want to help him to rid himself of it. Let him continue objecting to that in future, but I just want to correct the hon. member. The Department of Transport was paid for the cars which he said were given to the Transkei. The hon. member mentioned the accidents. The Government Garage has a fleet of 10,028 cars, and they were involved in only 1,634 accidents, 42 of which were cases of unauthorized use of the cars. This figure includes all accidents, however minor, even those accidents of which the police need not be notified in terms of the Motor Vehicle Ordinance and Regulations. That amounts to only one accident for every 45,000 miles performed.

I want to tell the hon. member for East London (North) that there has never been any request for the lengthening of the runway at East London and that there is no need to do so. The City Council of East London specially approached the Minister and asked him whether the airport might be named after him. He only consented because the decision to do so had been taken unanimously. But the hon. member probably does not know what is happening in East London, as he does not live there.

Then I wonder why the hon. member for Durban (Point) became so excited about me tonight. If he had only listened, he would have heard that I had not referred to the Road Safety Council but to its officials. But the hon. member made a fuss about the way in which we were allegedly over-burdening the Secretary for Transport. If the hon. member did his duty in this House and followed the proceedings of this House he would see that a Bill has been introduced in which the duties of the official concerned are being lessened.

Yes, but when did we get that.

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss legislation now.

The hon. member only appears to be cross but he is not really cross; afterwards he laughs again. He also resented the fact that I had not replied to the hon. member for Yeoville in connection with the commission of inquiry into the co-ordination of transport. But it is surely not my duty to ask a commission appointed by the Minister, when it was going to complete its work. These people are still hearing evidence. Let them take their time and finish when they like.

But are you not interested?

Yes. but I do not think this commission is taking too long over their work. They are doing a good job. We know Dr. Marais, the Chairman, as a person who will do a thorough job and I can give the hon. member the assurance that Dr. Marais will take no longer than is necessary to complete the work. Why then does the hon member for Durban (Point) expect me to give the hon. member for Yeoville the exact date by which the commission will have completed its work? Because I did not know when the commission’s report would be completed, he summarily accused me and said that that was proof of incompetence on my part.

As regards aviation, there is an advisory committee on civil aviation which represents virtually all aviation interests, and they have all seen the report referred to by the hon. member.

May I ask whether the Minister is prepared to attend those meetings so as to hear personally what is being said there?

Why should I attend them? We receive the minutes of the, meetings. This specific body is not the only one doing work connected with the affairs of the Department of Transport. There are many other bodies as well. Does the hon. member expect me, when I create the precedent of attending the meetings of one body, to attend the meetings of all the other bodies as well? Then the hon. member will be the first person to accuse me in this House of not doing my work as Deputy Minister.

The hon. member spoke about the Airways. I may be mistaken, but I think that it was the same hon. member for Durban (Point) who paid a growing tribute to the S.A. Airways in this House the other day for the safe and fine services it was rendering. However, I just want to tell him that it is unrealistic and not economically justified to cover our entire air space by radar. This is a large country and the density of our air traffic is relatively low.

Before the hon. the Deputy Minister resumes his seat, may I ask him a question? I asked how many ministerial cars were available to Ministers at present, why more than one was available in some cases, and whether he approved of that?

That does not fall under this Department. It falls under the other Departments which obtain the cars from us. The Department of Transport and the Government Garage only act as agents in providing cars to the other Departments.

Who then is responsible for the use of the cars?

The Departments concerned which have acquired the cars.

I put the Vote. Any objection? Agreed to.

No, Mr. Chairman. I was on my feet before you put this Vote.

No, the hon. member rose afterwards. Any objection?

On a point of order, Sir, you put the question, “I put the Vote. Any objection?”. The hon. member for Transkei then rose and said: “Yes”.

I said after that, “Agreed to”, and only then did the hon. member rise.

With respect, Sir, he did object to the Vote being put.

Did the hon. member intend making a speech or did he merely intend asking a question?

I intended making a speech, but now I shall only ask a question.

Very well, I shall allow that.

I want to ask the Minister a question in connection with the item “Purchase of motor vehicles, R4,060,000”. Does this amount cover the vehicles which are purchased for Ministers? Who approves the purchase of vehicles for the various Departments? Is it not this Minister?

Yes, it is.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says yes. Well, then surely the hon. the Deputy Minister must be satisfied that the different Ministers need the different vehicles. How many vehicles does he think each Minister requires?

One for the poodle.

Mr. Chairman, we accept what we are told by the other Departments as to what their requirements are. We do not ask them for particulars. We just provide the cars required.

Is no standard being applied.

Is the position then that a Minister having an official car can use it for whatever purpose he likes and this Department cannot interfere?

Look under the Prime Minister’s Vote.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 14,—Education, Arts and Science, R41,157,000.

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half-hour? I think we can now translate the House from transport on the ground to the serene atmosphere of education. I should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister, as is customary on this Vote, his annual report. We have in the past had occasion to comment on the appearance of the annual report of the Department of Education, Arts and Science, which has appeared timeously early in the year. This year there has again been no difficulty, and we have received the report as usual. In one respect it is a good report, and in another it is not. It is a good report because its statistical information is worth a great deal to us. The statistics that have been collected in this report will be of value to us throughout the year. But not only that. It will be of value to all the institutions with which the hon. the Minister is associated. I should like to congratulate the Department on that part of the report dealing with the collection of statistics. Where I think that the report is lacking, seriously lacking, is that there is no mention in this report of the Minister’s policy or even his comments on education policy. I think that is a very serious matter in an annual report. We look for a statement from the hon. the Minister in his annual report on what his prospects are for the following year, and a review of the work of the previous year. But all we receive is this statistical report.

Now, Sir, what is lacking on the Minister's report has been made good by another report, namely the Report of the National Advisory Education Council. That I regard as a remarkable report. It is a report of 27 paragraphs only. It is sold at 35c. It is a mine of information and I am exceedingly sorry that the hon. the Minister has not made any comment in his report on the Report of the National Advisory Council. When we agreed to the establishment of this council we looked forward to their research, to their meetings, and to their observations on the prospects of our new education of the future. I should like to comment on what these gentlemen have to say. I see that in last year’s Estimates we made provision for R40,000. This year the provision is for R41,520. If they can produce a report on their work this year, and accomplish as much this year as they did last year, it is cheap at the price. This is an excellent report. I should like to refer to certain items in this report. The Advisory Council has been tackling some of the most serious problems in South African education. One of these problems is the relationship between the provincial education departments and the Central Education Department. They say this right at the beginning of their report—

They say that they are encouraged by the progress they have made. Subsequently they make this observation, and here they are discussing very important matters—

The work referred to is the work of an ad hoc committee on the subject of “The Teacher”. For many years we have been concerned here about the position of the teacher in South African education. We have been concerned about his recruitment, his training, his emoluments, his status as a member of the profession. Now this council, by establishing an ad hoc committee, has carried out an investigation and has reached a stage where there has been a large measure of agreement. These ad hoc committees they have established have really accomplished very good work. But there is no observation, as I have said, in the Minister’s Annual Report on this work. I think it is very necessary that he should have said something. We have discussed the position of the teacher for many years. It is a serious position, especially for English-speaking people in this country. We have mentioned for years in debates in this House that, especially in the Transvaal province, which I know well, the situation is I can say desperate. We have not got English-speaking teachers. Now I have often, in response to that, heard the question: “Whose fault is that?” Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that it is not anybody’s fault particularly. But I will say that the Departments of Education can do a great deal to alleviate the position. For many years we have said that if a female teacher marries she must immediately leave the Department. She must give up her profession. Why? Because she now becomes a married woman. That does not apply to any other profession. It does not apply to the medical profession, the nursing profession, the legal profession, and it does not really apply in the Civil Service. That is what the position is in the Civil Service. I am quoting now from a resolution at one of the conferences of public servants. This is what was said there—

Now what is happening in the Transvaal is this, and I speak of the Transvaal because it is my own province and it is also the province of the hon. the Minister. We both know the circumstances there very well. We are told that in the Transvaal to-day if married women are employed it means that the young teacher leaving the training college will not be able to get a post. But that does not apply to English-speaking teachers. It does not assist us to say that teachers are bilingual. The hon. the Minister and I know what bilingual means. There are degrees of bilingualism. But when we are asking for a teacher, especially in a primary school, we want a teacher whose home language is the home language of the child. There is no section of the community that has put up a greater fight for that principle than the Afrikaans-speaking people themselves. They have been eminently successful. Well, Sir. I think that something will have to be done about this. We must try to employ teachers after they are married. Let me tell the hon. the Minister what is happening in other countries. In Britain and in Germany they are today asking married women in their thirties to come back to the teaching profession. They are pleading with them to come back. And they have gone so far as to say that if those women cannot leave their families, their small children, then two ex-teachers who were trained in their youth can share a class. One comes in for the morning and the other one for the afternoon. And that is being done in practice. The same thing is happening in Germany. All these efforts are being made to recruit members for the teaching profession. And, Sir, I am very interested indeed in the observations that have been made here by the National Advisory Council. But let us get on with the report. I will quote what they say on page 4. What they say on this page is the most important part of all, and I shall have to quote rather at length here because, in the three paragraphs to which I shall refer, every word is well-weighed and gives us information that is unobtainable elsewhere. They have a contact body, that is to say a body operating between the National Council and the heads of departments in the various provinces. It is the contact body of the executive committee of the National Advisory Education Council. This is what appears on page 4 of the report—

—that is the hon. the Minister—

But the hon. the Minister has not said a word about it. It was in August and September last year. There is not a word mentioned in this departmental report. There has been no statement by the hon. the Minister, as far as I know, in the Press. A draft Bill has been presented to him. There has been an opportunity for discussion at that level. Sir, the Report goes on to say this—

—they may not say too much because they are an advisory council only—

They may not say too much—

Mr. Chairman, this is something that we have been striving for for the last 40 years. Here is a constructive report to the hon. the Minister. It has been lying in his hands for a year, but nothing has been done about it. This House has not been made aware of the work that is being done. I quote further from the Report—

Now, Sir, I think that is going a bit too far. I do not think layman’s language is needed for the hon. the Minister, who is himself a distinguished member of the profession. I think the Report has gone a bit too far there. I think they had in mind there, I would not say the members of the staff, but the general public. Finally I want to quote this—

How are we to judge, Mr. Chairman? We have not seen the draft Bill. We do not know what the recommendations are. And the hon. the Minister has not given this Committee the information we should have received. I am exceedingly sorry. I want to say, coming back to this question of the supply of teachers which they have dealt with to my great satisfaction, that last year a delegation left the Transvaal to go to Britain and the Continent to recruit teachers, especially teachers of mathematics, science and English. They went off—and I have a report here from the Transvaal Department—with every possible inducement to teachers overseas to come here. There is no question now of being bilingual. They do not say now that you must be bilingual within three years or else you cannot go on the permanent staff. All that has gone. They said. “Give us immigrants, give us teachers.” They came back empty-handed. They could not get teachers. Why not? Because there was a scarcity in every country in Europe. They are better paid in those countries. It is a more rewarding profession in those countries. Therefore, Sir, we have to depend on our own resources. Regarding any steps the hon. the Minister is prepared to take—especially for English language education—he can depend upon the support of this side of the House.

Now, Sir, I should like to go on to another matter. There is not only the Report, because the Report finishes up on a very high note. The hon. the Minister would like this high note repeated. It says this—

Now, I think that is a magnificent statement of an advisory body that has been in existence a very short time.

In the short time at my disposal I should like to come to one or two other matters under the Minister’s control affecting him and his Department. I will take the first one. Two years ago the hon. the Minister sponsored an application for the establishment of a university at Port Elizabeth. The Committee will remember that those representations of the hon. the Minister were very favourably received by us. The introduction of that Bill was a departure from an old procedure. The old procedure for establishing a university, for example, the University of Natal, the University of the Orange Free State, Rhodes University, and Potchefstroom University for Hoër Christelike Onderwys, was that all these applications came to this House in the form of a private Bill, one not sponsored by the Government, but in the form of a private Bill. I should like to say in passing that where the hon. the Minister is prepared to sponsor an amending Bill, I agree with him. But I think the departure from the old system was unfortunate. Because, Sir, when a private Bill came to this House—as hon. members are aware—we followed the usual procedure in dealing with private Bills. It was referred immediately to a Select Committee, who reported to the House. It was a very pleasant experience, being a member of those Select Committees. I am sorry the hon. the Minister has departed from that procedure. I think he should give very careful consideration to whether he should not revert to the old procedure of introducing a new university by means of a private Bill.

What about the University of South Africa, Stellenbosch University and University of Cape Town?

They are in a different category. The name University of South Africa, as we have it today, is really a misnomer, because the original University of South Africa was not the University of South Africa we have to-day. I raised this question on one occasion in the House. The then Speaker ruled that the University of South Africa was sui generis. It was unlike any other university and therefore should have special treatment. That was the ruling of the Speaker, the late Mr. Conradie.

I should now like to come to another point, namely, the question of the organization of higher education in South Africa. Here I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to use his influence to assist us on this side of the House and this Committee generally in this matter of considering higher education in the country. If I may say so, I regard this hon. Minister as the senior Minister of Education. I say this because we have four Ministers of Education and in addition to that we are concerned with the Minister of Finance as well. The hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science is concerned not only with the higher education of White students but also with the education of non-Whites, i.e. of Indians, of Coloureds and of Bantu. They are still admitted to his universities. When I say “his” universities I refer to what we regard as the “White” universities. He knows that under Section 17 of the 1959 Act no White student may go to a non-White university college and that a non-White student can go to a White university only with the Minister’s consent. Here we have great difficulty when we deal with education and I should like the hon. the Minister to use his influence. Our difficulty is that we never know with which Minister we should deal. Let us look at the definition of “Minister” in the 1959 Act. I refer here to the Extension of University Education Act, 1959 (Act No. 45 of 1959). Let us see who the Minister is. Definition No. (ix) gives the meaning of “Minister” as follows—

1. (a) in any provision of this Act applying to a university college for Bantu persons or to a Bantu person, the Minister of Bantu Education, or the Minister of Bantu Education acting in consultation with another Minister in terms of a proclamation issued under Section 38; or
2. (b) in any provision of this Act applying to a university college for non-White persons other than Bantu persons or to a non-White person other than a Bantu person, the Minister to whom or the Minister to whom acting in consultation with another Minister, the administration of the provision has been assigned by proclamation issued under Section 38.

Now let us see what Section 38 says. Let us see whether that section tells us who the Minister is. It reads—

That is, however, not all because sub-section (2) provides that the State President may from time to time vary or amend such proclamation. Sir, I should like the hon. the Minister to give my suggestion serious consideration. My suggestion is that he should discuss with his colleagues a proposal that all forms of higher education for all races should come under the control of the Minister of Education, Arts and Science.

I want to start by congratulating the hon. member for Kensington on having been restored to the position of chief critic and main speaker on the Opposition side in regard to education matters. Previously, he had to leave this function to the ex-member for Hillbrow. I want to congratulate the hon. member on having been restored to this position. I also want to tell the hon. member that he has a safer past, politically, than the ex-member for Hillbrow. We could always refer the ex-member for Hillbrow to his previous speeches and points of view. But I have also come across a point of view of the hon. member for Kensington which has a bearing on what he had to say here to-night. All of us heard the hon. member speaking here this evening in great praise of the report of the Advisory Education Council. The hon. member said that it was a wonderful report and went on to speak in glowing terms of the council, which, according to him, is an eminent council which has rendered excellent services. I could not but think of a report which appeared in Hansard of May, 1963, in which the hon. member made a vicious attack upon the composition of that council …

Yes, on the composition of the council.

He berated the hon. the Minister at the time because, he said, the council was so badly constituted. I want for the moment to quote just one short sentence from his attack. He said: “The whole of the advisory council is academic.” That was his main criticism. He said that the entire council was objectionable and that we should have appointed people such as pharmacists and others to it. He mentioned, inter alia, the name of Dr. Van Eck. The people whom the hon. the Minister proposed to appoint were not acceptable to the hon. member.

But Dr. Van Eck is not a member.

Precisely, but the hon. member wanted him to be a member of the council. Allow me to tell the hon. member that he, like his party, was wrong again, as usual. The Government acted responsibly and correctly. We now have the results of that action and now the hon. member joins us in lauding the wonderful results that have been achieved although, when the composition of the council was originally discussed, he expressed the meanest criticism of it.

There is another point of criticism raised by the hon. member that I should like to discuss. The only criticism expressed by the hon. member in regard to the report of the Department of Education was that the hon. the Minister had not made any mention of policy in the report. He had not said what he was going to do. In fact, he told us nothing about his policy. That was what the hon. member alleged. But the hon. member for Kensington is, after all, a senior member of this House. The heading to this report indicates immediately that the hon. member was examining the report for things which it could not contain.

The report is by the Secretary for Education, Arts and Science and is submitted to the Minister. It is, therefore, the annual report of the Department to the Minister. How is it possible for a report of this nature to contain details of the policy of the Minister? I am sure that if the hon. member had read the heading to the report he would not have asked such a foolish question.

The next point of criticism raised by the hon. member was in regard to the employment of married women in the teaching profession. He specifically mentioned the province of the Transvaal and said that, as soon as a female teacher there married, she was unable to continue teaching. He then went on to refer to the position in England and in Germany. Apparently, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member knows more about the position in England and in Germany than in the Transvaal. Does he not know that the present position in the Transvaal is that, as soon as a female teacher marries, she may be appointed permanently for a further period of three years in the teaching service, and that this is done in order to retain her services? These teachers are appointed for a period of three years and in addition they have the security of knowing that they will not be given 24 hours’ notice to leave the service. Indeed, I think that the arrangements in this connection in the Transvaal are better than those in England and in Germany. However, the hon. member has fault to find with this practice because it is something which is our own. Mr. Chairman, I feel obliged to repeat that the hon. member’s approach to this matter was ill-considered. There is, for example, also the question of the new Education Bill. He mentioned the fact that the new measure had been submitted to the hon. the Minister last year but that, up to the present, nothing had come of it. The hon. member should try to contain his curiosity a little. That measure will be submitted to this House in due course. As is pointed out by the Advisory Education Council, this measure was provisionally drawn up in layman’s language. Its provisions have still to be converted into legal language, and once that has been done, the hon. the Minister will again have to deal with it and, in all probability, discuss it with various other parties. Only then will he be able to submit the measure to this House. After all, the hon. the Minister cannot come to this House with a half-baked measure and have it torn to pieces by the hon. member. There is ample time for that measure yet. The hon. member himself knows that we have not had a normal session year. We had only a short session at the beginning of the year and hon. members opposite made a great fuss here this afternoon because it is the Government’s intention to have so much legislation passed during this Session. Imagine the fuss they would have made had the Government introduced this measure as well! Mr. Chairman, the hon. member was quite unable to pass legitimate criticism of these matters. However, I should like now to leave this matter and the hon. member at that.

I should like to express a few ideas which I think are necessary in our general approach to education. The four pillars of education, the four pillars upon which education in South Africa and in every other country must rest, are the child, the teacher, the parent and authority. I should like to deal briefly with each of these pillars, although I do not think that time will permit me to discuss all four of them now. I shall therefore return to them at a later stage. The first pillar that I want to deal with is authority and its task in education. The function of authority is to determine the policy in regard to education in its particular country. Authority has to determine this policy and the policy has to be determined on a national basis. With our having become a Republic on 31st May, 1961, the time when we existed as four separate provinces and approached the question of education accordingly, came to an end for good. On that day we as it were outgrew the shoes of our constitutional childhood and, by so doing, reached the stage of constitutional maturity and adulthood. Now that we have a Republic with its own spirit and its own character, it is the task of authority to lay down a policy on a national scale and to determine a national basis on which education in our country must be applied. Nor is it strange that this should be so. I should like at this juncture to quote from the “Survey of Education”, a Unesco publication, and I want to refer specifically to Israel. Israel does not simply place its education on the broad basis in terms of which the child is expected merely to learn to read, write and count. On the contrary. The authorities in Israel believe that there is a specific task to be performed by education. This report puts it as follows—

If this is true of the Israel of to-day and the circumstances under which she exists, then it is a hundred times as true as far as the Republic of South Africa is concerned. It is a hundred times more applicable to our country that we should not merely educate our children in the usual way in order to equip them for everyday life but that we should equip them specifically to be fully prepared to meet the problems of South Africa and the future development of our Republic. I therefore believe that as far as South Africa is concerned, our education policy must be determined on a broad national basis.

It must, moreover, be laid down in legislation. At the moment we do have no Education Act, but we know that legislation in this regard will be forthcoming next year. We look forward to that legislation providing for a broad policy for our education. After a national basis has been laid down for our education, a further task of the State is to ensure that that policy is carried out. This, together with the provision of the necessary funds, is the main task of authority in respect of education. The State must, of course, also take the initiative as far as research into education is concerned.

I come now to the task of the parent, a task which I see as one of being co-responsible. I feel very strongly about the fact that parents in South Africa are too inclined to regard education as the task of the authorities and of the authorities only. The result is that our parents are not sufficiently positive and active as far as their approach to and interest in education are concerned. I am not talking about interest in the sense of going to watch a football match in which their children are playing, but interest in the spirit prevaling in our schools. To my mind the school must be a replica of the home. In my opinion, therefore, the school must be a substitute for the home. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Randfontein referred to certain criticisms which the hon. member for Kensington originally made against certain appointments to the National Advisory Education Board. But I believe that the hon. member for Kensington has been big enough to acknowledge that and to give credit where credit is due. However, I trust the hon. member for Randfontein will forgive me if I do not follow his trend of thought further because my time too is limited, and there are other aspects with which I want to deal. First of all, I should like the Minister to give more information about sub-Vote K. particularly about the item “Post-doctoral fellowship posts”, for which R30,000 is required to be voted. Then under sub-Vote L under the heading “Youth Services” I notice there is an increase of R50,000 in the amount to be voted. The explanatory note at the bottom of the page says the total amount to be voted, i.e. R75,000, includes R50,000 for an immigrant youth scheme. Will the Minister be good enough to enlarge on these two items?

The hon. member for Kensington referred to the position of teachers, a matter which I should like to pursue from the standpoint particularly of salaries. During the Budget debate and from a question which I put to the Minister in this respect, I learnt that the total overall average salary increases which teachers had enjoyed between the years 1948 and 1966 was 170 per cent. I realize that when one comes to deal with an overall average it is a complex subject and that to break it down would require a great deal of time and examination. I feel, however, that there are certain aspects to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister. First of all, I should like to take grade D, i.e. male school teachers who took a four-year course after having attained matric. Here the position is that the minimum notch in 1966 shows only an increase of 127 per cent over that of 1948, whilst the maximum notch of 1966 shows an increase of 116 per cent over that of 1948. These are teachers who are mostly allocated to our secondary schools. They form an important and vital part in our education but it is obvious that their salaries fall below the average the Minister has given. When we come to grade B teachers, i.e. teachers with a two-year course after matric., we find that their minimum notch for 1966 shows an increase of only 108 per cent after 18 years and the maximum notch one of 98 per cent. I believe there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction still amongst the teaching profession at the manner in which these increases have been implemented. I have been advised that on no occasion has a teacher been granted the full notch and that many, in fact most, teachers did not derive benefit from the new notches immediately. I am also told that in 1963 an undertaking was given that a permanent committee would be set up, apparently, it was suggested, along the lines of the Burnham Committee in the United Kingdom. This committee would periodically review conditions under which teachers were working and deal primarily with their salaries. It has been suggested that this is a subject which can be dealt with by the National Advisory Council but according to my information from the teaching profession it would appear that the teachers themselves are not happy that this particular body should perform that function. In other walks of life we have the position where both employer and employee can discuss salaries and reach agreement. We have that position under the labour legislation and it seems as if that arrangement is working reasonably satisfactorily. In the teaching profession, however, no such facilities exist and I believe that teachers would feel much happier if a body on which the Department and the teachers themselves are represented more or less equally could arrive at some arrangement acceptable to both.

There is another matter to which I want to refer, a matter which has recently enjoyed a certain amount of publicity in the Press. This relates to the question of indoctrination. There have been reports in the Press, reports which are looked upon as disturbing to our system of education in South Africa, in which responsible people, in one instance a member of a Provincial Council, have indicated quite openly that that they are of the opinion that it is easier to indoctrinate pupils in Afrikaans schools. Reference has also been made to the emphasis which has been placed on the teaching of history and it has been suggested that history can form the ideal subject as a means of indoctrination. There is ample evidence, for all the world to see, in a book which has been published recently entitled “The Power of Prejudice in South African Education”. The author of this book has conducted a very complete inquiry, an inquiry devoted mainly to teaching conditions, books, reference books, etc., in the Transvaal. This inquiry has indicated, I believe, there is a great deal left to be desired in the manner in which history is being taught in the various schools of the Transvaal. I raise this matter because I believe it is one of serious national importance. It is one which concerns the immigrants coming to South Africa. Here again we have had expressions of opinion from the Afrikaans Press showing a certain anxiety, an anxiety which seems to be spreading, in so far as the language medium chosen by immigrants is concerned. Dagbreek referred to this and has predicted that in the next decade roughly 102,000 new South Africans will be educated with English as their medium in comparison with approximately 8,000 who will be educated in Afrikaans schools. I want to say with all the eloquence at my command, that surely the …

Order! The hon. member is now raising a provincial matter.

I am referring to the question of mother tongue education. I was coming to the question of what effect it was having on South Africans as a whole. I believe that as far as South Africans as a whole are concerned our whole object with new immigrants should be to make them good South Africans, irrespective of the language in which they have been educated. They must be good South Africans first.

Order! That is not the point. My ruling was that you are now raising a matter falling under the provincial councils.

I have also raised the manner in which history is being taught in the Republic of South Africa, not only from a provincial point of view but in the Republic as a whole. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the fact that I am rising now only to be interrupted a few minutes later, and therefore I shall not attempt now to reply to what the hon. member who has just resumed his seat said in regard to indoctrination in Afrikaans-medium schools or in regard to the attendance of immigrant children at English- and Afrikaans-medium schools. I shall do so on a later occasion.

The importance of our education is reflected in the fact that during the period 1948 to 1965 the Central Government made the sum of R1,412,000,000 available to the four provincial administrations for education. The amount in the case of the Transvaal was R670,000,000, for the Cape R485,000,000, for the Free State R134,000,000 and for Natal R123,000,000. The amount voted by the Department of Education for White education alone for the year 1964-5, i.e. for a period of 12 months, was R271,000,000. I am mentioning this merely by way of introduction to indicate to what extent we realize how important education is.

In the annual report of the Department of Education, Arts and Science, a report about which the hon. member for Kensington had almost nothing good to say, I find that a few surprising facts are revealed, facts which are closely related to the direction which education is taking under the new dispensation. With a view to the continually changing labour pattern and our man-power requirements, emphasis is being laid on the optimum development of the capacities of every serviceable person. Ever higher demands are being made on the intellect as well as on knowledge. It is the function, task and duty of the Department of Education, Arts and Science to see to it that these requirements are met. The worker must remain a student throughout his career. He must keep on studying, a fact which has also been emphasized, inter alia, by the Transvaal Director of Education. He demanded of teachers that they should keep on studying. It is for that reason that refresher courses have practically become an established practice. In this regard I want to refer to the compulsory refresher course of the Department of Education, Arts and Science for all mathematics teachers which was attended by 156 teachers last year. Vocational education is no longer the work of an instructor. Here I am quoting from the annual report of the Department of Education, Arts and Science. It is no longer a question of merely teaching children a trade, but it is the work of teachers who have to educate children where the education is directed more at the child than at the trade. In addition more interest is being taken in the child as such than in the labour or in the fruits of the labour. I want to point out that five and three year training courses for apprentices can now be reduced to three and one-and-a-half years, respectively, provided that academic or technical certificates are obtained beforehand. These are all drastic changes made in order to meet the requirements of industry in respect of man-power, and it is in the first instance also the task of education to see to it that man-power receives the necessary training so that it can meet the demands being made on it.

At this stage I want to express a few thoughts about the opportunities which are being offered to older people to become artisans, such as in the case of the National Trade School for artisans at Westlake. There are certain spheres of employment which inevitably reject valuable labour resources from time to time and then one finds a breadwinner who sighs and asks where he can make a new start and what he can do. He then asks himself whether at his age he will have to sell his labour on the open market for unskilled labour for a consolation wage, and that while he is a man with three or four or more children. I thought that the hon. Minister for Bantu Administration, who has just asked whether that is all, would have used that word which he mentioned in the shortest telegram which has ever gone to a wedding, i.e. “seven”. In any case, these people are in most cases in possession of a Standard 8 or Standard 10 certificate. The spheres of employment from which these men have from time to time been rejected and will in the future still be rejected are, inter alia, the mining industry and agriculture. In the mining industry this happens when further exploitation has become unprofitable and in agriculture it happens when droughts such as the present one compel young farmers to go to the cities either permanently or temporarily.

The hon. member for Kensington, in his short talk yesterday, referred to the shortage of teachers and particularly the shortage of English-speaking teachers. I want to say a word or two about that and I want to make an appeal here this afternoon to the English-speaking people of this country to come forward and to provide more teachers from their own ranks. I think the time has come when the English-speaking people of this country must take stock of the position in the English-medium schools especially and in the higher education department of our educational system. There is no doubt that the Afrikaans-speaking teacher has stepped into the breach to a great extent, but if we want to preserve English in this Republic as an official language; if we want to be able to teach English as a language, and teach it properly; if we want English to be used in this country and for communication and dialogue outside this country, then it is up to the English-speaking people to see that their children are taught properly by English-speaking teachers in the schools. I appeal to the English-speaking people to come forward immediately to fill the breach. Sir, if they do not do this we are going to have a repetition of some of the utterances that we have heard of late, coming from people in provincial councils and even from the hon. the Deputy Minister without a job, the only unemployed one in this House, the hon. member for Heilbron, when he had so much to say about the use of the English language in some of the most important bodies in this country. However, more will be said about that at a later stage. I am sure, Sir, that if I continued along those lines you would rule me out of order.

I want to refer for a moment or two to the shortage of engineers in the country. I want to quote from Southern Africa, which has reproduced an extract from the report of the Commission of Inquiry into the methods of training for university degrees in engineering—

Then we come to the last paragraph which says—

This proposal is that non-Whites should be allowed to enter the White universities for training in engineering. The hon. the Minister has by permit allowed non-White medical students to enter White universities. Even that, as the position stands to-day, is most unsatisfactory; there is not a sufficient flow of students. I want him now to see whether he cannot also allow non-Whites—Bantu, Indians and Coloureds—who wish to enter a White university for a degree in engineering, to continue their studies in the engineering faculty. I do not think it is sufficient to allow only those who have a B.Sc. degree to enter the universities. I think non-White matriculants should be allowed to enter a White university immediately after matriculation to study engineering and not only after they have already gained a B.Sc. degree with, say, biology, as a major subject. A B.Sc. (biology) degree, for instance, would entitle a student to enter university with a view to taking an engineering degree. Sir, the hon. the Minister must give this very serious thought because the whole idea of separate development is a farce unless the necessary services can be provided by the people for whom he is establishing special areas. The whole philosophy of the Nationalist Party is that the different ethnic groups must look after themselves. If a Bantu to-day enters one of the tribal university colleges, it will take 15 years before he can become an engineer. To-day the tribal university colleges have White lecturers. It would take a Bantu student five years to qualify as an engineer, if these colleges had engineering faculties. It would require another five years of experience for him to become a lecturer and it would then take the student five years to qualify, so it will be 15 years before Bantu, Indian or Coloured students could become engineers under the present circumstances. I think it is totally wrong. If you want to build up separate nations in this country then you should give them a chance to prepare for themselves now.

I also read with interest in this Strasszacker report that they found, when they studied the number of ballotees in the army who had been called up, that there was quite a considerable number who, when they entered the army, wished to take up engineering, but after they had completed their period of military service they changed their minds. That is a very serious state of affairs because you are losing many engineers. I say that if a ballotee has a flair for engineering he should be drafted into a unit which has an engineering background, so that when he leaves the army he will still have a desire to take up engineering. Not enough money is being provided by the Government for these courses. There are many young men and women who would like to take up engineering but because of the expense they are unable to do so. I would ask the Minister to provide more and bigger bursaries to these people who wish to enter the faculty of engineering at any of our universities in the Republic.

In order to be equipped for the engineering faculty it is necessary to have a proper grounding in mathematics. The Minister knows as well as I do that the greatest shortage of teachers throughout the whole of our educational system is in mathematics. We have not got enough mathematics and science teachers. I would urge him to make mathematics a compulsory subject for every matriculant. When the child enters secondary school he should be told that if he wants higher education he will at all times have to have a good grounding in mathematics. The universities will not accept students in the medical, engineering and dental faculties unless they have mathematics, so why not make mathematics a compulsory subject at school? The Minister must see to it that there are sufficient teachers to teach mathematics and science.

In the short space of time I have left, I want to ask the Minister to do more for research at our universities. The amount of money that is being provided for research today is the minimum amount. It is probably a quarter of what is being provided for research in other countries.

Mr. Chairman, please allow me not to reply to the speech made by the previous speaker. I think that is customary. I just want to bring it to your notice that I did take my courage in both hands last night and got up here, but unfortunately you did not see me. As that had to be a maiden speech, I feel that to-day’s speech has somewhat missed its date. You know, here in the Boland we refer to a Wednesday night as a small Saturday. Such a maiden speech would most certainly have been much more appropriate last night. I suppose I shall therefore not be able to be quite as good now as I was then.

Mr. Chairman, as is customary, I want to thank you for your kindness and for the general spirit of friendliness we have met with here, with the result that we are already at home. I am fully aware of the fact that there is a great deal in which we are not yet at home.

I should also like to pay tribute to my predecessor, the previous member for the Swellendam constituency, Mr. Freddie van Eeden. I know that it is an honour to represent Swellendam here. I should have liked to say a great deal about this fine constituency which I represent, and to proclaim its virtues. It is the southernmost constituency in the country, with beautiful natural scenery, a rich history and a fine tradition. But I fear you would stop me if I overstepped the narrow limits of this debate. Nevertheless, I cannot fail to pay tribute to the mainly farming community in whose service I am to-day. You know, Sir, that it is an independent part of our country, with a spirit which developed as early as the days of the East India Company. I hope education is relevant to this debate. I also want to pay tribute to the farmers, because self-reliance is a characteristic of that region, and as we are in the fortunate position of having a climate which does not compel the farming community to avail itself of so many of the resources that are provided by this Government in emergencies, it is a fact that this community does not avail itself of those resources, and they do that because there is a true spirit of independence among the farmers.

But I should like to plead for a chair in Water Affairs, and here I come back directly to the interests of my constituency, namely water. It is interesting to know that the Swellendam constituency is probably one of the constituencies with the most abundant supply of water in our country, and because we are concerned with water in all its various facets—it is an area where irrigation is practised on a large scale—we also have our difficulties with alkalinization and with erosion in the hills, and flooding. We also have to deal with a shortage of water, but I suppose I dare not speak of that now. But we also have to deal with other factors, and that is that our water supplies are threatened by great complexes like Cape Town. Cape Town is looking at our water supplies with covetous eyes. We are not afraid of our water going wasted, but we are in fact interested in the way this water will be utilized. If it is utilized in the best possible way, we are sure that enough water will be left for us. That is my plea this afternoon.

We are aware of the fact that the various water departments of the major cities and also the staff of Water Affairs are nowadays drawn mainly from the engineering faculties at the various universities in our country. Those persons are trained for a task which is not quite suited to what is demanded nowadays by the various departments of water affairs. As water has become such an important factor in our country—in fact, it has become the weakest link in our entire economy—it is important that these supplies should be used in the best possible way, and that we should not merely concentrate on building large dams. The engineers are well qualified for that, and also to provide pipelines to bring the water to the urban complexes, and to cope with sewage. But when it comes to the re-utilization of water there is certainly a deficiency in the training of the students who will later fill these positions. You know that knowledge is strength, and if ever that was true, it is certainly true in the times in which we live. Where a poor year as regards rainfall, and consequently a drought, is no longer something about which only the farmers complain, but where the wolves are baying at the very door of John Citizen, it is surely not inappropriate to plead now that everything possible should be done in order to undertake the most advantageous utilization of water. The previous speaker has also mentioned the report of the Strasszacker Commission, and I should like to quote one recommendation from it in support of my argument. This is what they say about a basic chair in Hydrology in its widest sense—

Then follows what they mention under that: physical oceanography, surface and ground water hydrology, sanitation (which includes water conservation and supply, water and sewage purification. They also include hydraulics, including river and coastal engineering and flood control. I feel, however, that no matter how much we should like to have this faculty, this recommendation does not go as far as we should like it to go. We should like to see the study relating to agriculture, which is of considerable concern to our country and in which I, as a farmer, am of course most interested, included. We now feel that this faculty may surely be coupled with one of the three universities that already have engineering faculties. But we also realize that no matter how essential this may be, it will be an expensive proposition, and therefore we do not lightly plead this cause. But we also want to point out that if the Central Government is not prepared to undertake anything of the kind under the present circumstances, large concerns, for example municipalities and industry, may be drawn in order to establish such a chair. But I feel that this is the opportune time, because the entire country realizes now how much water means to us. I want to put it this way, that I believe that the general public, despite inflation, will support this undertaking.

The honour has fallen to me this afternoon to congratulate the hon. member for Swellendam on his maiden speech. We listened with interest to what he said. I support his plea for a Chair of Hydrology and I am sure that when we get round to the Water Vote we can anticipate a positive contribution from the hon. member.

I want to talk this afternoon about the subsidies or grants-in-aid granted to the parents of children attending educational institutions under the control of this Minister. A little while ago the Natal Education Department was approached by parents of pupils attending the Technical College at Pietermaritzburg, and were asked permission for their children to use the bus provided by the Administration for transporting their children to provincial schools in Pietermaritzburg, these children being those who attended the Technical College there. The Natal Administration inquired of the Secretary for Education, Arts and Science whether they would join in the scheme provided by the Natal Administration, whereby a bus was subsidised to transport these children and to share the cost of this bus service on a basis proportional to the number of children for which each Department is responsible. The reply received from the Department was “the transport of pupils of departmental vocational schools is the responsibility of the parents. Wherever the financial position of the parents warrants special consideration, application may be made for transport bursaries”.

Dealing with the first part of this reply, that it is the responsibility of parents to transport the pupils enrolled at these technical colleges, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether there has recently been a change in the policy of his Department. I refer particularly to a report in the Natal Mercury of 19th August, 1966, which states that the Minister had approved a subsidy to provide a bus to convey students enrolled at the Technical College at Pietermaritzburg from and to their homes in the Cato Ridge area. Will the Minister please indicate to this House whether this report is correct? If the report is correct, will he indicate whether there has in fact been a change in his policy, and whether he has in fact agreed to subsidise a bus for the transport of these scholars? I raised this point because this is something I have felt should be done, not only for the people in my constituency but throughout the country.

Dealing with the second part of the reply received from the Department and the reply given by the Minister to a question put by me in this House yesterday, that transport bursaries may be granted to pupils in need of financial assistance, let me say that from personal observation I would say that none of the parents, particularly those involved in the case I referred to, are in a financial position which would warrant special consideration under generally accepted conditions, and if normal tests were applied, namely the normal tests in regard to income and financial status. However, when the special circumstances which apply in that area are considered, I submit that they do warrant special consideration, and I am sure these special circumstances apply in other areas as well. I am sure those circumstances are not confined only to our particular area. The circumstances I refer to are these. These children live anything up to 20 or 25 miles away from the Technical College. There is no other secondary school closer to where they live. There is no convenient public conveyance that the pupils may use, and I understand that the hostel at the Pietermaritzburg Technical College is full. These children have no other way of obtaining any higher education at all. Under those circumstances I submit that every parent, irrespective of his financial circumstances, deserves special consideration. The cost of transporting a child 80 miles a day—that is what it would amount to if you take them in the morning and bring them back in the afternoon—by car is prohibitive. I repeat that irrespective of the financial position of the parents, they do in these circumstances warrant special consideration.

I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider the position that I have explained and to request that he should reconsider his policy, if he has not already done so, his policy in regard to the transportation of pupils to departmental vocational schools. I submit that the Department should assist parents under exceptional circumstances and I urge that the Minister should reconsider also the offer made by the Natal Provincial Administration that they share transport costs on a per capita basis and also to consider an extension of this principle throughout the Republic in the interests of the better education of our children and consequently for the better advantage of our country. Experience has shown that when any difficulty is experienced in the education of their children, some parents tend to allow these children to terminate their education at too early a stage; that is to say, at a stage when they are not yet sufficiently trained to make a useful contribution to the advancement of our country. Especially in the field of technical education, they have not yet advanced to the stage where they can make a positive contribution. If these difficulties are removed, particularly the transport problem that I have referred to, I am sure that we will have more educated people able to make a practical contribution towards the advancement of our country.

I know that the hon. the Minister will, as some of his colleagues have done, tell us that once again we are asking the Government to spend more money after having criticized the Budget as inflationary. But, Mr. Chairman, I submit that any money expended on education cannot be termed inflationary. This I submit is an investment, a first class, long term, gilt edged investment, an investment in our greatest asset—the young people of this country who will be able to step up productivity, which, I think we all agree, is the permanent answer to our inflation problem.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) must forgive me if I do not follow his argument. It seems to bear more particularly on local affairs.

I want to refer, however, to one minor matter the hon. member for Rosettenville mentioned, and that is the fact that all pupils should be compelled to take mathematics as a subject. Sir, if the hon. member had said that everybody who has an aptitude for mathematics should be compelled to take that subject, I would agree with him. But to force everybody into that crush-pen, no matter whether or not such a person has an aptitude for the subject, will lead to frustration, and we will keep people away from other fields where we also need them.

In previous debates during this Session of the House, and also during this debate, there was a great deal of talk about the manpower shortage in South Africa, how it would affect our industrial expansion, and how it would also hamper our economic progress. Some pleaded for more funds, for the training of more people, and the scientific and technological development in the world and also in South Africa was emphasized, and also everything we should do to keep abreast of that development. The theme throughout was: Training and training once again, training of the available potential, special training in this or that direction; everything aimed at having technically well-qualified people, people who can keep the wheels of industry rolling, people who can produce not only to meet the increasing needs of the domestic population, but also to meet the needs of the export market. The Department of Education, Arts and Science is also fully aware of this need, and in particular the need that has resulted from our rapidly developing conditions. I quote the following from the Annual Report to bring to your notice the awareness of the position as seen by the Department—

And then, further—

The Department is aware of the need and of what should be done. We ask for it, industrial leaders and business men discuss it, demand solutions and float schemes. The Department itself remains well-informed, and I quote from the Annual Report again—

This awareness of the needs and the concentration on the provision of trained workers for every possible field of labour or crafts has actually become an obsession with us. It is also correct, Mr. Chairman, that we should plan, financially and otherwise, that we should provide and expand the training facilities, that new courses should be offered and obsolete courses eliminated. But in saying all these things, there is something very important which we should not forget, and that is that we should maintain the correct perspective and the correct balance in this entire process of training and education. There is the danger that the final product of our training process will be what I shall call, for lack of a better phrase, “a human robot”: Technically highly-skilled people, hard on the track of every possible new development, and even creators of new directions and new inventions, but alas, not human beings in every sense of the word. In saying that I do not want to level the charge at the Department that their education process is not directed towards the entire human being, and that the training offered by the Department is only directed towards trades and crafts, and is not also directed towards pupils and students. I am actually overjoyed to be able to quote from the Department’s report in order to demonstrate how the Department views its task. I quote from page 1—

And then this important sentence—

I quote a further extract, Mr. Chairman—

And then this last quotation, in which it is pointed out that the selection of teachers who are to train apprentices, should be carried out much more carefully, and then the following is said amongst other things—

To me that is most important, because it is of no use to supply only well-skilled, well-qualified technicians and technologists in South Africa. We also want fully-trained people, because if they are not fully-trained, if the entire human being has not been educated, then those technicians are surely going to bring us problems in future. I am very glad that the Department views its task in that light, and that the Department is moving in that direction. It should adhere to that course. To produce artisans will not be very difficult, but to educate the human being to the full in these rapidly developing circumstances, to educate the entire human being, that will be the real problem. All we can ask the Department is to adhere to the course that has been indicated, so that the product of our training process may still be recognizable as a human being. We should still see him as a human being in the full sense of the word and we should not have here what an American visitor once told me. If one visits the campus of an American university, one sees many people, and if one were to select one of them and observe him, “one would not be able to distinguish whether he is animal, vegetable or mineral!” May that never be true of our country. Let it be true that at the other end, after the training process, we shall still be able to recognize the human being.

I should like to pursue the hon. member for Germiston’s train of thought. On a previous occasion in this Session I have had the opportunity of drawing attention to the importance of scientific research in South Africa, and I should like to revert to this matter, although in a changed context. I want to confine myself to the humanities. As this concerns the policy of the Minister and his Department, I think it pertains to the Vote under discussion. I also want to say that it is mere coincidence that I should be adopting this course for the second time, and I can assure you that on later occasions I shall also venture into other fields.

What I should like to submit to this Committee and what I should also like to motivate, is that there are at present certain confusions that have a hampering effect on our research attempts in the humanities. What I should like to submit to the hon. the Minister is that he should consider appointing a commission of inquiry at the opportune time, to inquire into the whole matter and to submit recommendations to him. From the nature of the case, this commission of inquiry, should, I think, try primarily to determine the value and the use of the research which is being undertaker at present in various fields. Secondly, it will have to make recommendations on how the arrangements which at present serve to co-ordinate this research, may be improved. You will also remember that at its recent annual meeting the S.A. Akademie decided to recommend that a national research council for the humanities be established. That matter will also have to be investigated.

I think it is beyond doubt that research in the humanities is probably just as important in South Africa as research in the pure sciences. From the nature of the case, developments in the social humanistic field determine what course we shall adopt in future. It is surely the constitution of our personality, the structure of our temperament and the set of values we adhere to that determine how we think and consequently how we act on social and political levels. It is the application of our human abilities that determines our productivity level and that may consequently lead to further economic progress. All these matters pertain to the field of the humanities. Hence their importance.

But I want to take the matter even further. Research in the pure sciences and findings in respect of them are usually immediately transferable. If any fundamental principles in the pure sciences are determined overseas, we surely find that they are universally applicable. In the humanities that is not the case, because the cultural, the social and the communal milieu is completely different. If they developed a new telescope in Germany, for example, we may obtain the specifications or buy the patents for it. But if they carried out a study on labour turnover in Britain, for example, it would be of very slight significance to us. If they carried out an analysis of industrial relations in America, it would quite probably elicit little interest here, because the background factors are completely different If we therefore want information in this particular field, we have to collect it ourselves.

But. Sir, I also want to put it in a different way. We are on the brink of a great breakthrough in the field of research in the humanities. New methods of research, new resources, are at hand. We are thinking, for example, of the electronic computers which will play just as important a part in the humanities as the microscope plays in the study of biology. New methods of analysis, for example the depth interview, new methods of training, for example programmed instruction and the language laboratory, have come into being. If we do not want to be left behind, we should see to it that we keep a close watch on these developments.

It is true that a great deal of research is already being undertaken in this field. We think of our universities, of our public departments, of certain great industrial undertakings and of certain important research organizations, for example the Bureau for Social and Educational Research and the Personnel Research Institute of the C.S.I.R. The problem is that the efforts of all these bodies are at present not always fully integrated. Then there is also overlapping. In view of the restricted manpower at our disposal, overlapping of this nature should of course be eliminated. This points strongly to the entire idea and the concept of such a national research council for the humanities.

I may also just mention that Britain found herself faced with exactly the same problem. Consequently we find that as long ago as 1946 they appointed a commission of inquiry, namely the so-called Clapham Commission. After they had inquired into the matter, they came to the conclusion that the establishment of such a council could not be justified. Since then they have appointed the Heyworth Commission, which reported last year. After they had gone into the whole matter once again, they came to the conclusion that the creation of such a research council was not only desirable, but that it had become a matter of urgent necessity. I may just mention that the reports of both of these commissions are available and that they contain most interesting information which may serve as a valuable guide if we were to proceed to establish a body of that kind.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to pursue the matter any further at this stage. What I have submitted to you is quite remote from the party-political context, of course. It is something which is in the national interest, and in that spirit I have presented it here. I hope and trust that at a suitable opportunity the Minister concerned will give his favourable consideration to it, particularly as the S.A. Akademie has also raised the matter.

Mr. Chairman, if one studies the latest annual report of the Department of Education, Arts and Science, one appreciates in what an exceptionally serious light the present Government views university affairs in our country, and the serious endeavours it is making to achieve full development of all the possibilities of and the insight into modern university affairs. We find, consequently, that people in various fields of our society are satisfied to a large extent that our universities are producing young men and women every year who are trained efficiently to plan the development and progress of our country creatively. Not only has the number of universities for Whites increased since 1948, but the Government has also provided realistically for the university training of the non-White. This unprecedented upsurge at our universities is characterized among other things by the following three comparisons which I want to bring to your attention.

In 1948 there were only slightly fewer than 20,000 students at our universities, whereas the number at our universities in 1956 was more than 52,000. In 1948 the State grant was slightly more than R2,000,000 as against the almost R13,000,000 in 1964. The increase amounts to 534 per cent of the 1948 amount. In 1948-9 the capital funds approved totalled only R139,000, as against R5,600,000 in 1965-6. The increase was therefore almost 4000 per cent of the 1948-9 amount. These few examples demonstrate that it is a matter of serious concern to this Government to achieve full development of the modern university.

But I want to go somewhat further, Mr. Chairman, and say that we may define a University as a community consisting of students and lecturers in such a relationship that a threefold task has to be fulfilled. These three tasks are instruction or teaching, enquiry or research, and education or the moulding of human beings. To be able to fulfill these three special tasks, the university community is assisted by a management which governs and controls, and also by an administrative staff. And if we may take that as the norm for a modern university, I want to refer you to the University of Pretoria, a university which is doing a great deal of good work in our country. By means of its 11 faculties and 118 departments, ± 10,000 students are drawn in to enable them to serve animals, plants and mankind in all the various facets of their patterns of life. This is therefore not an inopportune occasion to address a word of gratitude and appreciation to its principal and his staff who in this modest fashion exploit the possibilities of the modern university by doing research, by instructing and by educating. I therefore want to request the hon. the Minister and his Department to continue assisting this university in its threefold task by stimulating research projects, by making technical resources readily available and by increasing funds on a sound basis.

I also want to say a few words, Mr. Chairman, about the students who form part of this university community. It is fitting that those on the outside should always be reminded of the fact that students constitute a specific community and live together in a specific way. These people have their own protocol, their own history, their own disputes, their typical publications and their typical societies and sport activities. And as regards the intra-mural students, the older generation should always remember that it is frequently its own actions and reactions that are reflected by such a student community. The older generation should always remember, too, that that student community is our young generation, our future, and that they are also struggling with particular problems in their own way. We should therefore view their healthy student fun with joy. We should note their blunders sympathetically, we should contribute positively towards their maturity, we should admonish them with responsibility and we should guard them with insight against those who seek their downfall.

As regards the extra-mural students, we should admire the way in which these men and women devote the hours of night to their academic moulding and training after a hard day’s work, and do so in such a way that the standard of the university is not lowered. The extra-mural student in particular deserves the interest and assistance of his employer, not only when concessions have to be made to him in the form of special arrangements when he writes tests or examinations or submits assignments, but he should also be encouraged and met financially.

Seen as a whole, Mr. Chairman, the University of Pretoria is a source of manpower by whose products society benefits and whose influence extends far beyond the confines of our country. One should therefore also remind those who want to propagate the image of our society locally and abroad every day, that they should hail the numerous achievements of that university community most gloriously, in the same way as there is the tendency to publicize its sporadic, its minor upsets so volubly.

Mr. Chairman, investment in science, in knowledge and skills, which means an investment in the human being, yields the highest dividends in any community. If academic freedom also implies academic responsibility, if it is also directed to safeguarding the principles and the ideals on which the pattern of life of any people centres, our universities will truly be of the highest value to us. Because no university can meet its obligations towards the world and mankind unless it first meets its obligations towards its own country, its own community, its own society and culture. If it does the second, the first follows naturally. If these principles are pursued in our community, our universities will not only achieve maturity under the guidance of the Higher Hand, but will be worthy of our respect and will meet our highest expectations.

Mr. Chairman, I think that it is fitting that I should now review what positive and negative things have been said up to now, so that we may be able to lead the debate into those channels which are most advantageous to us and the country in general. I want to thank the main speaker of the Opposition, the hon. member for Kensington, very sincerely for his friendly words. As far as the two maiden speeches are concerned, I shall refer to them at the end of my speech because I actually regard them as the dessert. I want to thank the hon. member for congratulating my Department on the fine, explicit and good report they brought out. That is a distinction we have enjoyed for years. I also want to thank him for his friendly words concerning the good report of the National Advisory Council for Education. I want to thank the hon. member, but at the same time I want to express my regret that he went astray and blamed me for not having made any statements of policy in those reports. The hon. member for Randfontein has already called the hon. member’s attention to the grave mistake he made. That is not being done. This House is the proper place for discussing the policy of the Minister, especially in pursuance of such reports. I hope that in discussing the policy, in suggesting what should be done and in criticizing what has not been done, hon. members will make ample use of the reports submitted to them.

The hon. member for Kensington tried to make a joke of the University Education Act of 1959 by presenting the definition of “Minister” and the interaction among various Ministers in this regard in such a manner—and that in a quite dramatic manner—that it sounded or looked foolish. In actual fact, the hon. member was guilty of criticizing an existing Act of Parliament. This Act was specially drafted to bring about separation in the training of the various races, to have a proper measure for creating separate facilities, and where those separate facilities have not been created, be it for the Bantu, the Coloureds or the Indians, to leave it to the Minister in question to admit those students who cannot yet be trained at non-White universities, to White universities.

The hon. member for Rosettenville really went astray. I want to tell the hon. member that he simply cannot become an expert in every field. He speaks on every topic in this House, and this afternoon he showed that he is no expert in the field of education. The hon. member did not even take note of the fact that a colleague of his, namely the hon. member for Berea, asked the following question on the 19th August—

The hon. member for Rosettenville made an enthusiastic plea for our engineering students to be allowed to enroll at these so called “open universities”, because it will take 15 years before engineering students will be trained at these separate university colleges. What was the reply, Mr. Chairman? The reply was that students had already been admitted for the following degrees, namely, B.Sc (Chem. Eng.), B.Sc. (Elect. Eng.), B.Sc (Civil Eng.), B.Sc. (Mech. Eng.). This reply was given on the 19th August of this year. And then the hon. member pleads here that I should admit them! Surely, we can see that no injustice is being done to these non-White students, no matter to what group they may belong. Where they are desirous of pursuing any course of study which has not yet been introduced at the three different non-White university colleges, they obtain the right, with the permission of the Minister of that group, to enrol as students. I hope the hon. member will in future take more notice of matters of this nature.

I think the time has arrived, Mr. Chairman, that in reply to the criticism made by the hon. member for Kensington, an accurate picture should be given in respect of the termination of divided control in our education and the development of a national education policy. The hon. member already raised the objection that as far back as September, 1965, a Bill was submitted to me by the National Advisory Council for Education, and that the country knows nothing whatever about its contents. That it should in fact be this hon. member—a person who has so much knowledge of education and who was a member of that profession for so long, who has taken such an active part in this development in the various provincial systems which had such detrimental effects for the country—who raises that objection now! It is a system which developed over a period of 55 years, but a system which has achieved recognition in each province and which had also achieved recognition in the fifth instance in a national department of education. It is not something one can weed out like weeds and say that this is not good enough and that that must stay. Every province believes that the method according to which it works, is the best one. Every system which has been devised by educationists, is accepted to be the best. And the great success achieved by this National Advisory Council for Education cannot be emphasized strongly enough. The entire country cannot show greater gratitude to these people for the wonderful work they have done. But then I want to add the following: if it had not been for the so-called contact body, which consisted of the educational heads of the provinces and my own head of the Department of Education, officials on this level who had to deal every day with the practical problems in regard to divided control and an un-national system—in the broad sense of the word—we would not have been where we are to-day. In the first place I want to pay tribute to-day to that body which spared no time, no trouble and no sacrifice—after we had been striving after this for 40 years, ever since the first commissions tried to do something in this regard—to make it possible for us to have come as far as we have in the short period of three years in which the National Advisory Council for Education has been functioning.

Now I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that this committee composed of educational heads, together with the executive committee of the National Advisory Council for Education—which is known as the contact body—has tackled this major task: they held meetings on the following dates: 23rd March, 1964, 6th August, 1964, 25th November, 1964, 25th June and 27th July, 1965. They have made so much progress that they are not bullying or forcing the basic principles for co-operation but they have been able to agree on the major basic principles. At the beginning of September, 1965, after these basic principles had been approved by the entire board, they submitted to me what was not a bill in the true sense of the word, or as the chairman, Dr. Rautenbach, phrased it in his report, “a Bill in the language of laymen”, but in actual fact a set of principles on which a Bill could be based. If I had at that stage allowed myself to be carried away by this and said, “I have something here and we should respond to it immediately”, I would not only have made a terrible blunder, but also have made myself the biggest fool in the entire Republic of South Africa, and I shall tell hon. members why I say this. When I went to the various administrators and their executive committees with this principle, I did not find the same unanimity which I had found with the council, the educationists and other persons. If I had allowed myself to be carried away at that time, I would have destroyed what we wanted to achieve, and I would have wrecked the possibility of a national policy and of terminating divided control, and after all the years of struggling to achieve what we have to-day, I would have set back matters to what the position had been before. The sensible method I followed was to consult the administrators. Towards the end of last year, just after I had received the Bill, I addressed them for the first time when all of them were in Durban. I specially travelled up to Durban to have a discussion with them on this matter. There were many problems; they were serious problems; they were not simply minor problems; they were practical problems and fundamental problems and we had to smooth them out one after the other. After we had faced all these problems squarely and had these discussions, I immediately set to work, assisted by a legal advisor my colleague immediately allocated to me. My colleague told me, “This Act is so important that you may use this legal advisor”. With the assistance of the legal advisor and having reached the greatest measure of unanimity after consultations had been conducted with the four provinces, we drafted a Bill and it is that Bill I have now sent to the administrators and the members of the executive committee. On the 26th of this month the administrators are coming to Cape Town and I hope that a final discussion will be held then. If that happens, I hope to be in a position to submit a Bill to this House during the next session, at the beginning of next year. I hope that it will be a Bill which will satisfy both sides of the House, a Bill I know in advance will be welcomed throughout the country, since we are definitely going to terminate divided control and establish machinery for putting an end to the privations the White child in South Africa has had to endure for many years, a Bill which will put an end to that by developing a national education policy—not to enforce it, but to develop it gradually—so that there may be uniformity in this great and most important matter for the future of a united people.

The hon. member for Durban (Berea) brought a few points to my notice. He referred to two matters arising from the Estimates themselves. In the first place he referred to the post-doctoral fellowship posts in respect of which provision is being made for R30,000. I think that this is a fine development. We find that many of our students go abroad to obtain their doctorates there. When they have obtained that degree we do not always have suitable vacancies for them here in the Republic and consequently we lose this learned man since he accepts a post abroad. The Treasury therefore kindly consented that we could made available this year ten bursaries of R3,000 each. When such a student has obtained his doctorate and there is no suitable post for him at that time, we bring him back to the Republic, we grant him the R3,000 for the purpose of carrying out further research in the field in which he has been working, and within the next twelve months we find him a suitable post here. I think the hon. member will join me in welcoming that. The second matter about which the hon. member asked a question, is the increase in the amount for youth camps, for immigrant youths. Last year provision was made for R25,000 and now it is being increased to R75,000. There is a note at the bottom of the page explaining that R50,000 is intended for immigrant camps. Hon. members know that our immigration effort is a great success. Between 35,000 and 40,000 immigrants enter the country annually, and there are indications that this rate will be maintained. The great secret is to have these immigrant children integrate with our South African way of life.

“South African.”

Yes, South African, not National. My Department has had these youth camps for years and years. It is an old item which appears in the Estimates every year. The youth camps are intended for the full development of the youth, spiritually, physically, intellectually and all other fields. They are very popular. It is being felt that we should add to the number of these camps. The children attending these camps are English- as well as Afrikaans-speaking, and it is being felt that we should also include a large group of the immigrant children in each of these camps. For that purpose we shall have to increase the number of camps. I may just add that six of these camps have already been arranged for this financial year and that they are about to be held.

In what part?

Hon. members are welcome to visit these camps; they are situated in various parts of the country. Hon. members will be amazed to see what great success is being achieved with these camps, since it is there that we also discover the leaders who will later be able to assume leadership in various national spheres—social, economic and otherwise.

The hon. member for Berea doubted my calculation and my reply that the salaries of teachers had risen by 170 per cent since 1948 up to now, i.e. including the last increases. I do not know which of us is the greater economist. I want to say at once that I am not one and I assume that the hon. member for Berea is not one either. But fortunately I obtained the help of an economist. I do not know whether he obtained the help of an economist. My economist explained the matter to me in the following manner: The hon. member for Berea said that the maximum increase as regards category D teachers was merely 127 per cent; that the minimum was 116 per cent; that the maximum in the B category was 108 per cent and the minimum 98 per cent, and if that is so, my average of 170 per cent is quite wrong. My economist pointed out that it is one of the cardinal principles of statistic methods that one should work with comparable data, otherwise one’s conclusions have no value. In talking about averages one should realize that there are various methods according to which one can work, and that the conclusions one reaches can vary from method to method. In that manner the answer one arrives at in using the arithmetical average method, may differ substantially from the answer one will arrive at in using the medial modus or geometrical method. However, if one compares the average increase in salaries in category B and D with the total average increase in salaries from 1948 to 1966, namely 170 per cent—according to the same method by which the 170 per cent was calculated, namely according to an average of salary scale—one finds that the average salary for category B has risen by 158 per cent and that of category D by 176 per cent. The rise in category D, which forms the important group at high schools and about which the hon. member is so concerned, is therefore still 6 per cent higher than the average of 170 per cent which I mentioned. I have had the opportunity to study it and to test it, and I am sure that the hon. member for Durban (Berea), as I know him, is also a man who will study it further and that on a subsequent occasion he will agree with me that I am not wrong.

The hon. member for Rosettenville has already to a large extent been replied to as regards his plea that mathematics should be a compulsory subject for all pupils. I want to tell the hon. member that he really is old-fashioned, because that is how it was when we went to school, but nowadays it is no longer so. We had no subject choice; there were six matriculation subjects and whether or not one could pass those subjects, one simply had to take those six subjects. Those six subjects included mathematics and Latin and only the cleverest ones passed, and that is why the hon. member for Rosettenville and I am here today. But we have left many corpses lying along the road, we have wrecked the lives of so many miserable people with these hard and fast rules that to-day, in the light of our wider knowledge, we have a great deal on our consciences, so much so that one would not like to mention those things in an elevated debating chamber such as this. We are grateful to-day that differentiated education has been introduced with the result that each pupil can, according to his aptitude and his ability, study in a field which will in the future be of the greatest value to himself, his fellow man, his country and his people. But even to-day mathematics is still a compulsory subject for admission to many of the university courses, and it will remain so. It is essential for certain fields of study. It is a great pity that we have so few mathematics teachers, but in view of our manpower shortage and the great opportunities for persons with this particular aptitude, it can quite easily be explained. In other spheres of employment they are able to obtain much better posts at salaries with which the teaching profession cannot compete. Therefore we cannot consider such a thing as was proposed by the hon. member; we must explain it away and squash it immediately so that the educational world, not only in South Africa but also throughout the entire world, will not laugh us to scorn as being a lot of backward people who are even at this stage still advocating these hard and fast methods of forcing people to take certain subjects simply because there is a manpower shortage in that field.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Rosettenville on the fact that he rose here today and made a serious appeal to the English-speaking people to offer their services to this dignified profession, the teaching profession. I think it is high time and I am grateful for the hon. member’s plea and I hope that it will meet with a wide response in the country, because each group has to make its contribution. Just as the hon. member is concerned about the survival of pure English in this country, I am concerned about the survival of pure Afrikaans. The fact that we have mutual respect for the language of the other section, is a sign of true national unity. We agree that all possible help should be given to keep our language on the highest level and that we should all stand together in this regard, that we do not want any deterioration in either of these two languages.

Words of wisdom.

I hope that the appeal made by the hon. member for Rossettenville will not fall on deaf ears; I support his appeal one hundred per cent.

Before I sit down, I come to the delicious dessert, the privilege of extending my hearty congratulations to the two hon. members who made their maiden speeches under my Vote. One of them is a baldhead just as I am and the other is the second youngest member in the House and. mind you, he is my representative in this House, my M.P. I want to congratulate them heartily on the clear manner in which they set out their arguments. The hon. member for Swellendam made a plea here that more attention should be given to hydrology, our water affairs. I agree with him. A great deal is already being done by the C.S.I.R. More can be done. The establishment of a professorship is not a cheap item, but there are no holes to pick in the plea made by the hon. member, and in due course we shall most certainly give attention to that matter if my colleague, who fortunately is present, will open his pocket a little wider so that I may put in my hand deeper.

The maiden speech of the hon. member for Rissik was about the high level of university instruction. He spoke of the patience, the sympathy and the guidance we had to give to the young men and doctors who were being trained, and he also referred to the high standard of our university institutions. He was a little chauvinistic, but we shall forgive him that since he represents a constituency in which one of our universities is situated. What he has said in that regard, I can endorse.

I almost forgot the hon. member for Hillbrow, perhaps because I agree with him so completely. The hon. member made a plea for research in the field of the humanities. I am in complete agreement with him. In this technological age in which we live I have always had the fear that the technological side is being exaggerated; there is utility in technology; there is reality in technology; it is topical, and for that reason one can understand that so much emphasis is being placed on it, but my plea has always been that the technological aspect should not receive too much emphasis at the expense of the humanities, because the latter are in actual fact the permanent salvation of any people in the world. We saw that in the ancient cultures: if the balance is disburbed and too much emphasis is placed on one field, be it economic or militaristic, the humanities are neglected and then such a people goes under. We have our social research bureau, but I must frankly admit that I feel that much more should be done. I want to thank the hon. member for the support he has given me in this argument. I want to assure him that I shall always do my best to see to it that our social research bureau is better equipped.

I think the hon. the Minister has received my remarks in the spirit in which they were intended; even my critical remarks he has received very well. I think we are making some progress. I hope the Minister does not feel for a moment that I have in any way criticized his staff, because my experience in dealing with his staff has been that I have always received the greatest courtesy. I want to make that very, very clear.

The Minister did not say what he thought of my proposal to have all higher education under one Minister. The hon. the Minister, even to-day, handles the education of the four groups. I am not saying for a moment that they must form one group; I want to make that clear to the Minister. I accept that it is the Minister’s policy that there must be four separate groups and that they should have separate development. Although we have the four groups I should like them to come under one Minister, because when an African or a Coloured person or an Indian applies to him for higher education at what we call a White university, he has to consult other people. He should have absolute control—not necessarily this Minister but one Minister in the Cabinet. My suggestion is that one Minister should have absolute control of all higher education.

But the other Ministers know better how to arrange their own affairs.

I think one Minister could do it very well. I am referring only to university education, not the whole educational system. That is my first point. My second point is this: I did not want to know what legislation the hon. the Minister was contemplating; I did not want to see a Bill—what I did want to see was what these professional men had proposed to the Minister. That was my suggestion. I would like to see the details of their report. They hint at what their report is; they say it is a unanimous report. I hope it is. They say it is unanimous and I think it is a great achievement if they have obtained unanimity.

Another point I wish to raise with the Minister is this: Last night we discussed this question of teachers. I say that teachers who are highly qualified have to leave the service because they get married, and I said this should not be necessary. I have known cases where teachers have had to leave the service when they got married and become clerks or typists in offices, people who are professionally trained, because the Department employed them on a temporary basis. It has been mentioned here that certain teachers are put on the permanent staff for three years, but that is not the permanent staff; that is a contract for three years. I think that if English-speaking teachers were allowed to remain in the profession you would have what you require in the primary schools. But I have not such a simple solution for the high schools. There it is very difficult because there you have to compete with industry. We have been asking for teachers of English, Mathematics and Science, but they are very rare, and if they go into industry they are paid twice as much as we are prepared to pay them.

The hon. member for Randfontein appears to have seen the recommendations of the Advisory Council. He spoke with great confidence of what they were, but he is quite at sea about what our attitude was to the creation of this Advisory Council. Our attitude was quite clear. We went back to the De Villiers Report for our inspiration. We said that this Advisory Council should not be a narrowly professional council only, but should be representative of the whole community. The hon. member for Randfontein will remember our amendments in the Select Committee. We proposed 29 amendments, and not one was accepted. It seemed to me that the members of the Select Committee on the Government side were being inspired from outside. They would not accept any amendments. Therefore we received a purely professional body, and not only was it purely professional but it was a body on which Afrikaans-speaking teachers predominated. Not only that, but professional men from the Transvaal predominated. The centre of gravity was in the Transvaal. I was not the only person who complained. The hon. member for Malmesbury complained about it. He made a public speech on the subject. I have his speech here: “Mnr. van Staden is bitter teleurgesteld”. He was disappointed by the manner in which this professional council had been constituted, and the Burger wrote a very strong article on it. It is the constitution of the Advisory Council that we were dissatisfied with. I think the Minister could have had a better advisory council. It could have been more representative.

You said the results were perfect.

I do not know what the result is, but I am inspired by the fact that they said they had unanimity, that all the provinces were agreed. If that is true, I am very pleased indeed, because we have been far from agreement in the past. I hope it is true, and if it is true that is an achievement. The fact that a professional body was appointed which gave this result does not mean that the results would not have been much better if that body had been more representative. But now we have this Council, we must work with it and we must be satisfied with it. If they deliver good work, as they appear to be doing, we should praise them. They appear to be doing good work, but that does not alter the fact that we could have had a more satisfactory body.

There is one final question I wish to put to the Minister. I see on page 25 of the report of his Department, they refer to the General Botha. Is the Minister getting the recruits for training in the South African Merchant Service?

Yes.

My experience has been, that if a boy comes from the Transvaal he will train at the General Botha, he will go to sea and make rapid progress if he is a good lad. After four or five years we find that he has left the sea and has a job ashore. I do not blame him, if he has been fortunate enough to be born and brought up in such a wonderful climate as that of the Transvaal, because then he does not like to go slouching at sea, as the old sailors say. That is our difficulty in South Africa. The South African does not go to sea. Someone pointed out to me the other day that when Diaz, Da Gama and Jan van Riebeeck sailed around these coasts, never on any occasion did the Natives come out to see who they were, as Natives did in the Pacific. The people whom Van Riebeeck describes in his diary are not seafaring people. As the Voortrekkers trekked inland, the old tradition of the sea died within a generation. They became men of the veld. I should like to know from the Minister, when he speaks again, what progress he has made.

I owe the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) an apology. He put a pertinent question to me and I should like to reply to it. It is the policy of the Department to assist parents in the circumstances mentioned by the hon. member. If the parents would apply for transport bursaries through the college, their applications would receive sympathetic consideration. No applications have as yet been received. The Treasury has approved of special proposals to meet such cases and a decision is now awaited from the Treasury.

When this House adjourned last night I was pointing out that a joint task was awaiting Labour and Education in that certain industries were discarding workers without such workers being able to do anything about it, and that that valuable human material then took up employment at consolation wages in blind-alley occupations because the way to promotion had been barred completely; and that the worst aspect of this matter was the fact that the entire family of such a person was pushed down to a low level of material, cultural and spiritual existence. This is a national loss which cannot be calculated in terms of rands and cents. The joint task which is awaiting Labour and Education is to devise a system for employing such people at a decent wage and for giving vocational training to those who cannot return to their previous occupations.

But now I am in trouble. Before saying a few words about the cerebral palsied and their education, I want to come back to the speech made by the hon. member for Berea last night, when he pointed out that considerable attention was being given to the word “indoctrination” these days, and that it had allegedly been said that the Afrikaans schools in particular provided fertile soil for indoctrination. It had allegedly also been said that an eminent person; a provincial councillor, expressed himself in public about this and it had allegedly also been said that history was pre-eminently the subject which lent itself to the indoctrination of children. If I am not mistaken I think the hon. member was referring to Mr. Fanie Geldenhuys. I must say, however, that in Afrikaans schools there is nothing of the kind of indoctrination which makes good Nationalists of children, but only that which makes them good patriots and good republicans, as is the duty of every school, be it an Afrikaans-medium school, an English-medium school, a private school or a church school or any other kind of school. I want to assume that the school which the children of the hon. member for Berea are attending is making good republicans of those children, because the father of those children is sitting here on the Opposition benches as a possible member of a future government, and if those children do not become good republicans in the school they are attending, their good father would be misplaced where he is sitting, and how can one reconcile this?

I just want to point out further what happens in America. Last night the Chairman called the hon. member to order when he spoke about these things, but I promise to speak about only such things as the Chairman allowed him to discuss and I shall not speak about things which he was not allowed to discuss. I just want to point out that in America a solem oath consisting of six parts is taken each morning by the children, namely that they swear allegiance to the State President, the country, the nation, the language, the flag and the national anthem. And in Great Britain love for the Royal Family is inspired in the same way—God Save the King or God Save the Queen, as the case may be, and those young Britons, after leaving school, throw out their chests and say: “Brittania rules the waves,” and if one tells them that the tables have been turned and that it now is: “Brittania waives the rules,” they will not believe one because those schools have made such good Britons of them. Such good republicans our schools also want to make of our children.

The second matter to which the hon. member referred was the children of immigrants who were mostly attending English-medium schools, in which connection a certain paper stated that in the next decade no less than 102,000 children of new South Africans, South Africans who were not born here, would go to English-medium schools and only 8,000 to Afrikaans-medium schools.

May I ask a question? I should like to ask the hon. member which of the following two statements is likely to produce the best South Africans? They are contained in the rules of conduct in a student’s diary, and these are the words: In Afrikaans the meaning is “Always and at all times to serve my country and my people”, but the English translation reads: “To serve my country and its people at all times.”

The hon. member is only allowed to ask a question.

I want to put it as follows, be it an Afrikaans-medium or English-medium school, the pupils will be taught at such school—and it is also a quotation—“The choice is to serve your country or to have no country to serve.” It is a question of whether our schools are producing good republicans and they will have a country to serve as citizens of that country. I now want to make further reference to this matter regarding the immigrants. The hon. member hung his argument on the peg of mother-tongue education. When for instance a Pole makes his home in this country and his children understand a few words of English, but no Afrikaans, they are tested and those children are sent to an English-medium school in spite of the fact that the parents request that they should go to an Afrikaans-medium school. This is the result of an Ordinance in the Transvaal which provides that a child should attend a school with a language medium in which he is best able to express himself. But surely this is not mother-tongue education, and the hon. member hung his argument on the peg of mother-tongue education. Is it mother-tongue education if a Pole or a Greek or a German who knows a few words of English comes to this country and we place his children in an English-medium school, or vice versa? That is not mother-tongue education at all, and if he went to an Afrikaans-medium school it would not be mother-tongue education either. That this Ordinance in the Transvaal should remain in force for the sake of children born here is all very well, but I am not satisfied that as a result thereof immigrant children attend English- and Afrikaans-medium schools at a ratio of 102,000 to 8,000. A change must be effected and we ask for an ordinance which will provide that the children of immigrants who can neither speak English nor Afrikaans will be sent to the school of the parents’ choice, provided, of course, that they live within the area from which the school of their choice draws its pupils. A change must be effected, but I now want to leave the matter at that.

I come back to the cerebral palsied. Recently the need for education for cerebral palsied children pertinently came to my attention, but at the same time also the provision of educational facilities by the Department of Education, Arts and Science, and I want to thank the Minister and his Department most heartily therefor. The Estimates chiefly specify approved amounts for the erection of and for additions to schools for the cerebral palsied, one of these being the school at Pretoria. I should like to say a few words about it, not because it falls within my constituency, but because this is the school which children from the rural areas of the Northern Transvaal have to attend because provision has not been made for cerebral palsied children in those rural areas. This matter came to my attention when a pupil from my area applied to be admitted to that school but could not be admitted because there was no accommodation for him in the hostel, and his name was placed on the waiting list together with those of 27 others. The school was built for 150 pupils but the enrolment is already 154. In the hostel there is accommodation for 50. but 60 are being accommodated, and how has it been possible to do so? Because the room of a member of the staff as well as part of the sick bay is used for accommodating some of the children. As a result of representations, not by me, the Department has approved an additional 12 beds, and I see that provision is made for that in the Estimates. I want to thank the Minister most heartily for that, because it makes provision for children in the northern rural areas who can go nowhere else. But that has compelled me to make representations myself for the erection of a school for cerebral palsied children in one of the Northern Transvaal towns which has adequate hospital facilities. Everybody will now think that I shall mention the town of Nylstroom, but I do not intend doing so as I have Pietersburg in mind. As it were, that locality was suggested to me by the knowledgeable principal of a school for the cerebral palsied to whom I had written. Pietersburg is centrally situated and has the best hospital facilities and representations which are supported by realistic considerations are more likely to succeed. It has come to my notice that these schools for the cerebral palsied are usually erected and managed by private bodies receiving State aid, namely associations for the care of cripples, and I think that we should pay tribute to these bodies and furnish tangible proof of our appreciation by way of large donations from the private sector in order to enable them to continue the good work. [Time limit.]

I think we have all been listening with interest to the hon. member for Waterberg especially when he spoke about the problem of the immigrant child in our country, and what struck me in particular was that the hon. member said, if I understood him correctly, that in that respect he approved of the principle of parental choice in connection with the school which the child should attend. We on this side of the House have always approved of the principle of parental choice, but I appreciate the fact that the hon. member has also done so. I also appreciate the fact that it was even said in the newspaper Dagbreek …

May I ask a question? If the parent gives the child the wrong advice, do you not think we should protect him?

Yes, we have to protect him against the Nationalist Party.

When it comes to making a choice for the sake of the well-being of any child, I prefer that which the parent thinks best to that which the Nationalist Party thinks best. But I am glad that the hon. member for Waterberg, who is an ex-teacher, is also beginning to think in the direction of parental choice.

May I ask whether the hon. member can mention the name of one distinguished educationist who is not in favour of parental choice?

We have just heard from the hon. members for Waterberg and Kensington. They surely are prominent educationists and they like the principle of parental choice.

But there is one matter in connection with which I want to break a lance with the hon. member for Waterberg, namely a quotation or an explanation he allegedly gave in connection with a very ugly remark regarding indoctrination of children and a charge which had been levelled against a group of teachers in South Africa. I want to mention it in pursuance of the fact that the National Advisory Education Council, which falls under the Minister, has one important function in particular, namely that the Council should also endeavour to uphold and promote the prestige of the teaching profession and of persons engaged therein. The hon. member for Waterberg referred to a statement made by one Mr. Geldenhuys, a prominent Nationalist and an ex-teacher, in which he mentioned indoctrination. Let me now quote for the hon. member the exact words as they appeared in the Transvaler of 24th August (translation)—

Those were the exact words, and at that stage he was interrupted and asked: “Do you mean through indoctrination?” His reply was: “Yes, through indoctrination.” Where it is one of the functions of the Education Council to uphold the prestige of the teaching profession, it is in fact worthwhile going into a charge such as this. But first let me say that as a general charge against the Afrikaner teacher and clergyman I regard it as being totally false. Even as a general charge against all Nationalist teachers I regard it as being false. But the important point is this; here we have a Nationalist ex-teacher who admits that he believes in indoctrination. In other words, amongst the Nationalist teachers there is a group, and a dangerous group, who believes in indoctrination.

The hon. member must come back to the Vote.

May I ask the Minister what empowers him …

May I ask a question? Can the hon. member define indoctrination?

I do not have a dictionary with me, but I should say that indoctrination means trying to fill a child’s mind with things which are not in accordance with the truth. In this way the hon. member spoke of Slagtersnek in 1938, when he …

The hon. member must come back to the Vote.

I come back to the task of the National Advisory Education Council. The hon. Minister will recall that he requested this Council in his opening address to them to appoint a sub-committee to go into the conditions of service of teachers and also into the prestige of the teaching profession. So much as regards the hon. member for Waterberg.

I now come to the hon. the Minister. The Minister spoke about the problem of the immigrant child and I interrupted him when he said he wanted to create an Afrikaans spirit or attitude in the immigrant child. I asked him whether he meant South African or Afrikaans and he said very specifically “South African”. With that I agree wholeheartedly. But now I am once more concerned about the difference of opinion which apparently exists in the ranks of his party in connection with immigrant children and I again refer to the same Mr. Geldenhuys who said the following (Translation): “We want to indoctrinate the immigrant child to become a good Afrikaans citizen.” Now, there is nothing wrong with being a good Afrikaans or English citizen, but the Minister was right when he said that they should become South African citizens and he disapproved of the word “indoctrination” whereas one of his prominent provincial councillors had used the word.

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

The National Advisory Education Council has for instance discussed uniform dates for school holidays and uniform curricula. I do not know whether I shall be permitted to discuss that here.

That cannot be discussed here.

I do not really want to discuss it, I just wanted your guidance so as to see to what extent school matters which fall under the National Advisory Education Council may be discussed here.

We appreciate the invitation of the hon. the Minister to discuss education policy, and now I want to come to something which he allegedly said—and I hope that he was correctly quoted in one of his own newspapers—something he allegedly said as Minister of Education, Arts and Science in Potchefstroom before the Historical Society of South Africa. There he made the following statement (Translation)—

Is that correctly quoted?

Absolutely correctly.

I believe that it is desirable to teach history in our schools and to teach it correctly, but I think it is wrong if the Minister says that an education system which fails to introduce pupils in the classrooms to the national history is committing high treason. I gained the impression that the hon. the Minister was expressing criticism there on the education system of South Africa as it exists at present in connection with history instruction. Is that correct?

If one were to adopt a negative attitude, one would make such a statement.

Very well, let us view this from the positive angle that the Minister wants to do away with what he regards as possible high treason in the education system of South Africa. [Time limit.]

If I were to reply as I should like to reply to what was said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, I should have to devote my entire speech to that end. In any case, I just want to tell the hon. member that I myself was a teacher for many years; I was a history master. I have a different approach to the interpretation of “indoctrination” to that of hon. members on the other side. As far as I am concerned there is no such thing as “indoctrination”; I prefer to speak of inspiration, of being imbued with love for what is one’s own. When the English use the expression “to imbue with patriotism”, that is deemed to be right, but when inspiration with love for what is our own emanates from the Afrikaans-speaking side, when love of our country is encouraged, when there is an endeavour to inspire patriotism in children, that is deemed to be wrong. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to dwell on the matter any further. The thought I want to express in order to counter the hon. member’s arguments is that they are always seeking to convert the concept of “inspiration” into that of “indoctrination”, which is a less palatable word. That is why the hon. member committed a fatal blunder when he said, after an interjection, that “indoctrination” was the communication of facts which are not true. No history master, or teacher of any subject, gives his pupils untrue facts; every teacher gives his pupil facts which are correct. A history master who does not give facts which are correct is a traitor to his own past.

Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to a remark made last night by the hon. member for Kensington. I refer to his reference to teaching conditions in the Transvaal and the shortage of teachers, in particular English speaking teachers. He used the following words in his speech: “We have not got enough English-speaking teachers. Now I have often in response to that heard the question ‘whose fault is that’? I want to say that it is not anybody’s fault particularly.” Sir, I am pleased that there is a change in the train of thought of the Opposition. I am also pleased by the remark that the hon. member for Rosettenville has just made. This is the first time since I have been a member of this House—and I have discussed this matter each year—that I have heard an appeal being made by the United Party from this House, or from any other place, to the English-speaking section of the population to do its part. Mr. Chairman, the United Party is becoming increasingly apologetic in regard to this matter. “Not anybody’s fault,” they say. According to the Opposition the shortage of teachers has always been the fault of the Government in the past; it has always been the fault of the Provincial Councils or the fault of the departments in the past. I want to say, and I am not the only one to say this, that it is a fact that it is the fault of the English-speaking section of the population that there are not more English-speaking teachers available. This is so, as I have said on previous occasions in this House, because the English-speaking youth is never encouraged by any eminent member of the United Party to embark on a teaching career. I repeat that I do not stand alone in this respect. I want to draw the attention of the House to a, to my mind, illuminating article that appeared in this connection in one of the English-language newspapers at the beginning of the year. This article appeared in the Sunday Express of 23rd January, 1966, in pursuance of the matriculation examination results in the Transvaal. I shall only quote extracts from the article which states, inter alia—

Let me say immediately that many of these Afrikaans-speaking teachers are principals of English-medium schools, but what is more, Afrikaans-speaking teachers teach English A, that is to say, English Higher, in high schools. The article goes on to refer to married women, to whom the hon. member for Kensington also referred, and states—

This is an important admission on the part of this newspaper. In conclusion, the article quotes what an English-speaking professor has had to say in this connection, namely—

There you have it. That hits the nail right on the head. That is the accusation against the English-speaking section of our people, and I am very pleased that we have had this appeal this afternoon on the part of various hon. members. Is this the position because English-speaking people are becoming more and more interested in materialistic things and for this reason shy away from careers in the teaching profession? This is the case. And then we have accusations made against the Afrikaans-speaking teachers! They are the people who are rendering this teaching service, as I said just now, to the English-speaking community, and then we have the accusation that the Afrikaans-speaking teacher, as we have just now heard again, indoctrinates!

Last year the hon. member for Randfontein and I made an appeal in connection with the teaching of history in schools falling, inter alia, under the Department of Education, Arts and Science. I asked whether it was not possible for history to be made a compulsory subject. This year I want to make an appeal for Afrikaans, not because Afrikaans is not a compulsory subject because, as we all know, Afrikaans, as an official language together with English, is a compulsory subject. I want at the outset to pay tribute to the large corps of teachers throughout the country who are performing this task in connection with teaching, a task which is often a thankless one, as we have once again experienced here this afternoon. I want to pay tribute to teachers in all spheres—in junior schools, in high schools and also to the teachers in the university sphere.

Mr. Chairman, teachers are not simply tutors; they are more specifically educators, people who educate the whole being of the child and the student and who do not simply impart knowledge to him. But I should nevertheless like to single out one group of teachers, one particular group of people, and these are the teachers who teach the two official languages at high schools. These people who have a very difficult task to perform, people who have to take home bundles and bundles of papers for checking, perform a colossal task which is not confined to the classroom. But their’s is an extremely important task and I want for this reason to associate myself with what has just been said by the hon. the Minister—that this is the task of assisting to keep the language (I am speaking more particularly about Afrikaans) pure. It is an extremely important task. We are living at the time when language is being subjected to mutilation, vandalism and degeneration on a very large scale, and here we have a group of people who are trying to halt this process. They have a difficult task. Many people contend that the mutilation of language nowadays is a passing phase. [Time limit.]

In the few minutes remaining to me I want to begin by sending an emergency call to the hon. the Minister. And that emergency call is: “Give us more engineers.” We are all aware of the tremendous shortage of trained engineers in our country, but the question is, what positive steps are we taking to help alleviate that shortage? Before suggesting something practical I just want to refer briefly to how widespread that shortage is and how it is essential for us to do something to try and remedy that shortage. Those of us who attend agricultural congresses know that it is a point which is continually turning up on the agendas. Many farmers want to build their own irrigation dams but cannot do so because they do not have the engineers to help them build those dams, and in this connection it would probably not be inopportune to mention the requirements of our own Department of Water Affairs.

I think we would have completed many more schemes if we had been able to place that specialized manpower at the disposal of that Department. We understand that Escom, which supplies the country with power, wants to double the power over the next few years, and in the years following that, wants to redouble, or even triple the amount. Now I am asking how they will be able to achieve this if the necessary electrical engineers are not available? More and more engineers will be required for the general expansion and development of our country. It is not only for the technical and industrial expansion that they are necessary either. From the nature of the case and in view of their training and ability we find that engineers are often appointed as managers of large undertakings and work in that capacity. In this respect I can also refer to our own Department of Water Affairs where our Secretary is a trained engineer. Our fishing harbours, too, would have been much more developed at this stage if that Department had had the necessary engineering manpower. And as Africa to the north, of us develops, great projects will be tackled on the continent, factories will be erected, and irrigation and other schemes will be tackled. How will South African firms be able to tender for those projects and win the contracts if they do not have the necessary engineers? Think also of our own Department of Transport, of Defence, the Railways, not to mention our large city councils such as that of Johannesburg—all of them need more engineers because their requirements are continually expanding and becoming more technically complicated. Mr. Chairman, I think that with these few remarks I have indicated that the cry of distress is really justified.

But if we would consider for a moment the international position we would see how important it is for any country to make sure that it is not caught napping as far as the training of engineers is concerned. We know how Russia has continued to persevere in that sphere, but that America, particularly after the end of the Second World War, relaxed their efforts somewhat. The result was that the Russians’ sputnik was the first to orbit the earth, and up to the present America has had to spend millions of rand in an effort to make up that lost ground and retrieve its lost prestige.

Normally it is the duty of the universities to train our engineers. Last year a commission of inquiry went into the matter and submitted a very good report. But I am convinced that we should not place this task entirely on the shoulders of the universities. We can greatly facilitate their task and speed up the whole process. By way of explanation just the following: If it is the work of a high school to pilot a pupil through to matric, then we cannot ignore this process at the primary school. As a matter of fact, the most important foundations are laid at the primary school on which the pupil must build in order to pass matric eventually. By way of analogy I now want to raise this point. We must not wait until a student arrives at university as a first year student, and then begin the process of turning him into an engineer. We must begin much sooner than that.

When the prospective engineer arrives at the university as student he should already have received the basic grounding in at least a few of the difficult subjects which he will have to cope with in the course of his studies. The result of such a method will be that the engineering course, which is inevitably difficult, will be made much easier, that the large number of failures in the first year in the engineering faculty will be considerably less, and that the student beginning as engineer will not at a later stage transfer to another course as easily as is the case at present. The final result will be that we will be able to supply our country with many more of the essential trained engineers.

What we really need in this respect is a kind of preparatory school, where we can slowly but surely give the future engineering student a thorough grounding, from standard six already, in those subjects which will later form the essence of his studies. Mathematics is an obvious choice, but attention can also be given at such an institution to subjects like machine drawing, machine construction, the generation of power, and the basic principles of electricity. If a pupil receives the basic training in these subjects, he will fare so much better as student in the engineering faculties. The hon. the Minister and his Department have supplied us with many technical schools in our country which are doing very good work. We are proud of them, and I want to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his Department on what they have already achieved in this field, because it not only redounds to their credit, it also means a great deal as far as the training of skilled persons for our industries and other institutions is concerned. Would it be too much to ask the hon. the Minister to give us two of those schools, which would in the first instance concentrate on supplying prospective engineers with a preparatory course? Would it be too much to ask, or would it be unpractical? In addition I want to suggest that our matric courses at our technical . schools be changed in such a way that the f pupil passing that matriculation examination will already have received the basic preparation for becoming an engineer. Our technical schools with all their apparatus, their scope, their people who have been trained in that direction, are the obvious places where that spade work can be done. The question is whether we make enough use of them in that respect as well.

Since the hon. member for Hillbrow represents a neighbouring constituency in Johannesburg I want to return to what he said earlier to-day. You know that the hon. member for Hillbrow represents the constituency from which Mr. Alec Gorshel fled after the United Party had fled from him. During the election campaign the hon. member for Hillbrow said in the course of the only meeting he held in my constituency: “I am not a politician; I am a psychologist.” After having listened on two occasions now to his speeches in this House, I am grateful to be able to say that I have noticed that he is not only psychological, he is also logical, and I want to advise him to avoid the political and remain logical.

What I am actually rising for is to say something about sub-head G of Revenue Vote No. 14, and I want to remind hon. members of the fact that in 1964 this House passed the National Study Loans and Bursaries Act unanimously and with great enthusiasm. On that occasion the hon. the Minister told us that the Bill which he was introducing enjoyed the support of the Economic Advisory Council of the hon. the Prime Minister, the advisory council on which the most influential leaders of commerce, industry and mining had representation. Now I must say that also for that reason, perhaps particularly for that reason, everyone who had a seat in this House at that time had very high expectations of that National Study Loan and Bursary Fund. When the Government subsequently converted the advance of R500,000 which it had made in order to set the ball rolling into a unique donation, I felt that a new dispensation had dawned for students who did not have the necessary means to attend university courses on their own resources. I am very grateful to learn that from this National Study Loan and Bursary Fund R16,000 has already been made available this year for bursary loans which amount to as much as R400 per student per year. But I must also say that it has been a bitter disappointment for me to learn from the particulars that the strength of the fund on 15th August this year was R551,105 and that in addition to the original R500,000 which the Government had donated and the interest earnings of R48,780, only a meagre R2,325 had come from the part of the private sector. It was a bitter disappointment to me, and it applies in the first instance to those companies the representatives of which serve on that economic advisory council of the Prime Minister. It is disappointing that they have not even availed themselves of this great opportunity to see to it that the companies of which they are directors, did their duty in regard to the great national cause. We all expected, and quite rightly too, commerce industry and mining who feel the need for trained persons the most, to avail themselves of the opportunity of contributing to the funds, contributions which are tax-free. We expected them to see the opportunity of creating facilities for the training of more persons whom they would have been able to use later. I cannot think that it is due to unwillingness on their part. I think they may perhaps have forgotten the very good recommendations they made to the Economic Advisory Council.

I stand here as a director of the “Transvaalse Helpmekaarstudiefonds” and that is the reason why this matter of study loans affects me so deeply. If I think of the small study fund which we have in the Transvaal, out of Helpmekaar sources, and I analyse the figures I have here before me and notice that from April to June of last year the “Transvaalse Helpmekaarstudiefonds” increased each month by R3,286, on which the donors did not receive any tax rebate, then I say that the National Study Loan and Bursary Fund cuts a very poor figure. We must do something to arouse more enthusiasm on the part of the companies and the general public for this great cause.

I want to make a few suggestions which may help to bring the fund to its feet again and I hope they will be looked upon favourably by the hon. the Minister. In the first place I want to ask whether it is not possible for the hon. the Minister to seek the co-operation of the Public Accountants and Auditors Council of South Africa, to explain the matter to them and request their co-operation, because the auditors are pre-eminently those people who have to deal with all companies which pay taxes, and they are the people who very often advise the companies on a professional basis in regard to tax matters. I am convinced that if the hon. the Minister were to get the auditors of South Africa as nonofficial canvassers for this fund, we would make very rapid progress.

In the second place I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider informing the Federated Chambers of Commerce and Industry and also the “Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut” on a personal basis in regard to this scheme, what is being contemplated, how it is being administrated, how the members of this body can contribute, and particularly how they can obtain tax rebates. I think that if the people know this and they see what a big task remains to be accomplished,, they will not be slow in coming forward to do that which we expect of them.

In the third place I want to make an appeal to all members of Parliament, and in fact to all responsible persons in the Republic to be of assistance in regard to this great cause. There is not one of us who is not a director, or a manager of a company, or chairman of a board of managers or merely a normal client of one or other company, who does not have influence on those bodies. I believe that if we were to make it our task to act as nonofficial canvassers for this study fund, many of the companies which never even think of this fund and might perhaps not even know about it, would be quite prepared to make their contribution, a contribution on which they can obtain a tax rebate.

Sir, we should not let ourselves believe that sufficient provision exists for prospective students who want to undergo further training after matriculation. We know that there are quite a number of bursaries and loans for first class matriculants with four or six distinctions, but we know just as well that even first class matriculants without distinctions and particularly second class matriculants find it very difficult to get their needs filled when they want to go to university. That is why I am making an appeal to everyone to treat this matter very seriously and not to expect everything to come from the part of the Government as has been the case up to now. Let us rather see a greater display of enthusiasm on the part of the private sector for this matter. If we do that, I am certain that the results will come.

I was pleased to learn from the hon. the Minister that post-graduate scholarships have been instituted in an endeavour to bring back those graduates who left the country for further study overseas. I do not think he is likely to be very successful in bringing back these men but I should be pleased to learn from the hon. the Minister what success he is having in this regard. The British Government, being faced with the same problem sometime ago, sent missions overseas in order to get back their own men. These missions were constituted by representatives of the Selection Board of the Civil Service, the Atomic Energy Authority and the Central Electricity Generating Board. By means of sheer persuasion and by putting certain facts in front of these emigrants or migrants, whichever way you like to look at them, this group succeeded in bringing back 13 of these men during 1961, 23 during 1962 and 12 during 1963. I know there have been missions sent from this country overseas in an endeavour to convince doctors but these I understand have been unsuccessful. This is because the opportunities for advancement and the rates of pay in Great Britain are much better than those we can offer here.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay traversed extremely well the difficulty this country is experiencing as a result of a shortage of engineers although there are one or two points which he did not mention. I realize that the Government in 1957 began to appreciate the difficulties it was facing due to the shortage of engineers. It thereupon set up a commission to deal with the problem. This commission reported rather late, i.e. seven years later and for another two years after that the Government did not do much about it. It did nothing to implement the recommendations of that commission about matters which the commission regarded as being very urgent. I know things take time but has the Government, for instance, endeavoured to institute any great improvements at universities? One of the things the commission recommended was an improvement in the subsidy for engineering students. At the time that commission reported there were 6,000 odd engineers in the country and vacancies for another 1,000. The commission also recommended that the average number of engineers required for the needs of the country should at least be 75 per cent more than the number then available. This large backlog should at all costs be made up otherwise the whole advancement of this country would be seriously checked. There is no doubt whatever that unless some sort of crash programme is devised to improve the position as regards engineers this country will be further held back in its economy, in its manufacturing industries and in the development of our national resources. The Government talks glibly of setting up another Sasol but the present Sasol’s success is largely due to the chemical industry which has sprung up around it. It is, of course, a very good thing indeed that such a chemical industry should be established, using as it does coal of which we have enormous resources. As a matter of fact, this is one of the brightest prospects we have for the future, and the more industries we can establish of the variety of Sasol the better. That depends, of course, on the Department of Education providing us with engineers. Meanwhile the Government has put in train the large Orange River project but here again progress of the work is being held back due to a shortage of engineers. One of the reasons for this, and a major psychological reason at that, is that nobody knows what an engineer really is. I remember that when I was a young man in London many years ago I had toothache and although I was a qualified medical man at the time I eventually landed up in the hands of a quack dentist, an unqualified dentist. That could happen because at that time qualified dentists were not so easily identifiable as they are to-day. Similarly we have now the position that everybody can call himself an engineer for instance, it is certainly not extraordinary for an, ordinary motor mechanic to be referred to as an engineer. We may even see a van running up and down the streets with a sign on its side that the firm using it is a firm of hot water engineers. Others again advertise themselves as being irrigation engineers. We have the problem of people who are engineering suppliers but who probably do not have an engineer on their staff. What is referred to as a hot water engineer is really an ordinary plumber.

A large number of firms advertise themselves as being electrical engineers but what do they have on their staff? They have electricians on their staff and probably an electrical engineer has not even been near them. This, then, is one of the serious problems this Government should face, i.e. to identify in the minds of the public what an engineer really is, who is an engineer and who is not. I have seen the proposed Bill of the hon. the Minister which refers particularly to people who are professional engineers. Whether that will work, is a question for argument. I have heard it suggested that we should establish something in the nature of a chartered engineer, in the same way as we have chartered accountants. The main thing is that we must be able to separate the wheat from the chaff so that the public will know that when it employs somebody it will get a technician, or a technologist or an engineer. The main thing the Government has to do is to establish by some form of legislation what and who are engineers, what the qualifications of an engineer are and how the public is to know that when they are being given service in respect of electricity, a hot water system, or irrigation, etc., such services are rendered by qualified engineers or not. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban (Central) will excuse me if I do not follow up on his argument. I want to touch upon another subject. I am rising to break a lance for the steps which have been taken by the University of the Orange Free State to bring into being a political archives. I would be glad if the hon. member for Orange Grove and other hon. members on the opposite side would also listen carefully to what I have to say because I want to hear their opinions on this matter.

We shall admit to the fact that in the modern world there is a tendency to write contemporary history. As a result of modern telecommunications, radio, etc., things happen much more quickly in the modern world than they did centuries ago. One can normally accept that what might previously perhaps have taken a century to become history, takes only five years, a decade, or twenty years to-day. In other words, in the short span of the 20th Century in which we are now living, history has been recorded which would normally have ranged over many centuries. Now one finds in historians an increasing tendency to put aside to a certain extent the old history, the established facts, and to concentrate on modern or contemporary historical writing. There are many publications dealing with this section of history to-day. To mention a few, there are the Round Table, International Affairs, The World To-day, The Journal of Modern African Studies, The Commonwealth Survey, The Australian Journal of Politics, and scores of others.

That need has also arisen in South Africa, but in South Africa a kind of stigma has attached to the writing of modern political history because we in South Africa have been embroiled in such a fierce and intensive political struggle. We have therefore just concentrated on our own party political struggle and have somewhat neglected the rest. That is why I say that the steps being taken by the University of the Orange Free State to bring into being such a political archive, ought to receive our support. The reason why I am breaking a lance for them to-day is not because it is my old Alma Mater. To tell the truth, I have never been associated with that University, but I admire that pioneering work which they have undertaken. They are now building up a political archives. In doing so they envisage the safe preservation and scientific processing and classification of all political documents. They also envisage a comprehensive political register of all published and unpublished political works in South Africa. They envisage the active collection of documents which might otherwise be lost to posterity. Do you know. Sir, that in South Africa to-day we are practically suffering from a complex. If we come across an old earthenware pot or a chair or what have you of the old days, we seize upon it. We also pay thousands of rands for it. But if we find a political document or writing which might perhaps be of far greater value for our political history, it is relegated to the attic and becomes lost there amongst the cobwebs. They also envisage the collecting and classification of the newspapers of to-day, so that, when a research worker does research on a specific subject, it will not be necessary for him to wade through a wagonload of chaff before coming to the few grains of wheat. These documents will be readily available to him. That will facilitate the task of research workers considerably.

As far as research work is concerned, Sir, we have done very little in South Africa up to now. Actually we have just touched the surface. We now find that the interpretation of our own political history is being done in a very free manner by persons overseas, persons who are even hostile towards us. We are ourselves too much embroiled in our own bitter political struggle and we do not get any further. For these reasons I say that it is to be welcomed that the University of the Orange Free State, under the guidance of Professor J. J. Oberholzer and Dr. M. C. E. van Schoor, has taken the lead in establishing a political archives.

History in itself is not a very lively subject, but political history, as far as I am concerned, borders on political science. In other words, it is a dynamic subject which deals with the cardinal problems of to-day It deals with the dynamic problems and our views on how we must meet them to-day.

These political archives of the University of the Orange Free State have already acquired very important donations, which already form a very valuable nucleus, one which they have already built up and which they will continue to build on. I am thinking for example of donations from the present State President, Mr. C. R. Swart. I am also thinking of all the documents belonging to Mr. Leslie Blackwell, a former judge and member of this House, which have been made over to these archives. I am thinking of the donation of the political documents belonging to Dr. Eric Louw, the late Mr. G. P. van der Merwe, the late Dr. Otto du Plessis, Mr. C. L. Henderson, the former private secretary to Minister W. B. Madeley, and Mr. Bailey Bekker, all of which the archives have already received. These documents are so important that they now possess a nucleus around which they can continue to build.

Members on the opposite side, or others, may perhaps put this question: Is it not better for these documents to be placed in the hands of the State Archives? I want to reply immediately and say that I think it is the duty of the State Archives to preserve all State documents for posterity, but it cannot demand private collections, because the private donor is usually a little sceptical of the State or of private persons. I am aware that there are private individuals at the moment who are also collecting these documents avidly. I am thinking for example, of Dr. W. A. Kleynhans, of the University of South Africa, and numerous others, whom one can only admire. But I think that not one of the private collectors, or even the State archives, can build up a collection which will enjoy the support of all political parties, and that is what is essential in this matter. The State Archives will possibly obtain documents dealing with the State as such, but only a university of status can have come so far that it will be able to obtain all the documents from all political parties.

It is also the case that in the State Archives documents are preserved which are important for history, because the Archives Act provides that certain documents can only be published after 50 years. What is of even greater importance, however, is that one should no longer have to wait for periods of 20, 50 or 100 years. We need them now, now at this stage, because it is on them that we must base our political thinking. We must continue to build on those values, and we cannot wait any longer. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) in discussing the position of our National Study Loan and Bursary Fund. There is no better investment which we in this country can make than to equip our youth, who attend our universities and other institutions for higher education, for life. If then it appears that there is something wrong with that Fund, one feels that the time has come for the public to be told that the responsibility for the training of our youth is not simply that of the State but also that of companies and of individuals.

I want to say immediately, Sir, that as recently as early this year, accusations were made against this Government by no less a person than the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He said that the Government was doing far too little for the education of our youth at universities and other institutions for higher education. He mentioned figures, and this fact makes one realize how easy it is to play with figures. I do not want to use another well-known expression in regard to what can be done with figures! He said in this House that in Great Britain 10.6 per cent of the national income is spent on education, while in South Africa the figure is only 4.5 per cent. Other hon. members of the Opposition also drew this comparison. If members of the public also follow this up and draw comparisons of this nature, which may perhaps be confusing, it may give the impression that this Government is not doing sufficient in connection with university or general education. Mr. Chairman, the true facts are that South Africa’s contribution towards education, on the part of the Government, compares very favourably with that of any other country. Comparable figures indicate that in the United Kingdom 4.4 per cent of the national income is spent on education and, in Australia, only 3.2 per cent. In Denmark the figure is 3.5 per cent and in the U.S.A., 4.6 per cent. In South Africa this figure is 4.5 per cent. Although we are grateful for what the Government is doing—and for what it is doing in these estimates specifically by increasing the grant to universities by a further R3,000,000—I should like to ask this question: Are these figures actually comparable when one expresses the amount which the State spends on all aspects of education as a percentage of the national income? I ask this question because the State does not have the total national income to spend. The State only has that revenue which it collects. Would it not be better, comparison wise, to express the expenditure on education as a percentage of State income, or to compare actual State expenditure with that of other countries? I hear the hon. member here next to me groaning, but I want to tell him that the unfavourable figure mentioned by his Leader was mentioned incorrectly in regard to Great Britain. What portion of Great Britain’s national income goes to the tax-collector? If he will investigate this aspect of the matter, he will realize what an unfair comparison his was.

Britain is a welfare state.

Yes, precisely. It is a welfare state. One realizes then what an unfair comparison his was. In other words, I contend that when the amount spent by the State on education is expressed as a percentage of State income and not as a percentage of the national income, one will receive a far more favourable picture of South Africa in comparison with other comparable countries like Great Britain.

Mr. Chairman, I have said that the Government is setting the example. But the Government cannot do everything, as is the position in the case of housing, a matter which we discussed the other day. The Government can assist but it cannot do everything in regard to education. The public as a whole must be made aware of the fact that they too have a contribution to make. The signs are there that this will be the case. Because of the tax concession made to companies we have the position to-day that, since 1960—in other words, over the past five years—gifts and promised gifts to universities—which are engaged upon special campaigns—amounted to about R20,000,000. This amount was to a large extent forthcoming from companies. This indicates that this tax concession did encourage them to contribute in that way. One does wonder—and I make this suggestion to the hon. the Minister for transmission to his hon. colleague—whether it will not be worthwhile to make this concession in respect of individuals as well. Would this not also encourage them to contribute to our universities on a larger scale, or even to the National Study Loan and Bursary Fund? One can also think in terms of estates which are subject to the payment of estate duty. If a tax concession can be made in this connection, contributions to our universities will be further encouraged.

Mr. Chairman, I am faced with the danger that the hon. the Minister may accuse me of chauvinism, as happened to my friend the hon. member for Rissik. This may be a favourable opportunity to pay a few words of tribute to the University of Stellenbosch which is this year celebrating its centenary. It is a unique university which is established in a rural town. It is a university which has left its mark upon our country and its history. The hon. the Prime Minister is an ex-student of that university. The Chancellor of the University is the hon. the Minister of Finance and there are two council members of the university in the Cabinet.

Yes, but it also produced good men!

Yes, that is what I am saying. I am grateful that that hon. member is not an ex-student of that university. Stellenbosch University has a tradition of service to our country. In its 11 faculties, which will shortly be increased to 12, it makes provision for a wide variety of services to the nation and its people. I should like to mention two faculties in particular, those of Forestry and Military Science, which are the only two of their kind in South Africa. The latter faculty particularly, that of Military Science, has of late been playing an increasingly more important role in our country.

In paying tribute to the part which this university has played during the past hundred years of our history, I think that it will also be fitting to pay a few words of tribute to the Registrar of that university, Prof. S. J. Pretorius, who will be retiring at the end of this year after a long period of service with the university. Those who attended his classes while he was still lecturing remember Prof. Pretorius as one of our most capable university men. In recent years he has in an administrative capacity been most closely connected with the growth of the university which now has 6,500 students.

In paying tribute to this university and the part it has played, I should like to express my gratitude for the sound trains of thought and guidance that have been forthcoming from the university. There has of late been a great deal written in the press in regard to the position of sport, and, more particularly, an intervarsity rugby competition. The University of Stellenbosch’s attitude has been: Studies come first; we cannot participate in a competition which will mean that students will have to travel all over the country during the time they should be studying. Strong criticism of the Rector and the university has been expressed in sporting circles, but the university has stuck to its guns and has issued a statement in the following terms (Translation):

As it happens, Sir, this university is one which has achieved much in the sphere of sport. It has produced many good sportsmen. That is why I think that what it has had to say is of particular importance. For this reason too one appreciates the comments forthcoming from one of our daily newspapers in the North, which were as follows (Translation):

These comments were made in pursuance of the decision of this university in regard to the question of sport. When one considers the amounts that are spent on education, particularly on higher education, and when one considers the numbers of students who are unsuccessful every year, one feels that, particularly in these times when we need our young people so much, these words have great meaning and are worthy of research—that sport must be accorded its rightful place, in perspective, but that in the first instance devoted study on the part of our students must be accorded its true position.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch paid tribute in his speech to the University of Stellenbosch on the occasion of its centenary celebrations this year. I think it fitting for us, on this side of the House, to request the hon. member as the representative for Stellenbosch to convey the good wishes and sincere congratulations of this side of the House to that University. Stellenbosch has undoubtedly played a tremendous role in South Africa in the past 100 years, and one assumes, taking into consideration its achievements in the past, that it will maintain its tradition. We trust that the hon. member for Stellenbosch will also transmit that to the University authorities.

I am rising, however, to touch upon a matter which to my mind is one of the most important problems besetting education in South Africa and which has also been mentioned here to-day, but in regard to which I think we have not done much towards finding any solution. It is undoubtedly the case that South Africa will not be able to develop to its full potential, be it in the field of agriculture, in that of commerce and industry or in any other elated field of service, unless we make sufficient use of the manpower available to us. A great deal is said about the enormous shortage of manpower which we are experiencing in this country. I wonder whether that view is quite correct. I wonder whether it is not rather a case of our not making sufficient use of the manpower we have at our disposal. I have no doubt that we do have the material at our disposal, but I wonder whether our Education Department, or the State or the Government, truly realizes that up to now we have not quite succeeded in our attempt to provide the country with sufficient schooled workers. There is no doubt about it that there are to-day tens if not hundreds of people at our universities wasting their time or wasting their own or their parents’ money, while there are scores of young boys and young girls outside our universities and institutions for higher education, boys and girls who would like to be admitted to those institutions, who would like to assist us in wiping out the shortage of schooled manpower and improving the position, but for whom the doors of those institutions are closed because of the fact that they do not have the means at their disposal. I am not saying that the loans and bursaries which we have granted up to now and the methods which we have applied up to now have not helped to improve the position; of course they have. The hon. member for Johannesburg (West) has outlined here what Helpmekaar, for example, does to make bursaries available, but he also expressed his disappointment at the fact that there was such a poor response on the part of commerce and industry in regard to the National Study Loans and Bursaries Fund. I notice from the report of the Department for the past year that donations totalling R1,825 were received from companies. The question arises whether the methods we apply at present meet the needs of South Africa; whether the methods which we have applied up to the present really assist us in training the people we need so desperately. I would go further and say that sending a son or daughter to university is one of the most expensive undertakings to-day that any parent can venture upon. I would almost go as far as to say that sending a son or daughter to university has always been the exclusive privilege of the rich man in South Africa. For the parents in the middle income group it is an enormous burden and for the poor it is practically impossible. Parents in the middle income group who have a gifted son or daughter may possibly be able to obtain a bursary or a loan. But in nine cases out of ten that bursary or loan does not suffice and they themselves have to make some contribution. For the poor man who has a gifted son or daughter there is perhaps also the possibility of sending the child to university with the rid of a loan or bursary. But what about the man in the middle income group or who is poor and whose son or daughter does not fall in the high intelligence groups but has nevertheless passed the matriculation examination and has obtained an exemption certificate to attend university? What about those parents who do not have the necessary contacts or who do not know how to set about obtaining loans or bursaries? I maintain that the methods we apply in South Africa are completely out of date considering the circumstances in which we live today, and unless we adopt a different approach to university training I cannot see how we are going to provide in South Africa’s need for trained persons. I wish to plead with the Government to investigate the possibility of giving free university training to boys and girls who have the ability but whose parents do not have the means to send them to university. Let us help them; they ought to be assisted. We would serve South Africa in doing so. We will not be able to develop to our full potential unless we take steps of this nature. We are all surprised that commerce and industry do not do more about loans and bursaries under the Act which we passed here a year or two ago in terms of which they may deduct any contributions made to universities from their taxable income. We are surprised that they do not do that. But why should we be surprised? Those people adopt the attitude that it is the duty of the State, and I do not blame them for doing so, because they are approached by a multitude of organizations for financial assistance. But if we consider university training to be a priority, if we provide more money for university training in future and if we demonstrate that we are in earnest as regards this matter, then we shall influence those people as well to do more for education and especially for our institutions for higher education.

I again want to plead with the hon. the Minister to consider providing free university training to talented boys and girls whose parents do not have the necessary means at their disposal to send them to university. I am convinced that by doing so we would render a great service to South Africa and would enable South Africa to develop to an increased extent in future and to make better use of its potential.

Before replying to what the hon. member for Newton Park has just said, I want to say that I agree that we in South Africa cannot afford to neglect our human material, but that we should see to it that every boy and girl who has the potential is trained to the maximum of his or her ability. The hon. member advanced an argument which is very popular, and I should have liked to have been able to support him, but we have to be practical. We should not therefore, in debating the Budget, attack the Government for excessive spending, and then, when it suits us. appeal for services which would of necessity incur heavy expenditure. We do not want to convert South Africa into a welfare state; we do not want to promote socialism. I agree with the hon. member in regard to the importance of educating every boy and girl, especially those who possess talent but have not the wherewithal to attend university. We should not allow those boys and girls to be neglected. I trust that it will be possible to make interest-free loans available to these people so that lack of means will not obstruct their path towards higher education.

I rise to make an appeal for technical education in South Africa, and in particular at the technical high schools. I am pleased to know that we have a Minister and a Secretary for Education, Arts and Science who are sympathetic to this cause. This is also true of our Department of Education, Arts and Science. Mr. Chairman, in making this appeal I do not want to be misinterpreted; I am not saying that insufficient attention should be given to the academic training of our young people, but that if South Africa were to go to the trouble and expense of making a survey of our requirements, we would be able to maintain a fair balance in South Africa. This survey would in the first place serve to determine our immediate and future requirements, what we require in the nature of human material, and secondly, to ascertain what we have available in the way of human material. There are certain basic principles of education which we would not want to waive, principles which will enable our young people to avoid superficiality, principles which will stimulate sublimation. I am glad to say that there is a technical high school in my constituency. I am pleased that the old stigma which was previously attached to trade schools is disappearing to an increasing extent and that those schools are now seen in an entirely different and favourable light. We need these technicians in South Africa. When we scrutinize the immigrants who are recruited for South Africa we find that our immigration campaign is directed towards technical development and technicians. I am of the opinion that much more time and more attention should be devoted to the development and training of our own human material here in South Africa. I appeal in particular for the introduction at every school in a suitable environment of a subject which I want to call “agricultural mechanics”. We need it desperately; it is of vital importance that we have people who can teach this subject and that we train our lads in this technical direction to enable them to service and maintain the mechanical and other agricultural equipment in everyday use.

I want to make an appeal for a survey of this nature, not in order to upset the balance but simply in order to maintain the balance in the future. There is no doubt that there is a need for academically trained persons for the future, but it is equally of vital importance that we should also have technically trained persons. I think that it is far cheaper to develop our own human material to the full than to import immigrants. I also maintain that our own people do not have to be taught to assimilate with the South Africans; they are born of the soil and know these requirements. I say that under no circumstances can we in South Africa afford to allow our people to become redundant for the sake of people who are strangers to the nation, the soil and the traditions of South Africa. That is why I want to make an appeal for technical training and the giving of a status to our technical high schools and those boys and girls whom we can train technically. I want to make a very urgent appeal to parents not to send the so-called stupid child to our technical high schools. There are no stupid children, or very few; it depends upon the method we use to ascertain the ability and potential of that child. Fortunately, our nation is a balanced nation and we do have people who do not have the bent to occupy high academic positions but who have a flair for showing their skill with their hands. There is a great need for such persons. I feel that our education should be orientated in such a way that we shall be able to make a comprehensive survey of South Africa’s needs in this regard and of the material we have available, and that we should so develop that material that it will contribute towards the establishment of a model state in South Africa where we shall do our work ourselves.

I want to reply very briefly to the few thoughts which have been expressed, and I want to thank the hon. member for Waterberg for his thoughts in regard to the cerebral palsied. He made a plea for such a school to be built at Pietersburg. I can only say that one is at present being constructed at Krugersdorp. It is very expensive and we must first wait and see how it develops, and major contributions are being asked for from the private sector, but we realize that where the needs exist this will happen.

The hon. member for Orange Grove said that an education system which does not have history as a subject is committing suicide and high treason. I agree. Any nation which does not know about its origins and what its links are with other countries will come to a fall. What is so tragic is that I had a survey made and the percentage of children in the English-medium schools taking history is much higher than in the Afrikaans-medium schools. I have even gone so far as to introduce history in our higher technical and trade schools, because it is absolutely essential. It will be up to Standard VIII. Of course we cannot make it a compulsory matriculation subject. I am not pleading for it to be a compulsory subject, but history as a subject must be there. It is a basic subject.

Did the word “high treason” not refer to our present education system?

Oh please, the hon. member should not be so suspicious. He will sleep much easier, live much longer and be a much more pleasant person if he were not so suspicious.

Two hon. members spoke about the shortage of engineers, the hon. members for Mossel Bay and Durban (Central). The Strasszacher Report, as hon. members know, is only a report on this shortage of engineers. It was handed to us at the beginning of 1966. The Scientific Advisory Council is now convening in September to go through the recommendations of this report with a fine-tooth comb and will then submit their findings to the Cabinet. That will afford me the opportunity as the Minister responsible of making proposals to the Cabinet in regard to doing what can possibly be done. I am glad that the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) and the hon. member for Newton Park both spoke about this bursary fund. This is something which affects me very deeply. It is probably one of the greatest disappointments I have had in my political career, i.e. the poor reaction which was forthcoming. You will remember that the Government initially gave a loan of R500,000 in order to make a start with the fund. I exerted myself in order to get this amount as a donation so that we could use the interest on the funds for bursaries, and the Government agreed. We have already tried out, by means of circulars, etc., all the good plans which the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) put forward. During the next session I hope to introduce an amendment to the Act which established this fund. We do not have the right to do so at the moment, but the only way to get this money is to appoint a paid organizer. He can sell all the various bodies on this matter. I hope to make this amendment in the 1967 session. It is not now a convenient time to do so. I then hope that the fund will grow. I want to thank the hon. member for his interest and I am also availing myself of this opportunity, as I do on each and every occasion, to make that urgent appeal to the private sector to realize that they are not giving away charity, they are making an investment in South Africa for the future. Everything which one gives to education and training is an investment.

I want to tell the hon. member for Newton Park that free university training costs many millions. If one makes it free for one person, you will have to do it for all. One can only do it by means of a bursary, and we have had that in the case of ordinary education. Here it was also the indigent first and later it went further and further, and to-day it is free for the richest man’s child, as well as for the poorest man’s child, and that principle is wrong. But it costs a parent an average of R600 a year to keep his child at university. I admit that it is expensive and that is why I am pleading for these bursaries. But we must rid ourselves of the idea of free university training.

I am pleased about the plea of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad for higher technical schools. I just want to furnish this one figure. In 1954 there were 27 vocational schools with 5,000 full-time pupils, whereas in 1963 there were 77 with 30,000 pupils. We are therefore making progress. That is the direction we are taking. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank all the hon. members on both sides of the House very sincerely for their contributions. It was a pleasant discussion and it was constructive, and my Department and I will take thorough cognizance of many of the ideas which have been expressed here.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote 15,—Schools of Industries and Reform Schools, R2,185,000:

This Vote, which is separate from the Education, Arts and Science Vote, is an important Vote in that it plays an important part in the education particularly of some of the maladjusted youth of South Africa. However, I think there are certain aspects dealing with the reform schools and the schools of industries which require further elucidation from the Minister. I refer to the question of the schools of industries which are playing an important part, and I understand that in many instances the pupils of these schools of industries are playing an important part in the industrial life of South Africa and are making careers for themselves after leaving such schools. However, I feel that the time has arrived when greater care should be taken in regard to the grading of these schools of industry. We find that in terms of the Children’s Act many of the young people who are committed to these schools of industry are committed on various grounds. There are instances of children declared in need of care in terms of a court order, and there are nine grounds on which a person can be committed to a school of industry or can be declared a child in need of care. Here I think that at least one of the schools of industries for boys should be allocated to those young persons who are not showing any delinquent tendencies whatever. In other words, boys who are transferred from children’s homes and are then committed to schools of industries, and the reason for their committal is often because they are deserted children or neglected children or abandoned children. I have had instances where boys have been transferred from a children’s home to which they were originally committed on such grounds and where they have not developed any behavioural difficulties but have been sent to a school of industry where a large percentage of the pupils at that school are persons who have been committed to that school on the grounds that they developed delinquent tendencies or uncontrollability or truancy or because of various other offences that they might have committed. It is found that in some instances these children who are committed to the schools of industries have not developed any behavioural difficulties at all, but after being for a period of two years at these schools of industries some of them then develop delinquent tendencies. I feel that the environment is not conducive to the best results unless these schools of industries are carefully graded and great care is taken in the committal of these young people to such schools. I believe that the Minister could have at least one of these schools of industries where the type of boy committed to it would be the type of boy who has not yet developed any delinquent tendencies and who could also be placed, when it comes to private placement, and sent to such a school; and these schools can be made great use of by many people who would like to see their children receive extra discipline at a school of industries but at the same time would not like to see them committed to a school where they come into close contact with boys who have developed delinquent tendencies. This would obviate that danger of environment. I therefore think the Minister should give some indication as to the degree of success that the schools of industries are achieving, particularly in regard to those boys who are committed to these schools on the basis of being habitual truants or because they have been convicted of offences and have been sent to these schools for rehabilitation. The other point is the question of absconders. Here I believe it is really in the hands of the boards of management of the various schools of industries when it comes to dealing with these boys who abscond. It appears that in many instances when the absconder is returned to the school he invariably absconds again in a very short time. I wonder whether it is not possible for the Minister to take up this problem with his colleague the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions to see whether greater use could not be made of the observation centres so that in the best interests of the boy concerned he can be dealt with either by being transferred to another institution where there might be a greater possibility of him receiving the re-education which is so necessary in the rehabilitation of this particular type of youth.

Obviously the reform schools have a far more difficult task than the schools of industries. Reform schools have to deal with young juvenile offenders. Yet, here too, I believe that greater care should be taken in regard to the grading of those boys admitted to such schools. I know of several cases where boys have been admitted to the Constantia School for offences such as abduction and others. Some of these boys soon after they were discharged were again convicted for offences of a different nature. Recently there was a case of a boy who within six months of his discharge was convicted on three charges of housebreaking and theft. The offence for which he was originally committed to the reform school was that of abduction. So I should like to suggest that greater care should be taken in regard to the association of the boys at such schools and also of the type of offence of which they have been found guilty.

The question of the success of the Constantia School for Boys received special attention when a report under the aegis of the National Bureau of Education and Social Research was submitted by Dr. J. N. Lotter. This report had as title “Rehabilitasie van Blanke Jeugoortreders”. This report contained some interesting information. It was, in fact, a follow-up study of 544 pupils discharged from the Constantia School. Certain statistics contained in this report make one wonder whether the time has not arrived where the old question of the type of training, the curriculum and the type of re-education at the Constantia School cannot be improved. According to this report only 26.3 per cent of the 544 ex-pupils could be classified as successes. Only 26.3 per cent of these pupils were not convicted of another offence during the follow-up period of five years. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Umbilo is known in this House as a person who makes a constructive contribution to the discussion of this Vote each year. He takes particular interest in this matter and I am glad of that. We appreciate it and I can assure him that we have already acted on many of his suggestions. I also wish to assure him that the classification of industrial schools, a matter which he touched upon, has already been accomplished to a great extent. However, I acknowledge that he is right in this respect that things are far from perfect. There is still a need for further classification, but the hon. member will realize that further classification would entail more schools, more buildings, and so on. At the moment it would be extremely difficult to make funds available for the erection of such schools and buildings.

The question of truancy has been enjoying the attention of my Department’s psychologists for quite some time already. It is a matter which I am as concerned about as the hon. member. I may just mention that it is not always the fault of the child if he plays truant, just as it is not always the fault of the teacher. There are many problems associated with this matter and we will therefore have to tackle it in the right way. I agree with the hon. member that it will not be of much avail to send the child back to the same environment. That will only frustrate him even more. As far as the school at Constantia is concerned, the psychologists and inspectors of my Department are already giving their attention to the adjustment of courses and the establishment of more effective methods for rehabilitation. I am very glad to be able to testify that great progress has already been made. I thank the hon. member very sincerely for his interest in this matter.

Vote agreed to.

Revenue Vote 16,—“Information, R3,345,000”.

The hon. the Minister who is Minister of Information at present, was chairman of the chief propaganda committee of his party for many years. I am prepared to compliment him on having done particularly good work in that capacity. Now he is the head of the propaganda department of South Africa, and I am convinced that it is in his power to make a success of it, if he wants to. But then he will have to effect a few changes, and develop a new approach in respect of his task. The hon. the Minister will have to admit that, in spite of everything we have undertaken in the field of State information during the past years, we have actually not made any progress. I note that in the Annual Report of the Department mention is made of the fact that “there has been in several countries a gradual yet significant shift of attitude towards South African affairs”. One hopes that that is really the case, because if things are going badly with a country, it also affects its citizens in all manner of ways. It concerns each of us personally that our country should enjoy prestige and that it should not continually have to live under a cloud of threats. But the hon. the Minister will pardon me if I point out that this statement appears in the reports of his Department virtually every year. In the report for 1963, for instance, it is also reported that there is “greater understanding and increasing acceptance of the underlying idea of separate development”. Favourable signs are always being seen and reported. However, the trouble is that it is like the rainbow. We never reach the actual change. On the contrary. I think the facts of the matter are—and it is necessary for us to look the facts in the face—that our position in the world has not become any easier. According to speeches made by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, for instance, the position has indeed become more difficult for us. I must honestly say that sometimes I am inclined to wonder whether things would have gone any worse with us if, instead of spending so much on State information over the years, we had spent the funds on teaching and educating our own people. As we see the matter, there has been, in spite of all the efforts that have been made, no improvement worth mentioning in the image of South Africa abroad; at any rate, no improvement up to a point where it is significantly to our advantage in the field of diplomacy and politics. The question that has to be asked in this regard is where does the fault lie, and how can we try to correct that fault. We on this side feel that it is our duty to say what we think should be done to put the matter right. The advice we want to give the hon. the Minister in this regard is that he should in the first instance study the information services of democratic countries such as England and America, and, in contrast to that, the information services of one-party states such as Russia and Portugal. If he does that, he will see that there is a clear difference in the approach of these two kinds of countries as far as their information services are concerned. The difference is contained in this: In the case of one-party states, the state is identified with the ruling party. Let me mention a practical example of this. Take, for instance, the Soviet Union. In the public mind all over the world it is inseparably coupled with the doctrine of Communism. Consequently, if the Soviet Union advertises itself in the world, it cannot do so without advertising Communism at the same time. It is for that reason that in thinking of the Soviet Union at present, one thinks of it not as a country—although it is a great country which has tremendous industrial development and which has at the same time attained great achievements in the field of science—but immediately in terms of its Communism. We in this country have quite rightly banned Communism, and it is for that reason that a country such as ours, for instance, cannot allow any information pamphlets of a country such as the Soviet Union here for the very reason that it puts its doctrine first and foremost. The result is that in the minds of the people in the world that country and its doctrine are coupled inseparably to each other. Over against that we find the other group of countries such as America and England. In those countries we find the two-party system, as we also know it in South Africa. A principle of this system is that the government of to-day may perhaps be the opposition of tomorrow. In the propaganda of England and America, for instance, mention is not made of “State policy”, but of the policy of the current government. In reading the information documents of these countries, it is in fact possible to be conscious of the party which is in power. Their information offices also make available to the world explanations in regard to the policy of the current government. But their whole approach, such as in the case of America, is of such a nature that one will not continually identify that country with the Democratic Party which is in power at the moment. One thinks of it as a country, just as in the case of England, and if one thinks of them politically, one does in any case have a mental picture of a democratic state with two leading parties, each with its own policy, but both of them still inextricably part of the state. The one is as much part of state as the other. One simply does not think of identifying the ruling party in America, for instance, with the state. The whole picture of their political life is one of government and opposition, and conversely, and in that manner the image conveyed to the world is that of rivalling politics and rivalling political ideas.

I think that we are making our mistake in this regard. I do not want to go as far as to say that we are following the Russian model in all respects. I am of the opinion that we are closer to the Portuguese model. However, we have reached the uneasy position that when the outside world thinks of South Africa, it immediately thinks of apartheid. They continually see these two together and never do they see South Africa as a country without connecting it with apartheid. In the public mind South Africa and apartheid have become a unitary concept, just as the Soviet Union and its communism are inseparably linked in the public mind. If one thinks of one of them, one immediately thinks of the other as well.

Mr. Chairman, this is not the opportunity for talking about race policy as such, neither am I doing so. What I am in fact dealing with, is the way South Africa is presented to the outside world. Let me put it this way that, if such a doctrine had been a pleasant and accepted concept to the outside world, it would not have mattered. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout merely served the same old sour porridge here this afternoon. He has of late been doing that so often in this House. We are becoming quite used to the fact that he refers to this side of the House by implication as a one-party State, and in the same breath mentions Russia. I want to tell him that it does not go down very well with us. All I can therefore congratulate him on this afternoon, is that he said the same old things he says here so often, in a calmer fashion this afternoon. I want to tell him that if he thinks he is of any service to South Africa by making that kind of statement in a responsible House like this, it surpasses my understanding, and I think also that of most of the hon. members on this side of the House. Mr. Chairman, I just want to show you how unpatriotic the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is. I want to show you how unpatriotic he is in making that kind of reference in this House.

I have in front of me a report of the “Hearing before the Sub-Committee on Africa of the Committee of Foreign Affairs, House of Representatives, 89th Congress”, which took place on 10th, 17th and 24th May, 1966. I want to read to the hon. member the evidence given before that Committee by a former visitor to South Africa, namely Professor C. D. Marshall. I want to do so with the object of showing what a person of high standing who visited our country, said of South Africa, compared with what was said by a man sitting over there, namely the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. Professor Marshall said the following before that Committee—

It was therefore stated by that important visitor from abroad that the position was not what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has tried to make us believe on more than one occasion. I want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and also the United Party’ that the Government may give information to the world abroad until we are literally blue in the face, but as long as the United Party through a spokesman like the hon. member for Bezuidenhout rises in this House in one debate after another and makes that type of speech here, it destroys summarily all the good work done by the Government and the Department of Information. [Interjections.] I do not think it redounds to the credit of hon. members on the opposite side to vilify our country in such a way in this House. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell you that the people of South Africa, and I want to include the United Party, constitute our best Department of Information. We are all concerned in the matter, and all of us should co-operate to improve South Africa’s image abroad.

If we are asked what the main task of the Department of Information is, the answer is surely very clearly that it is to disseminate the image of South Africa abroad—not to sell it, because that is an ugly word—and also to supply information locally to keep the inhabitants of our country informed about Government projects and Government policy. In this great clockwork system the Department of Information is only a tiny cog, and only has the small amount of R3,250,000 on its Budget. The image of South Africa is of such a nature that the world abroad simply cannot fail to see it, thanks to our country and its people, people of quality. I do not want to exclude the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, but if the hon. member persists in comparing us with Russia by implication, he will eventually compel me to exclude him. The image of South Africa we should all publicize, is an image of people with a strong and capable Government, a Government which many countries have reason to envy us; a country where law and order are still maintained under the most difficult circumstances conceivable, and where peace, quiet and prosperity reign under a directing authority; a country where the economic progress as well as the economic investment possibilities are without equal anywhere in the world; a country where great and complex problems, in fact, a problem which is unique in the world, are tackled with skill, determination and insight. We all realize that this is a difficult and unique problem, namely that of our race relations.

Is it too much then to expect the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the United Party to co-operate towards disseminating this image of our beautiful country, a diamond of many facets, honourably to the world abroad? This is a country of which any inhabitant can be justly proud, and not only every inhabitant of the country, but in view of the era in which we live, also the world abroad and in particular the Western world. Our value to the world abroad lies particularly in the intrinsic worth and actions of this Government and of all its subjects, and not in millions of rand in an attempt to sell something cheaply and in popular fashion to the world abroad. Faithful to the true image of South Africa, our Department of Information need not go about swanking and parading abroad like an empty braggart. South Africa does not need that.

Our position in this country is such that if its image were disseminated faithfully, we would be able to present its merchandise without splendour and embellishments, but in a civilized and modest fashion, with dignity and true quality, to those abroad who can still recognize and appreciate what is noble and elevating. Here it may be fitting to say that I believe that in view of these difficult circumstances in which South Africa is struggling with its unique problems, the world abroad will yet be grateful to this country for the way in which it is dealing with those problems. In contrast with that, we see the United Party, which through some of its spokesmen frequently says irresponsible things in this country, as we saw again this afternoon, which present us with many unnecessary difficulties abroad. Against that background there are the activities of our Department of Information and its 390 officials. It is only a small number, seen against the background of the large officialdom which we have available in South Africa. It is only in that light that the activities of the Department of Information may be judged, and it is only in that light that we may criticize the Department of Information if we have any criticism.

I should like to submit the following positive approach to the Minister for his consideration. I know we have already started that on a small scale, but is it not possible that some of these really outstanding and brilliant pamphlets, for example, “This is South Africa—Dit is Suid-Afrika”, may be made available on a large scale on all incoming and outgoing aeroplanes and ships? [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, when my time expired I had not yet completed my argument, otherwise the hon. member who has just resumed his seat would have realized that he was on the wrong track altogether with what he had to say. In parenthesis, I have never presented South Africa as a one-party state. Neither have I ever intimated that we are moving in the direction of a one-party state; for I do not believe that. Here I am, a member of the Opposition, and that is why it would be foolish of me to say that we are a one-party state. When I resumed my seat previously I was indicating that what we were concerned with here was not whether apartheid was right or wrong. That is the policy of the Government and we cannot argue at any length about that matter on this Vote.

My point was that in its presentation of South Africa abroad the Government is continually identifying South Africa with the ideology of apartheid to such an extent that those people always see South Africa and apartheid as being one and the same, just as they always see the Soviet and Communism as being one and the same. It is obvious that if apartheid was an acceptable ideology in the outside world it would not have mattered, but we all know that colour apartheid is something which will never be regarded in a favourable light overseas. Only recently Dr. Eric Louw, the former Minister of the Exterior, suggested that we leave the United Nations, because according to him, it was useless to expect that one will be able to convince the outside world of the justice of the Government’s race attitude; not even the Western countries he said, and that is why he said that we should rather withdraw from the United Nations, and spend our money at home. It is generally accepted that apartheid is something which we cannot sell. That is why I believe that, in view of this state of affairs, it should first be the aim of our Department of Information to break down the present image which people outside have of South Africa, i.e. that South Africa and apartheid is one and the same thing and that they are inextricably linked together.

What our information service is in fact doing at the moment, is bolstering that imagine instead of breaking it down. That is why we are not getting anywhere. The publications which are being made available by the Information Service are larded with ideology. The terminology which is being used, is the terminology of dogma countries—they talk about “state policy” and “South African policy”, and so on. Even in the fine pamphlets in which the Transkei is being presented to the outside world, it is being done within the framework of the apartheid dogma. That is a pity, because we can in fact hold up the Transkei to the world as an example of the development of an area which is predominatly Bantu.

The Transkei has always been there and we are now developing it. However, we now find that there are long passages in this publication in which attempts are being made to make use of that fact to justify ideology. Our propaganda is too much in the service of apartheid, and that is why we are not achieving any success through it. Of course, I realize that the Government has adopted a course which is attracting attention, and that it must therefore explain itself. We are not suggesting either that the Government should not explain its policy. In fact, we do not blame the Government for stating its policy. We make no objection to that. But what is wrong is the way in which South Africa is being presented by the State Information Service. South Africa is continually being harnessed behind the party politics of the governing party. The image which it is presenting of South Africa—and I am referring in particular to the political image—is unbalanced. What it ought to do is this:

It can issue publications in which the policy of the Government is explained. They should be separate publications in which the policy and administration of the Government is explained. But it should be made sufficiently apparent that it is government policy and not “state policy”; that it is the policy of the Government of the day in a country where we have a two-party system and where the Government of to-day is not necessarily the Government of to-morrow. In other words, we suggest that the Government in its propaganda should not follow the example of Portugal or Russia. I am not saying that we are a one-party state, but I am saying that we should not follow the example the one-party states are setting in their propaganda. We should follow the example of the democratic countries, and what are they doing? They are giving a balanced, true picture of their country as it really is. In its latest annual report the Department itself has given the real solution. It stated there that “a balanced picture of the South African scene” should be created, and that is why it is bringing out people to South Africa. The former Minister of Information, when he accepted his post, said: “My task is going to be to give the outside world a true picture of South Africa, an honest picture.”

Do you think segregation will make any difference?

Let the Government issue its publications on the apartheid policy, in a separate volume, but when, in any publication, it wants to present a picture of South Africa as a country and it comes to politics, then it should be made consistently clear that we are a democratic country with a two-party system, with a Government and an alternative Government; and every time when it presents the policy of the Government Party then it should at the same time present the policy of the alternative Government, because after all almost half of the White voters of this country are opposed to the Government policy. [Interjections.] We will not argue now about a difference of 2 or 5 per cent, the fact is that that is the way things are in South Africa. The only true picture of South Africa is that there is a Government and an Opposition. Anything else is not a true picture of South Africa. The Government, when it presents a picture of South Africa, presents for the most part an unbalanced picture of the country. All the documents which it publishes is larded with that. The Government is continually identifying South Africa with the ideology of apartheid, but that is not South Africa. South Africa has a variety of points of view. Apartheid is the point of view of the Government of the day, but it is not necessarily the point of view of the Government of to-morrow! Publications by the American Information Service presenting a picture of America are not continually giving long descriptions of the policy of the Democratic Party as being representative of America; it gives a picture of America as it is; it gives the full story of the Democratic Party and of the Republican Party; it gives the whole picture of America as it is. We say that our Information Service will never achieve success unless it carries out what it has itself prescribed in this annual report, i.e. that it should give a balanced picture of South Africa when it is dealing with South Africa. There is nothing wrong with stating the Government policy in separate publications, but it should not continually be harnassing South Africa to the party political bandwagon of the Government. It has been a long time since I was overseas—three years ago however I was in Japan—but there and in America I had the opportunity of holding discourses, and my approach was always the following: Where I came across a misrepresentation, whether of the policy of the Government or the policy of the Opposition, I immediately corrected it, but what I consistently did in addition to that, was to present the complete picture of South Africa. And this achieved excellent results. I told the people: “South Africa is a democratic country with two main parties and a free exchange of political ideas”. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke about the policy of apartheid and the image of South Africa, which according to him are created in the same breath. He said that the two were linked inseparably in all publications issued by the Information Service. I just want to ask him this question: Does he think for one moment that if the policy advocated by the United Party in the past election were presented abroad, it would create any other image of South Africa than the so-called apartheid image? The policy of the United Party, as advocated by them, presents a worse image of discrimination than any image that may be created of the National Party’s policy. If we were to present the United Party policy, as advocated in their manifestos, namely that they will never give the non-Whites an opportunity of governing the country, to the world abroad, South Africa’s image abroad would be much worse.

It is not the policy of the United Party, in its logical conclusion, which is harming the image of South Africa. The South African Department of Information has a particularly difficult task because we occupy a virtually unique position in the arena of so-called world opinion. It is not the task of the Information Service merely to make our existence and our achievements known to the world. We are a relatively small and inconsequential country as far as the world abroad is concerned and as far as we, by means of financial pressure behind the scenes, can force our point of view on to other countries. It would not have been possible for us to make Britain, for example, abandon the enforcement of its rights in Suez. We are a relatively small country in the world.

South Africa’s premise should be to present its policy as it is, namely within the framework of separate development. Our entire premise is that separate development is the only policy that can succeed in solving the problem of race relations in South Africa. Consider the success South Africa has achieved, by means of its policy, in securing human dignity here for members of all races. What success have other countries achieved with their policy of integration, compulsory or voluntary integration? We need only consider the “success” they have achieved, and then compare it with the success South Africa has achieved with its policy, to realize which policy is the more successful. I want to submit that the reason why the campaign against South Africa is waged with so much hostility, is the very fact that South Africa is proving to the world that we are achieving success with our policy, and that so-called world opinion does not want this policy to be successful. World opinion is seeking to announce the policy of integrational liberalism, the policy of world fraternization, and South Africa’s experience proves that the opposite policy is successful, and the experience of other countries proves that that policy of fraternization is not a success. Our entire premise should therefore be to emphasize in our Information Service documents that the policy of separate development is successful.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is always trying to compare South Africa to a one-party State. He did that again to-day by trying to draw a comparison between the information services of Portugal and Russia, and that of South Africa. He said that our Information Service differs drastically from that of the two-party States, from the democratic states, America and Britain, but the fact of the matter is that if South Africa is showing any tendency to become a one-party State, it is as a result of the voluntary choice of the voters, because they are rejecting the United Party more and more. If the United Party are supposed to be such authorities in the field of information, why do they fail in every election? I want to submit that the United Party fails to submit an honest policy, and for that reason they cannot succeed in presenting a correct image of South Africa.

South Africa is involved in a struggle against power politics, and because it is a struggle against power politics, South Africa can only try to bring about a more favourable attitude towards its policy. I am grateful that the judgment in the South West Africa case has contributed to such a large extent to the considerable improvement in the image of South Africa abroad. It has contributed considerably towards giving many countries food for thought. I want to congratulate our ambassador in America on the contribution he made in a television debate the other day, when the interviewer asked him most vindictive and aggressive questions and he nevertheless succeeded in replying calmly and most efficiently to those questions.

I think our publications abroad have also contributed considerably towards South Africa’s improved image abroad. The judgment in the South West Africa case in particular has contributed a great deal to the fact that people are now asking themselves whether the vindictive campaign against South Africa should be continued. South Africa is making its mark despite the fact that we are facing the superior power of so-called world opinion.

South Africa will achieve success, and the documents published by our Information Service are having an effect wherever they are disseminated in the world.

I should like to plead that some of our information documents should be sent to all larger companies overseas for the information of the directors and heads of those companies. I think that will contribute to a better understanding of South Africa and to its economic prosperity. In that way we shall also be able to present a better image of South Africa to people who matter. The hon. member for Primrose has already said that we should place those documents in aeroplanes; I agree wholeheartedly, but it is my request that our publications should also be made available in all business offices abroad to which the public has access.

I do not plan to go very deeply into what the hon. member has just said. You cannot go very deep into such shallow waters. I am not quite sure whether he was talking about the department of the Minister of Foreign Affairs or whose department he was talking about but I seem to have missed the point that he was talking to the hon. Minister of Information. Sir, this Department of Information is something which concerns all of us. It is not something which concerns only the Nationalist Party. It concerns us on this side of the House. It concerns all South Africans, and it is a Department which is larger than merely a propaganda department. We are all involved in it, every single one of us. Our country is involved in it. The image of our country overseas is involved in it, and I think the image that this Department puts across must be something greater than merely the image of a party in power, because that is something which can be changed at the whim of the electorate. That is something which is here to-day but may be gone to-morrow when there is another party in power and another policy may be followed. But it is part of the duty of the Department to create overseas an image which is favourable to South Africa, and whatever happens, you are working against liberalist organizations overseas whose object it is to destroy the good image of South Africa. The policy of this Department must be so framed as to counteract the propaganda of these other agencies overseas. I believe what is important is to put across the realities of our position in this country, and that reality is quite simple, that we are the only stable and civilized country in Africa, and both sides of the House are involved in that stability and civilization.

What is necessary is to penetrate to the mass thought of the West. That is the task of this Department, to get across to the thought of the people in the West that we here are a White population which has a function and a mission to perform in the world. I believe that the image that is put across is in some ways the wrong one. I realize that when the hon. the Minister of Tourism was the Minister of Information we had a certain amount of pictures of South Africa which are attractive to foreign tourists, glistening beaches and dusky maidens and wild animals, designed to draw visitors to our country. But I think the task of this Minister is to influence the minds of the people overseas who are our potential friends. I am quite convinced that the mass of people in the West are potentially friends of South Africa. We must get into their minds a new image of our country and it is going by default because I believe we are not using the right medium.

This is a thought which was given to me by a person, a friend of South Africa, a frequent visitor who is chairman in England of 42 companies, including one of the largest insurance companies in Britain. He made the point that the medium of our advertising, which consists largely of the printed word in Britain, is wrong. It is difficult to get across to the people the message that South Africa has. I do not know whether hon. members have seen some of these printed advertisements. I have seen some in Punch and they are very urbane and civilized. “What is South Africa like, old boy?” “It is a great place, old chap. Our chaps over there are doing a great job,” and all that sort of thing. But this is not what we need to get across to the thought of the people. The advertisements in the newspapers are a little too detailed. The suggestion was made, and I give it for what it is worth, that time bought on commercial television, short, factual and effectual films in prime viewing time, are the things to bring into the homes of the people, where you have a compulsive audience. They will never get up and turn off the programme just because South Africa appears on it. They will be there watching and you will bring your message into the homes of 40,000,000 people at a time. People say it will cost money, but if you are spending Rx,000 on the printed word which is totally ineffective that money is lost completely, but if you spent Rxx,000 on something which penetrates into the minds of the people you are trying to reach I believe you will achieve something. I think this is something the hon. the Minister should go into. This is the ideal way to make a real impression, to reach out to the people with a message that we in South Africa, all of us, White people and Black people together, are working to achieve something which will be a bastion for White civilization on a continent which is rapidly being engulfed in darkness. I think the present way in which we are approaching this matter is the wrong one, and I think that by making more imaginative use of the mass media we will be able to achieve something which will be of tremendous value to our country—and it is our country. I do not care what party we belong to, but we have a common future, and this is one way which will help us to get ahead.

Mr. Chairman, let me say in the beginning, in contrast to some of the speeches I have been reading up in the past few days of previous speakers on the Opposition side in regard to Information, the hon. member for Mooi River has at least come with some constructive ideas and I want to congratulate him. But I want to return in the first place to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who has now been promoted to be chief spokesman on information for his party. He made the statement that after all its efforts through the years, the Government has not been able to improve the image of the country overseas. He also said that we have been chasing a rainbow but we do not seem to be reaching that rainbow. Now I want to ask that hon. member what his suggestion is, and how can we improve our image, if we all know that the only image and the only policy that the outside world and its Press demand from South Africa is that we should follow the road of racial integration? Not even the United Party with its new-found policy which it propagated in the last election and to which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana referred, White leadership for ever, could create that better image for South Africa.

But I want to come back to earlier times. I do not know to which party the hon. member for Bezuidenhout then belonged, but in 1947 General Smuts led a deputation to UN. He even had the assistance of the former member for Turffontein. In those days we did not have the apartheid policy, but in spite of that the image of South Africa was so bad at UN that General Smuts with all his world stature and statesmanship could not obtain a two-thirds majority there. But let us come to Rhodesia, which does not follow our policy and has a policy of racial integration, and which has 15 Black M.P.s. I am quite sure the hon. member will agree with me that Rhodesia’s image at UN is not much better than that of South Africa, and they have no Verwoerd or apartheid there. Let us take Portugal to which he also referred as a one-party state. We know that Portugal has a colour policy of assimilation, but Portugal’s image at UN is much more unfavourable than that of South Africa. I want to make this statement to-day that the only direction in which the so-called world opinion will be interested and which will give us a better image is Black domination or a movement towards it. I think the trouble is that our party is prepared to nail its colours to the mast and to state quite frankly that it is following a policy of separate development or separate freedoms, while the trouble with the United Party is that it is not prepared to state openly what policy it is following.

I also want to refer to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout’s reference that the Minister should make a study of the information services of the United Kingdom and of the U.S.A. It seems to me that he has not done his homework because he should know as a widely travelled hon. member that the United Kingdom Government information services published a pamphlet in which they state quite clearly that it is the function of a State information service that it should portray and furnish information on Government activities. I want to quote the relevant part—

Then it also quotes the Prime Minister of the time, in December, 1945, that Britain’s information services had now become an important and permanent part of the machinery of government under modern conditions. Now, what difference is there between the policy which the United Kingdom is adopting as far as information services are concerned, and of this Government? There is no difference at all. I also want to point out this to the hon. member. He made the accusation here to-day that in the Government publications no reference is ever made to the fact that there is more than one policy in this country. That is not correct, because if he would look up the back numbers of the S.A. Digest he would see that even his own party had a lot of publicity during the last election. Many speeches made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition were reported, and also speeches by the hon. member for Houghton, who represents the Progressive Party in this House. So that is not correct. I also want to mention to the hon. member that as far as the United States Information Agency is concerned, he should be aware of the fact that whenever there is a change of government, changes are made. When Mr. Kennedy, for example, took over the Government in 1960, the head of the U.S. Information Agency was also changed, and that has happened every time that a new president or a new Government has taken over in America. I also want to remind the hon. member of this. He said that the United States Information Office separates itself from the internal policy of the particular Government, but I want to tell him that from my own experience in Johannesburg as far as the United States Information Office there is concerned, it very much practises integration. I invite any hon. member to go to Shakespeare House in Commissioner Street at any time of the day and you will see that the races represented there are according to the official integration policy of the United States. I am not criticizing it because they have that prerogative under diplomatic privilege to exercise integration there, but I want to make it clear that they practise integration on their premises in that building. Is that not an association of the State Information Service of the U.S.A, with the colour policy of its Government?

But I want to come back to the Department itself after having dealt with those few points raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I think the Department of Information should be congratulated on the fine job it is doing under very difficult circumstances. I want to say that I think the Department of Information is definitely too bashful in telling South Africa itself what they have been able to accomplish under very difficult circumstances in South Africa. The Opposition, through derogatory remarks over the years, have unfortunately created a very wrong image of what the Department of Information is doing, also in the minds of our own South Africans. The image is that the Department of Information is doing very little or, as they sometimes put it, is doing nothing. Sir, has the time not arrived for the Department to blow its own trumpet a little more and even to expand its internal services in South Africa? From time to time advertising space is bought in the public Press overseas. The hon. member for Mooi River has referred to that. Cannot the Department now for a change insert advertisements in South African newspapers, if the papers do not want to publish news stories about it, telling the South African public what it is actually doing to create a better image for South Africa here as well as overseas? Criticism is so easily levelled at the Department, often as the result of what I should like to call “enlightened ignorance”. It has been said that the Department works only for its own glorification, but I think that is very unfair. If you would just page through the latest annual report of the Department of Information compiled by its Secretary, a very excellently produced publication, you will realize, Sir, how extensive and elaborate the efforts of the Department really are to put across the message of this unique country struggling to find a unique solution for a unique problem. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Turffontein seems to have got his lines a little bit crossed when he states with horror that the United States Information Office practises integration in order to demonstrate the policy of their governing party. For his information it happens to be the policy of the opposition party in the United States as well, and therefore you might just as well say that by doing so they are practising and carrying out the views of the American Opposition. It is a very weak argument to use to condemn the information service of another country for carrying out its own national policy.

I do not think he condemned it, he just referred to it.

The hon. the Minister, the ex-Minister, I was going to say the hon. the Minister of ex-information …

You should get your facts right.

The Minister of ex-Information is a little worried about this, because the sort of statement made by the hon. member for Turffontein …

He did not make a statement.

… is typical of the hon. the Minister’s own problem, when he often lost his way and crossed his lines.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with a much more serious statement, one made by the hon. member for Primrose. I want to say to him that nothing can do South Africa’s image more harm than the sort of speech that member himself was guilty of perpetrating. He attacked the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and alleged that the hon. member implied that South Africa was a one-party state. But then he went on to give a perfect example of Fascism, of Naziism, and of one-party states, the one symbol of intolerance, namely intolerance towards opposition. And his own intolerance towards opposition and towards criticism by the Opposition is the perfect example, the living embodiment of the one-

party-state mind. That sort of intolerance does South Africa far more harm than any criticism this side of the House can ever make, because, Mr. Chairman, criticism is the essence of democratic practice, and the denial of criticism is the essence of Naziism. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, that member’s own speech does more harm than anything this side of the House can say.

Now, Sir, I want to look at the objective which the Department of Information has set itself, according to its own report. It says that “it is the purpose of the Department to project, both at home and abroad, an objective picture of South Africa”. While dealing with that object, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he has perhaps given consideration to a proposal by one of his own party, a supporter of the Government who holds high office under the Government, that that objective of the Department of Information can best be carried out by employing Bantu officials in the Department of Information to put across a better image of South Africa. I quote from the Burger of December last year in which Dr. Eiselen, Commissioner-General under this Government, stated the following—

Here you have a supporter of the Government proposing the use of Bantu in the Government Information Service. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he agrees with that view, because the same speaker in the same speech goes on to deal with this objective of the Department of Information to which I referred, namely the object which the Department has set itself of giving an objective picture of South Africa. But Dr. Eiselen believes that the Department is working under difficulties. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he also agrees with Dr. Eiselen’s views as to what the Department should do. I have quoted this in a different context, but I now want to put it to the hon. the Minister of Information and ask him whether he accepts or whether he repudiates this statement. Because, Sir, this is a matter which affects him as Minister and which I believe is his duty to put right. Dr. Eiselen states—

I want to know, Mr. Chairman, whether the hon. the Minister accepts that statement, or whether he repudiates the Commissioner-General for the North-Sotho. I want to know whether in fact the dilemma of the Department of Information is that it has to put out one story for overseas and another story for South Africa; one story for Whites and another story for Blacks. Because that is what the Commissioner-General for the North-Sotho himself determines to be the dilemma of the Department of Information. He in fact pleads for the Government to be honest and to stop giving this double-barrelled picture of South Africa. He says that the Department of Information should take its courage in both hands and accept the implications of putting Government policy across straight and clear. But the emphasis throughout is on Government policy, and not on South Africa. When we on this side of the House accused the hon. the exMinister of using the Department of Information for political propaganda, as an adjunct of the Nationalist Party propaganda machine, he denied that that was its task, its objective, or that it in fact supplied political propaganda to any political party. I ask the hon. member for Umhlatuzana—who was so noisy a little earlier—to deny now in this House that in his own election campaign his office issued material printed by the Division of Information as election propaganda. I challenge him to deny it.

I deny it.

The hon. member denies it. I happen to have witnesses available who went into that member’s office and asked for propaganda and were given Division of Information propaganda. The hon. the Minister denies that it was being supplied. I will get the affidavits. I thought that the hon. member would admit it, but he will learn that it is better not to try to hide facts. The member denied that it was done. I want to state now that I have here a list of six publications, four of which were printed by Dagbreek for the Department of Information, one printed by the Cape and Transvaal Printers for the Division of Information, and one printed for the Department of Labour. These six documents were printed with the taxpayers’ money and were distributed by the Nationalist Party as election material during this election in March. I will give you the names of these publications, Mr. Chairman. They are “Land of the Xhosa”, “Decentralized Industrial Development”, “Workreserving”, “So Fair a Home”, “Pillars of South African Economy”, and “Coloured Peoples of South Africa”. Naturally, Sir, after the denial by the hon. the Minister I was not going to be put off with a mere denial, and we sent a person in with a witness. He came back with these six documents, plus five others printed by the Nationalist Party.

How many did you distribute to the United Party?