I move—

Two principles are involved in this Bill, but before I deal with them I should just like to sketch the background to the position in respect of water provision at Mafeking. Mafeking derives its water solely from a spring, known as the Grootfontein, which is situated in the Transvaal, 11 miles east of the town. The water rights were acquired by purchase in 1932. At that time one-quarter of the rights to that fountain belonged to the Roux family and three-quarters of the rights belonged to various owners of the farms Grootfontein and Valleifontein. By virtue of Act No. 13 of 1932, Mafeking acquired half of this three-quarter share of the rights. Over the years they have been buying out further rights by means of negotiation. They did not buy out the rights of the Roux family, but confined themselves exclusively to buying out the three-quarter share of the rights, so that they are holding 82.3 per cent of this three-quarter share at present. The rights which are still to be bought, represent 17.7 per cent of the three-quarter share. These owners live on plots with an average size of approximately 35 morgen, and they have water rights for 11 morgen per plot. At the moment an average of two up to ten morgen are being irrigated on these plots. There is a total of 38 morgen which is still being irrigated, and of the remaining owners there are still eight persons who are concerned in this matter. I want to emphasize that these rights will not affect the Roux family. As a matter of fact, the Mafeking Municipality is prepared to enter into certain agreements with the Roux family to the effect that they will not buy their water rights. Owing to the fact that these rights have been distributed widely as a result of subdivisions and that it is particularly difficult to act in terms of section 2 of the principal Act, in terms of which all individual owners have to give their consent if the municipality wants to buy out further water rights, the municipality is now requesting the right to expropriate upon payment of compensation. The municipality requests this right in section 2(b). Legal advice has also been taken in regard to this whole matter. The lawyer who furnished this legal advice was of the opinion that these rights could in fact be acquired by way of application to the court. Therefore the object of this amendment is to determine this means of legislation.

Next I come to clause 2. During the recent drought the supply of water was weakened to such an extent, even after the introduction of strict water restrictions, that the municipality was obliged to apply to the Department of Water Affairs for permission to sink a borehole. In terms of the Act of 1932 the municipality was not entitled to use any artificial means to affect the flow of this fountain in any way. A permit for sinking a borehole was granted by the Department of Water Affairs at that time. These rights are now being applied for by means of this amendment.

In the main these are the two principles with which this entire amending Bill deals. Clause 3 only provides that the Expropriation Act will now apply here, since the fountain is situated in the Transvaal. At that time they had to take action by means of two ordinances, of the Transvaal as well as of the Cape, to apply any powers of expropriation. Now it is stated explicitly that this municipality falls under the Expropriation Act (Act No. 55 of 1965).

I shall now deal with clause 4. In terms of section 9 of the Transfer Duty Act, local authorities are exempted from the payment of transfer duty on acquisitions. Accordingly section 15 of the principal Act lapses.

Clause 5 validates the sinking of boreholes for which permission has already been obtained from the Department of Water Affairs. Clause 6 contains consequential amendments arising from our constitutional changes. Other words are substituted for “Union”, “Governor-General” and “Crown”.

This is briefly the background to this amending Bill. I have also discussed this Bill with the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs. His Department has no objection to the introduction of this Bill, on condition that it will remain subject to the Water Act of 1956. Notice of the amendments I shall move during the Committee Stage, has also been given in the Order Paper. I am mentioning this to hon. members so that they may look at them. I move.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill. The hon. member is a new member in this House and I should like to say that we appreciate the manner in which he has put forward his case. He has strengthened his position, I think, by the promise he has made to include in the Bill in the Committee Stage the amendment which is already on the Order Paper. That strengthens his position. It does away with the difficulty which we on this side of the House had foreseen. Therefore we wish him well in the passage of this Bill through Parliament.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned yesterday I intimated that we would support a Bill which intended to train Coloured people to equip themselves to be better citizens and to be better employed. We realize and we know that there are young Coloured people who are “don’t works” and “won’t works” and who are idle. I am sorry to say that I think the proportion of these people amongst the Coloureds is unduly high. These people are no credit to their own people and they are certainly not an asset to the community as a whole. There is a class amongst them which is inclined to be lawless and every now and again they clash with the law. I do not want to use the term “skolly” when referring to these people. I want to avoid using any term which has a derogatory meaning at all. I would not like to have any stigma attached to this whole scheme or operation of the Minister. The Minister stated yesterday that 20 per cent of the economic active population of the Coloured people are unemployed. This is an abnormally high figure when there is so much work to be had and there is such a shortage of manpower and there are so many avenues of empolyment today. Then he stated that 20 per cent of these unemployed are under the age of 20 years. Most of these people are people who should be gainfully employed. One asks oneself the question “why is this the position?” Why is there this large percentage of unemployed amongst the Coloured people? The Minister puts this down to the fact that their parents are not sufficiently interested in them, to the lack of education and discipline, and in many cases the fact that parents are quite indifferent to the welfare and future of their children. The Minister described that as one of the main causes for this development that has taken place amongst the young Coloured people.

I accept that what the Minister says is to a large extent correct, but I think that one of the main reasons for this is the lack of compulsory education or schooling amongst the Coloured people. It is during schooling that they are disciplined. The children are properly disciplined. They are kept occupied. It is schooling which equips them for future employment, including self-employment, and to become useful citizens. Coloured youths who have had schooling are mostly employed. They are employed when they are very young as messengers. Many of them are employed as clerks, and so forth. Schooling is of paramount importance for the employment of the Coloured youth of to-day. If they are at school, I have no doubt that their parents are far more interested in their children. They keep them off the streets. They play their games at school. They go home of an evening or an afternoon tired after their games. They are happy to go home afterwards and they stay in during the evening. Consequently they are not on the streets and they do not become liabilities.

To-day 88 per cent of the Coloured children are at school, but of these only 40 per cent reach Std. II. About 35 per cent of the Coloured children therefore reach Std. II. To put it in a different way, 65 per cent of the Coloured children do not reach Std. II This means that 65 per cent of the Coloured children must leave school at the age of about nine or ten years. At that age 65 per cent of the children are out of school. They run around and have nothing to do. These are the children who start forming gangs and go wrong. According to the Minister’s speech yesterday, Mr. Tom Swartz said in 1964 that he welcomed youth camps to deal with the problem of youngsters who leave school before they should. In other words, he also makes the point that these children leave school before they should and that they then drift into crime and delinquency. There can be no doubt that the lack of schooling is one of the major reasons for the problem we have amongst the Coloured people to-day. We realize that there are difficulties in connection with compulsory schooling. We realize that it is not something which can be put into operation overnight. There are not sufficient school buildings. But the Government has been in power for a long time and I think that more could have been done and I definitely think that more must be done in the immediate future to provide the necessary school facilities for these youngsters.

We also realize that there are not sufficient teachers to-day to cope with the problem but if the children had been at school over a long period and if they had some compulsory schooling, then there would have been more children in the higher standards who would then automatically have taken up the teaching profession and we would not have had the shortage we have to-day. I believe that Coloured children should be kept at school at least until they are 14 years of age or preferably 16. If they can be kept at school until that age then they will be properly disciplined and they will then find jobs more easily. The period will then not be there when they run around with nothing to do and become a problem with crime and delinquency as the consequence.

I think that another reason for this problem is the economic position in which so many Coloured people find themselves. Amongst other things this leads to miscegenation. We have already discussed the matter here that the amount of miscegenation, particularly among Coloured women and Bantu men, is abnormally high. The Bantu men who are mostly migrant labourers and far away from their families father illegitimate children and leave the cities and return to their homes, leaving the Coloured mothers with the illegitimate children. They are not in the position to look after them and these children particularly grow up undisciplined and drift into crime. I think that the tendency to-day is for the better class of Coloured person to improve and progress but the lower class is sinking lower. This socio-economic position is also to a large extent the cause of the problem with which we are faced to-day. The problem with which we wish to deal is not a very old one. I do not think that we had this position ten or 15 years ago. It is one that has developed since then. Since then this undisciplined element has come forward.

We are dealing to-day with young people who grew up under the present Government and they must share their responsibility for the situation and do what they can to eliminate it and to provent its continuation. Unless we attack this problem at its very root, we shall always have to deal with it. The gap between children leaving school at ten years to 18 years is too big. This is the time when they go wrong and it would be ever so much better if they could be prevented from running around at that time and drifting into crime, than to have to reform them at a later stage. Keep them at school and uplift the Coloured people socially and that will instil into them a greater measure of self-respect. This Bill may deal with the problem at hand but we shall always have it unless we embark on a long-term policy which will prevent these people from going wrong. Put it into effect with the least possible delay.

This Bill is designed to deal with a particular section of the Coloured people. Clause 2 states that the object of the training centres is to train cadets for any kind of employment. With this intention the Bill will have our support. We want a Bill which will be to the benefit of the Coloured community, one which will better equip them to become better and more useful citizens in their own interests, in the interests of their community and in the interests of the State as a whole. The emphasis must be on training for their betterment and not to fulfil labour shortages which may be caused by the removal of the Bantu. If the underlying motive is to supply labour, it will fail to do the Coloured people a service. It is a great pity that the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration made a statement which implied that the object of the Bill was to supply labour to fill gaps caused by his policy. I think that the matter is clearly stated in The Cape Times of a week ago—

Then in his interview with the correspondent, he goes on and says this—

I did not speak of a Work Camp Bill. That is all nonsense. I never mentioned those words. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the hon. the Minister looks upon this Bill as a means to supply the Western Cape with labour to implement his policy in removing the Bantu. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Piketberg made a very similar statement, namely that they look upon this Bill as a means to supply the labour for those places from which the Bantu are to be removed. I feel that these statements have caused great harm and it will be a good thing if the Minister of Coloured Affairs will speak unequivocally and tell us that this is not the object and that the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration was wrong and that his statement conveyed the wrong impression.

The hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs made a rather vicious attack on the English language Press for their criticisms of this Bill. I hold no brief for the Press but I think it would have been better if the hon. the Minister had directed his criticism at the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education in regard to his statement. It did more damage to this Bill than anything else. The hon. the Minister cannot blame the Press if they reacted to the Deputy Minister’s statement. [Interjections.] If this Bill fulfils its object, that is to train Coloured youths, they will become skilled or semi-skilled and there should not be very many trainees available to replace unskilled Bantu labour. In a Press statement the hon. the Deputy Minister himself stated that this Bill was not specifically designed to provide for gaps left by the removal of African labour from the Western Cape. I would have preferred the Minister to state that this Bill is specifically designed to train Coloured people for their betterment and that any labour which may be supplied is incidental thereto. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will not object to putting this in a positive form, rather than in the negative form in which he stated it. I know that the Minister is very keen to have a good reception for this Bill throughout the country and to achieve that he would certainly have to clear away many of the misunderstandings that exist to-day.

This scheme must not be looked upon as a work colony scheme but as one for the benefit of the Coloured people, and if this is done, this scheme will have the support of the Coloured people as well as of the white people. It must be a scheme to which no stigma attaches and the trainees must be proud to be trained under the scheme. They must be men who are sought after by employers.

There are certain clauses which we on this side shall want to have amended during the Committee stage. For one thing, we do not think that the word “cadet” is very suitable because we feeel that it refers more to a military or naval organization. I use the word “trainee”, a word which we think might be more suitable, but that is something that can be discussed during the Committee stage. Clause 3 (1) refers to the committees of management. Will the members thereof be White people only or will Coloured people also be appointed to these committees of management? As regards clause 6, we on this side feel that preference should be given to a Coloured medical practitioner. Clause 8 (5) is one which we view with some alarm and we think that it be amended so that time is given for a trainee or any other Coloured person to produce his certificate rather than that he should always have it on his person. He should be given, say, 48 hours or even longer in which to produce his certificate. As the subsection now reads it creates the impression that a pass is to be carried, and that causes a good deal of resentment. I feel that the certificate should be treated on the same lines as our identity cards and that time should be given for the production thereof. Amendments to clauses 10 and 11 will be proposed, and other hon. members will go into that. We feel that clause 15 should be amended because we think it can be improved. We want to tie to that clause the training for certain types of work, i.e. the performance of any kind of work incidental and necessary to some kind of employment. Clause 29 also worries us. I will not go into details as other hon. members will raise the matter. Amongst other things the question of apprenticeship will be gone into and discussed by other hon. members.

We on this side support the principle of this Bill so long as it is intended to train Coloured people who require training.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House welcome the fact that the United Party supports this legislation, even though the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) added the usual number of “buts”. He is of the opinion that compulsory education will remedy the position. That may be the case as far as the future is concerned, but for the next ten years compulsory education will not solve the problem we have to contend with at present.

The hon. member made a nasty accusation here by saying that the position amongst the Coloureds—the debilitation and deterioration which have set in—has arisen under this Government. When I was a child …

That was not so long ago.

Actually, it was not long ago, but it was under the United Party regime. In those days a District Six already existed and at that time the position was such that the police, who were not armed in those days, did not dare to go into District Six at night. As I have said, that was under the United Party regime. This situation which we have to cope with in South Africa, is a very old one. The position has not improved; on the contrary, it has deteriorated. That, Sir, is why it is time we took action.

The hon. member settled a very big point here with the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. But what is wrong with what the Deputy Minister said? The hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs told us here that 20 per cent of the labour of the Coloured population was not being utilized productively. If that 20 per cent could in fact be utilized productively, it would mean an extra 300,000 workers. We would then replace all the Bantu in the Western Cape with them. What is wrong with this argument?

But should they not be trained?

Of course, they should be trained. They should be rendered fit for employment.

It is not necessary for us to take a roundabout way. This legislation is a result of the socio-economic programme for Coloureds, as announced by the previous Prime Minister in 1961. From the nature of the case this will cost a great deal of money. The Minister announced here what the proposed buildings would cost. He said that at the very outset it would cost more than R1 million, whereas the maintenance thereof would amount to R380,000 per annum. That is why this question may rightly be asked—and this question really embraces two significant points: What is the value of this great expense which is being incurred, in the first place, to the Coloured population and, in the second place, to the country as a whole? As regards the Coloured population nobody can deny that there has been neglect in the past, that enough has not been done to uplift the Coloureds and to help them and to enable them to uplift themselves. It is true that the majority of the Coloureds leave school at an early age. It is also true that a large percentage of them—I think a figure of 20 per cent was mentioned, and I think this figure is still conservative—never do any productive work. Many of them become loafers and eventually hooligans and ducktails, as we also find among other population groups.

It is a fact that we have a manpower shortage. I do not wish to suggest that large-scale loafing is to be found amongst the Coloureds. People who know better or ought to know better, say that this is not the case. But what I do in fact know, and even the people who say that they know better cannot refuse it, is that too large a percentage of the Coloured population does not perform productive work.

Owing to the great economic prosperity we are experiencing in our country as a whole and the low standard of living of a very large section of the Coloureds, the position is deteriorating instead of improving. There is a congestion and a concentration of Coloureds in our cities and our towns where many of them do not perform productive labour, but occupy their time with casual and routine work instead, and for the rest they live on the pensions of the aged and the disabled. These young men who are now forced to register and who are called up for training, can play a tremendously great part in the upliftment of their communities to which they return after receiving that training. I foresee that this training of young Coloured men will have more or less the same effect as the old S.S.B. had in the thirties. That was the time of poor-Whiteism in South Africa and that was also a period of large-scale unemployment. Many young men who lounged and loafed about uselessly in the rural areas, were called up and that training meant an infinitely great deal to them. It also meant a great deal to the communities they had come from, and after that training many of those young man were able to fulfil their task in society efficiently, and they made their mark in life. But since we have a manpower shortage, the training of these Coloureds may increase their labour productivity, and in this way they can make a tremendous contribution to the development of the country. Sir, we can draw comparisons. Every white boy has to register when he reaches the age of 17. We had a ballot system formerly. The hon. the Minister of Defence announced that the ballot system would disappear next year and that every boy would be liable to military service as from next year. Let us compare the position as regards exemptions under this legislation with the position as far as young white men are concerned. As regards young white men, there is actually no exemption. Higher education is not a reason for exemption. This Bill provides that a young Coloured man who wants to further his studies, may not be called up because he is improving his position in life. Neither Coloureds who have apprenticed themselves, nor those who are in full-time employ are called up. Therefore we can draw a comparison; we have nothing to hide in this regard. This legislation may be judged on face-value. The intention is that it should be of some significance to the Coloureds and, secondly, to the country as well. From this point of view I welcome this Bill. I have also pleaded in the past that something should be done in this direction. All things have a small and modest beginning, and the amounts mentioned here by the hon. the Minister are already large sums of money, but to my mind this problem is so great—as a matter of fact, it is deteriorating—that the Government should not shrink back from the money which has to be spent on this. I am only disappointed that the amount is not much larger. I am disappointed that the numbers which can actually receive training, are not much larger. I am convinced that this measure will yield large dividends. In this respect we should not think in terms of a thousand Coloureds who have to be trained; we should think in terms of tens of thousands. At present 90,000 of them can register already, and if one is merely able to train 1,000 out of the 90,000 it is still nothing but a drop in the ocean. I say that we should not shrink back from the money which has to be spent on this, since I believe that this measure will yield greater dividends than those of any measure relating to the Coloured population we have ever taken here; it will yield dividends for the Coloured population itself as well as for South Africa.

There is no doubt that the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs in his introductory speech yesterday succeeded in clearing the air considerably with regard to the objects of this Bill. His assurances have helped to reduce a great deal the suspicion and antagonism of a large section of the Coloured people of this country with regard to this measure. In all fairness to the Coloured people, however, I say that they cannot be blamed for adopting that attitude. Both our Afrikaans Press and our English-language Press high-lighted the deteriorating labour situation in the Western Cape and indicated that this Bill would be initiating a new system of forced labour to fill the labour gap caused by the withdrawal of African labour in the Western Cape. I repeat that picture was presented to the citizens of this country and to the Coloured people by both sections of our Press. As though that was not sufficient, great publicity was given to a statement alleged to have been made—and I use the term “alleged” advisedly in view of the repudiation by the hon. the Minister this afternoon—by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration in which he referred to this Bill as the Coloured Work Camp Bill.

I did not.

I unequivocally accept the hon. the Deputy Minister’s assurance; I do not want to become involved in an argument with him. I accept his assurance but it is a great pity that repudiation was not made earlier because that statement was published throughout the country and it helped to create this wrong impression in the minds of the Coloured people.

It does not matter what he calls it; what matters is the intention underlying the Bill.

You will appreciate, Sir, that this caused a great deal of unnecessary alarm in the minds of the Coloured people and of the Coloured leaders who immediately saw in this Bill a threat that their young men would be compulsorily removed to work camps. I want to repeat that the assurance given by the Minister of Coloured Affairs in this House yesterday will no doubt ameliorate a great deal of the hostile feeling which was unfortunately created in the minds of our Coloured people. The hon. the Minister assured us yesterday that the object of this Bill was to provide genuine training centres for Coloured youths and not work camps or work colonies, and I unequivocally accept his assurances. He assured us that there was no intention to establish forced labour camps; that there was no intention whatsoever to force cadets into a particular avenue of employment. He went on to say that after his basic training the cadet would be placed in work of his own choice or would do further training in accordance with his intellectual abilities and his competence and his interests. I am very glad indeed that the hon. the Minister availed himself of the opportunity in an early part of his introductory speech to set out the objects of this Bill. His statement will help a great deal to eliminate the hostility towards this measure. Having said that, I would like to say from my own personal point of view that whilst I agree with the general principle underlying this Bill, I am of the opinion that the Bill in its present form leaves a great deal to be desired. Before I deal with my own criticisms of this measure, I would like to say a word or two in regard to what I consider to be the original, real purpose behind this Bill when it was first adumbrated.

The hon. the Minister himself has referred to the circumstances which gave rise to this Bill. I would say that it is fair to say that the whole idea originated with the object of getting the Government’s help in compelling a small section of “won’t-works” among the Coloured people, the indigent and delinquent section, to undertake some form of compulsory training so as to fit them for the part they could play in their future lives. There is no doubt about it that responsible Coloured people were growing more and more alarmed at the number of—for want of a better term T will refer to them as “skollies”, because the Coloured leaders themselves call them that—who were bringing the Coloured people into disrepute. Responsible Coloured leaders were alarmed at these gangs of young Coloured men who were roaming the streets and creating a great deal of unlawfulness. In the recently established Coloured townships on the outskirts of this city it became more and more dangerous for respectable Coloured people to venture out at night. They were violently attacked and there were many cases of violence executed by these gangs against these law-abiding, decent people. It became almost impossible for the police to cope with the terrible situation which had developed. Unfortunately these assaults were not only confined to the Coloured areas. These skollies became more and more brazen as time went on, and even now it is by no means rare to see these gangs operating in well-established white areas, and even in the centre of our city. In these circumstances the Coloured leaders themselves urged the Government to take the necessary steps to rid our cities and the new Coloured townships of these unruly elements. I am sure that every responsible Coloured leader and, indeed, a very large section of our white population, would wholeheartedly support the Government in giving effect to this reasonable request by Coloured leaders to try and eliminate this danger.

If this Bill had confined itself to that object—and here I want to repeat that the hon. the Minister himself drew attention to the fact that the chairman of the Coloured Council, as far back as 1964, in very well chosen words, moved a resolution urging the Government to take steps to relieve the situation; if the Government had carried out that original idea behind the Bill, they would certainly have received the approbation of all well-disposed persons, both White and non-White. But I want to say at once that the Bill before us goes far beyond that original object. As the Minister explained yesterday, the aim of this Bill is to give direction and purpose to Coloured youths and to equip them for employment. I fel that the powers taken under this Bill by the Minister are far too wide. Much of the Coloured opposition to this measure stems from the fact that all Coloured youths between the ages of 18 and 24 will now have to register. It was all very well for the Government and for the hon. member for Malmesbury to say that this is comparable with the registration of white youths for military purposes, but we know that this is not the case and it is no good bluffing ourselves. We know that the original object of the Bill was what I have already described, and we know that it is intended to deal with that element of “won’t-works” among the Coloured people. Surely this cannot be compared with the honourable purpose of registering for military duty? I do not think we must bluff ourselves in that regard. The Coloured people feel that by placing an onus upon all Coloured youths between 18 and 24 years to register, they are being categorized as potential “won’t-works”. In terms of the Bill the onus is put upon all Coloured youths between the ages of 18 and 24 to be exempted from the scheme, and all Coloured youths will have to carry an exemption certificate. The Coloured people regard this as objectionable, because they regard it in the nature of a pass, and we know how from time immemorial people have resented that type of thing. They feel that this pass might be constantly demanded by any policemen at will, and will bring unnecessary humiliation on a large section of the law-abiding Coloured people, even those who are in permanent employment. I think this will cause a great deal of unnecessary friction and trouble. It will cause resentment on the part of the decent, law-abiding Coloured youths. Surely we can devise a better scheme to deal with the situation the Minister has described. Here I want to say that I am wholeheartedly with him when he says that a scheme has to be introduced to improve the conditions I have described. But I say that we could devise a better method of dealing with the situation, a method which would not exacerbate the feelings between the Whites and the Coloureds of this country. I would suggest that the object behind this Bill can be attained, and the matter can be remedied, by saying in simple legal terms that all Coloured youths between the ages of 18 and 24 who do not fall under the exemptions outlined in clause 14 of the Bill shall be obliged to register as recruits for undergoing the training contemplated in the Bill. In other words, instead of compelling all Coloured youths to register, the obligation should be placed only on those who do not qualify for the exemptions under clause 14. This, to my mind, would remove a great deal of the stigma which compulsory registration places upon the entire Coloured population. It would remove the fears that exist in the minds of Coloured leaders that Coloured children may be arrested without warrant if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that they have contravened the provisions of this Bill. I suggest to the Minister that he gives some consideration to reversing the process outlined in this Bill, and makes it apply only to those Coloured youths who do not qualify for the exemptions outlined in clause 14. This would mean that if a Coloured youth within that age group is receiving full-time instruction at a school or university or is in full-time employment, or is serving an apprenticeship, or if he is unfit owing to a physical or mental defect, there is no obligation on such a youth to register as a recruit. This will mean that the law-abiding Coloured youths who are engaged in full-time occupation or who are medically unfit will not have to register themselves. Registration would only apply to those Coloured boys who are not protected by these exemptions.

I say the Minister should give some consideration to reversing the process along the lines I have indicated here. He would then remove the unnecessary stigma which undoubtedly will attach to the entire Coloured population having to register. I am reminded of the great service rendered to this country some 30 years ago, when the old Special Service Battalion was formed. It was the means of helping countless maladjusted and misdirected White youths—White youths who would not work—into becoming useful South African citizens. It will be remembered however that the system enforced under the Special Service Battalion did not compel all our South African youths to register and to carry exemption certificates or passes. It certainly did not deprive all our White parents of their parental control over their own children, and it did not place them under the control of some selection board, which is envisaged in this Bill. It merely dealt with the mis-directed White youths who would not work and over whom their parents or guardians had lost control. That is what I am suggesting should happen here. Those boys who will not work and those boys over whom their parents or guardians have lost control are the boys who should have to register in terms of this scheme. Those are the boys the Government should deal with on the lines indicated by the hon. the Minister in this Bill. I feel that we should strive for some similar system, on the lines of the old Special Service Battalion, rather than to have the all-embracing powers envisaged in this Bill, which will virtually control and guide the entire destiny of the Coloured population in future.

Surely a method on the lines of that old Battalion would be the means of combating this unfortunate problem. It would indicate that any one who is not engaged in a lawful occupation would have to register. He would have to register as a recruit and would have to undergo the training at a proper training centre, which the Minister has in mind in this Bill. It would certainly eliminate the stigma of all Coloured youths having to register whether they were employed or not. I am quite certain that an approach to this problem on the lines that I have mentioned will receive the whole-hearted support of most of our citizens in this country. Certainly it will receive the whole-hearted support of our Coloured leaders. In regard to the Coloured leaders, I should like to say that there is no one more concerned than these Coloured leaders about the ever-growing problem of delinquency among the Coloured youths. They are fully aware of the grave situation which obtains at the moment. There is no one more concerned than they are about preparing their youths for useful and legitimate work and keeping them off the streets. I would suggest that if we could evolve some scheme which would not necessarily cast any reflection on the whole community, but only deal with those boys who are not willing to work, we would accomplish a great deal as regards winning back the goodwill of the Coloured leaders.

I do not want to go into the reasons which necessitate our having to deal with this matter. They have been dealt with by previous speakers, namely the hon. member for Gardens and the hon. the Minister himself. They dealt with the unfortunate circumstances which have brought about this grave situation. I think it can be summarized by saying that it is the lack of compulsory schooling and education which has brought this about. It must be remembered that these Coloured youths have not had the benefit of compulsory schooling. Many of them have had no schooling whatsoever. That is the human tragedy of the situation. Many of them have had no schooling whatsoever. They come from the poorest environments imaginable. They have not been taught any self-respect or discipline. The Coloured leaders realize only too well that the time has come for inculcating in the minds of these boys the necessity of receiving a proper course of training and of discipline so as to fit them for becoming useful citizens in this country. I want to emphasize this point. I think it is necessary that the hon. the Minister should bear this in mind. The necessity of acting on the lines that I have indicated only applies to a small percentage of these Coloured youths. It only applies to those Coloured youths who will not find employment, who have no desire to find employment and who have no desire to engage themselves in any honest work. It is that section of the Coloured community that has to be dealt with.

The hon. the Minister yesterday referred very briefly to a petition, a copy of which was given to him, I think by myself, signed by some of the leaders of the Coloured people in this country. It is perhaps appropriate that I should quote one portion of the petition, because it will give to the House the idea of what these Coloured leaders have in mind. The petitioners, in one portion of their petition to the hon. the Minister, say:

I mention this as proof, if any were needed, of the fact that Coloured leaders are very anxious to co-operate with the Government to find some way to deal with the unfortunate “won’t works” in their midst. They feel that it is unnecessary to have a Bill with these extremely wide terms, as it creates an unnecessary stigma upon the decent, law-abiding members of their community.

There are many other matters in regard to this Bill which I feel will require elucidation. I want to deal with one or two of them as briefly as I can now. I know that the hon. the Minister will afford us an opportunity in the Committee Stage to deal more fully with these various points. The Minister will realize that many Coloured youths have to wait some time before they get suitable permanent employment. It often happens that they are kept on a string for some time before they can obtain a suitable form of employment after they have left school. What is going to happen to that type of boy, a boy who has had a decent education, who has applied for a job and has to wait for the decision of his future employer before any final decision is made? What is to happen to that type of boy? If, during that period of waiting for the job, which may be a month, six weeks or two months, he is in a decent home, cared for by his parents, and he is selected for training in terms of this Bill, he will lose whatever chance he has of entering into permanent employment or of becoming apprenticed or of obtaining any decent job which might have been promised to him. Surely we should strive to give some protection to such a lad.

Then again, there are many men between the ages of 18 and 24—that is the category envisaged in this Bill—who have become married. What is going to be the position of these married men? Is it intended that clause 14(d), which is very wide in its terms, is wide enough to exempt these married men? These are matters to which the hon. the Minister should give some consideration, and which he should deal with either in his reply or in the Committee Stage.

I should like to obtain some information as to what the hon. the Minister has in mind in regard to the pay, allowances and gratuities which these boys are to receive. In terms of clause 20 of the Bill, the Minister will determine this pay in consultation with the Minister of Finance. Is it intended that there should be a flat rate of pay applicable to all these trainees, or cadets, or whatever you want to call them? If so, is it fair that the youth of 18 who has obtained a Std. VII school leaving certificate and who might have been able to obtain a good job or an apprenticeship, should be paid the same rate as a youth of 18 who, by reason of not having had any compulsory schooling, is absolutely illiterate? Surely these are matters which call for differentiation in the pay and gratuities which these youths are to receive.

Under clause 15, one is entitled to ask what type of training these men are to be given. I should like the hon. the Minister to make it clear what he has in mind in regard to these training centres and particularly to make it clear that it is his intention that these training centres and those responsible for the control of those training centres will act in the closest liaison with the Department of Education in order to ensure that each youth’s individual potential will be investigated, discovered and developed in the best possible manner. The words “any kind of employment” in clause 15are very vague indeed. It is not possible for us to know what the hon. the Minister has in mind.

Under clause 17 a cadet can be compelled to undergo his training “at such other place as a committee may determine, whether or not such other place is a training centre”. I do not know what the hon. the Minister has in mind in that regard. Is it intended, for instance, to place such boys on individual farms? I do not know. Further, what provision is there in this Bill for the placing of these cadets in permanent employment after they have completed their training period?

These are all matters which I think the hon. the Minister could clarify to the House, with great advantage to the whole situation, to the Government and to winning over the goodwill of the Coloured people. I particularly commend to the hon. the Minister that he should give very careful consideration to a most excellent article which appeared in Saturday’s Cape Times, dealing with South Africa’s economy. I refer to the article by Prof. S. P. Cilliers, the professor of sociology at the University of Stellenbosch, under the caption “Place of the Coloured people in the South African economy”. Prof. Cilliers has dealt most carefully with the broad details of the work of the Coloured people in the South African economy. There are some valuable suggestions made by the learned Professor in this article. I am sure that if the hon. the Minister gave his attention to this article he could use some of the suggestions in getting eventual avenues of employment for these boys.

I should also like to obtain from the hon. the Minister information as to why in terms of clause 26 the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act will not apply to cadets. What would happen if a cadet is permanently injured or killed during his training? Is there any reason why the Workmen’s Compensation Act should not apply to these boys? There are many other aspects which will require a great deal of clarification and which I am sure we will receive from the hon. the Minister in view of his earnest desire to try to make this a workable Bill, acceptable to the Coloured people. I do hope that in the Committee Stage he will give us the fullest information in regard to all these matters. For the present and especially in view of the assurances which the hon. the Minister gave us in his opening remarks, I do not propose to oppose the second reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, initially the hon. member for Peninsula also intimated clearly that he supported the principle of this legislation. He also added quite a number of buts. He levelled a few points of criticism at the Act in particular. Amongst other things he said that the Minister’s powers were too wide. He said that he felt that the prospective recruit himself should determine whether he actually qualified for being recruited for the purpose of being trained. To me that is a very strange attitude. It seems to me as though he wants the recruit himself—a person against whom a certain measure of action is already being taken or for whom provision has to be made because he does not work—to be given the right to be his own judge. I do not think that it is a sensible person who argues in that manner. Then I should like to clear up another matter. To me it is not a disgrace that reference is being made to a camp or to an institution where people are taught to prepare themselves for better opportunities for work. I do not know why the military aspect is being praised so highly. The very thought of people being prepared to work for their country is almost being regarded as a disgrace. This measure for the training of Coloured cadets in these centres makes provision for a very small group of our Coloured population. The idea is to make useful citizens out of our Coloureds—and especially out of those who do not want to work—namely those between the ages of 18 and 24. It was stated clearly that there would be 90,000 of them at the first registration and 20,000 after that, but that only 1,000 could be selected for training. That is a percentage of a percentage, i.e. 5 per cent of those who become available annually. Through the census it was determined in 1960 that approximately 15 per cent of our Coloureds were unemployed. Later it was found that it was approximately 6 per cent as a result of the better conditions which prevailed by 1964. But it was also found that approximately half of them were work-shy. It is for these people that provision should be made. Now, and this has already been mentioned, the Press criticized this Bill from the very outset. The following was a heading in the Post—

A “but” is being added now. It will supposedly subject these people to humiliation. Even a quotation from the hon. member for Houghton appeared in an edition of the Post of 12th February. I want to mention to you some of these people who will be insulted by this—a percentage of a percentage. In District Six somebody went about and read the Bill to them. They stood about and in words which cannot be used here, so I am told, they said that they worked at sea for two to three months and that they then had enough money to relax for the rest of the year. The same position applies to tramps. Idleness is the parent of vice, and I hope the hon. member has heard that saying before. Yesterday I received a letter from one of my voters in which reference was made to the way in which these Coloureds loitered about at the pub. If one tries to give them work, they are not prepared to do it. That is why I am so glad that there is a clause in this Bill which provides that the pay of these recruits may not be ceded or made over to any person. The hon. member for Malmesbury gave us to understand very clearly, and this is the truth, that quite a number of them sometimes lived on the disability grant of one person. I am glad about this clause. It is for this type of person that this Bill is being introduced, because it is only 5 per cent, as I have already said. But one has to register the good ones along with the bad ones because one cannot always identify them. That is not so easy. That is why this measure can be regarded as a supplementary measure for making better people out of our Coloureds, for their own benefit and not necessarily for other purposes. There is sufficient reason for doing this for their own benefit. But if it is the intention to make them more serviceable so that they may be a better labour force for our country, and if it also happens to be the intention that they may supply deficiencies in the Western Cape, then nothing is wrong with that. At present it is always being harped upon that compulsory education will solve the problem. The Coloureds form a very important part of our population. There are almost two million of them at present. In the Western Cape alone opportunities for work for approximately 10,000 of them will have to be created annually. They are entitled to a share in the advantages the State is able to offer to those for whom it is responsible. But as far as education is concerned, I want to suggest that they are already receiving that, so to speak. Theoretically it may perhaps not be possible to make a calculation so that one may say that every one of them is being educated, but 90 per cent of their children, as the hon. member for Gardens has already said—he actually said 88 per cent—are already receiving free education, i.e. approximately 400,000. Fewer than 10 per cent of them do not receive it. At present there are as many as 12,000 teachers who provide them with this education at the various institutions. Before the take-over of Coloured education by the Department of Coloured Affairs. only one college in the Peninsula provided them with technical and vocational training. To-day there are institutions for higher education in the Cape and in the rest of the country, and plans are in the process of being carried into effect to create facilities for vocational training for at least 1,200 students. This rapid development gives rise to bottlenecks. One cannot expect to put everything right in one day, especially in view of the fact that, apart from these 12,000 teachers, there is still an acute shortage of teachers, and in view of the fact that we do not have school buildings for these people. The State has to accept many financial commitments in respect of education, commitments for which the funds are not available at this juncture. In spite of that I still want to say that at present there are facilities for good training for every Coloured person who shows the ability and has the intelligence.

This legislation is actually intended for the school-leaver. It is not intended for the person who will in any case be subject to compulsory education. It is directed at the person who has passed that stage long ago. Therefore the compulsory education argument might as well be set aside. At this stage, and having regard to the circumstances under which we find ourselves, that is a point which does not count. That does not count to-day. It may perhaps count to-morrow or the day after that. We received from Dr. Sieberhagen from the Department of Coloured Affairs the figures in respect of school-leavers. It appears that 27 per cent reach Std. 5, whereas only 2 per cent reach Std. 10. Quite a number of them will perhaps land in these training centres. However, not all of these school-leavers will land there, because some school-leavers are able to prove that they are good workers. It is not the intention with this legislation to force that man, who holds a permanent position and does his duty, to receive training. Hon. members may read that in the measure itself. School-leavers are usually, as the hon. the Minister put it, the product of a parental home where there is a lack of discipline, ignorance and indifference. The parents themselves set a bad example. The children simply take the line of least resistance, the road leading to laziness, to the abuse of liquor and things of that nature. Yet some people want to suggest that such parents should retain full control over their children. They are concerned about those parents. If those parents were Whites, the Department of Social Welfare would have taken away their control over their children. What is wrong with taking it away in this case?

There are many shortcomings in the way of life of our Coloureds. One of them is excessive drinking. I must admit that we Whites may perhaps also be a party to the degeneration of the Coloureds. The excessive drinking and poor background of some of them caused 15 per cent of them to be unemployed in 1960. In my opinion that can more or less be regarded as the most important reason. But we should not always try to put all the blame on one factor. There are other reasons for the fact that Coloured children do not get a good background. There are, for instance, the small family income, the working conditions, housing conditions, the distance from their homes to the school, the standard of education of the parents, and so forth. These factors have the result that many of these children are placed in employment before they are really fit for it, both physically and mentally. Since this is the case—because of factors for which this Government or the State are not to blame, because of factors which have to be attended to over a long period—these conditions develop.

As regards this legislation it is my only regret—in view of the fact that side has dealt with the matter of free education, which they consider to be so important and lay down as a condition—that in the implementation of this measure it is not possible to admit enough of these people to the training centres. Some hon. members feel that registering all of them is unnecessary. To my mind this general registration widens the scope of this legislation. If they are registered it will naturally make more responsible citizens out of them from the very outset, and this is not a sword hanging over their heads, but a kind of responsibility which will rest on their shoulders. Perhaps many of these people will never see the training centres, because the fact that they have been registered, will prompt them to greater serviceability.

I think that, if the smooth operation and the existence of this institution—if this is what is being envisaged—is not regarded with suspicion, this institution will have the result that it will yet be a matter of pride for a Coloured to be able to say, “I was there”. Because, Sir, the Coloured population has exceptional potential. It was mentioned to me that they display particular ability as machine operators, to such an extent that a certain industrialist wanted to take his Coloured operators abroad to work in his factories there. Unfortunately trade union problems arose and he had to send them back. If one makes enquiries from major employers, one always gets the reply that the Coloureds are reasonably intelligent and susceptible to training, especially as operators in industries, in the field of building construction, in motor mechanics and as electricians. Their potential is emphasized. But there are certain shortcomings to be found in the Coloured labour market. It is being said that they change employment easily, that there is loose discipline, and then there is also the old story about excessive drinking. All these things lead to a vicious circle. I hope that our farmers will get together one day and then we can have a very thorough, a very serious and a very responsible discussion of this matter of the tot system as well. This absence from work, this poor sense of loyalty and this poor sense of thrift are things which affect the Coloureds. I think the education they will receive in the training centre will be very good. Where one is being equipped for employment, one is also being educated. It will lead to this legislation having a very beneficial effect.

I think this measure is a praiseworthy effort on the part of the State to extend a helping hand to our Coloureds. In the period of laissez faire they deteriorated physically, mentally and otherwise. When we want to help them, even if it is merely a drop in the ocean, we need the help, the assistance and the spiritual support of everybody in this House in order to carry such a thing into full effect and to make it operate smoothly.

Mr. Speaker, before I deal with my own case, I cannot refrain from referring for one moment to the hon. member for Malmesbury who sat down very smartly in the middle of his half-hour. I am not surprised, because the hon. member had the temerity to say, among other things, that the United Party was very largely responsible for the deterioration amongst the Coloured people as far as their schooling was concerned. I should like to remind the hon. member that it was the United Party in 1945 which introduced an ordinance in the Cape Provincial Council, in terms of which Coloured children between the ages of seven and fourteen years were to be given compulsory schooling in undenominational schools, provided there was accommodation available within a three-mile limit of where they lived. [Interjection.] In 1953 the United Party appointed a commission of inquiry into Coloured education; it was our commission under the chairmanship of the late Dr. De Vos Malan. That report was not issued until 1956. The hon. member knows its findings as well as I do. What was set out in the findings were the results of the activities of the United Party. I agree with the hon. member who suggests that the hon. member for Malmesbury is not worth very much more comment than that.

I am not going to say much about the detailed clauses of the Bill, except to draw to the Minister’s attention certain specific things which we on this side think—as the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens said—should have the Minister’s attention. I must say that we are not at all happy with this word “cadet”. I do not know how the Afrikaans translation fits in, but if one consults the Oxford English dictionary, as some of us do from time to time, one finds that the meaning of the word “cadet” is given specifically as—“a student attached to a naval or a military academy”. It can hardly be said to apply to the trainees involved in this instance. A cadet, in ordinary English usage, when not applied to someone involved in military or naval training, is applied to someone who is in a superior position. We talk, for instance, of a cadet reporter, a cadet in the diplomatic service, a cadet in the colonial service. The word never merely means a lower-grade trainee, as is suggested in this Bill.

Subsection 3 (3) deals with the committees of management. There are civilians who may very well be involved here, namely employers of factory personnel, or farmers, etc. We take the view that the names of such people, such committee members, should be published from time to time, with their addresses, occupations and qualifications in the Government Gazette in exactly the same way as anyone who serves on the Juvenile Affairs Board or any similar body. We also consider this necessary in terms of the wider implications contained in clause 17 which says that these people may be trained not only in training centres but in any place other than a training centre, which is left to the decision of these committees. Then in clause 6 provision is made for the appointment of a doctor to look after the health and welfare of these trainees. We consider very definitely that preference should be given to the appointment of a Coloured doctor provided he is properly and professionally qualified. On Clauses 8 (4) and (5), which provide for the production of a registration certificate on demand by a policeman or a registering officer, the hon. the Minister stated very clearly yesterday that there was no intention to follow up these men in a general punitive sense. I was very pleased to hear the hon. the Minister make this point as clearly as he did, and we would like to tell him that we will give notice of an amendment in the Committee Stage to give these people something like 48 hours in which to produce proof of their registration or the registration certificate itself before any criminal proceedings can be taken against them. I think that is a reasonable request.

Under clause 10 we consider also that the names of the members of the selection board, which is to be a very important body, the body which is to decide who is to be called up and who is not, and for what reason, and who is to be exempted, should be published in the Government Gazette in the ordinary way. Then clause 11 deals with the functions of the board, and the Minister may determine, by regulation, from time to time what those functions are going to be. At the risk of being repetitive I would say that we consider that those regulations as drafted by the Minister should also from time to time appear in the Gazette so that the general public and those of us who are interested can find out precisely what he has in mind.

Clause 13 is a bit of a joke, of course; it is couched in such bad English that it means that “the chief registering officer may, by written notice, addressed to and served upon him …” that is to say he may serve the notice upon himself. What is intended, of course, is that the officer may serve the notice upon the trainee and not upon himself. That is merely a matter of English usage, Sir, but I point this out for what it is worth. We are very proud of our language standards in this country. We consider also that clause 14 should be redrafted altogether, but I am not going to deal with that in any detail. The same applies to clause 15. They should both be re-drafted to make them appear in a rather more positive and a little less negative sense than they read at the moment.

In regard to clause 17, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will make a point in his reply to this debate of telling us what is meant by these trainees being able to undergo their training “at a training centre or at such other place as a committee may determine, whether or not such other place is a training centre”. I think that is a little bit vague. Are they going to be sent to industries, to factories and to farms? They will be under the control of these committees of management, on which civilians will serve, but I think that the public, and the coloured people in particular, deserve some kind of explanation as to what is intended here.

As far as clause 26 is concerned, the question of the Workmen’s Compensation Act has already been raised. I would just like to ask the hon. the Minister what he has in mind by eliminating the terms of the Apprenticeship Act. The hon. the Minister stated that one of the objects was to prepare these trainees for some kind of apprenticeship. Well, the hon. the Minister must know that he can keep them in the camp for one year or for a period of two years, if the authorities think fit, but what is to happen to them after that? Supposing they are working for some private employer as part of their training under the discipline of this Bill, then what happens; do they remain under the jurisdiction and control of their employer to whom they are apprenticed? As the hon. the Minister knows, in terms of the Apprenticeship Act, they can be held to their contract for a period of anything up to five years. We would like to know what this is about because the majority of the juveniles who are collected for training purposes under this Bill will probably not have anything like the educational qualifications which are demanded by the Apprenticeship Act.

With regard to clause 29, we feel that if leave is to be granted under certain circumstances by the principal of the training centre, where they are sent should bear some relationship to their place of domicile. There are various other small amendments that we are going to move in the Committee Stage, but under clause 29 (5) (c), which provides for the forfeiture of one meal per day for not more than three days when they are serving a sentence of solitary confinement, which we know is part of the Defence Act, we consider that paragraph (c) should be eliminated altogether. Sir, these trainees are youngsters; what is the point of depriving them of one meal per day when they are already subject to fairly severe penalties?

Sir, having dealt with the Bill briefly in terms of the clauses as they now read, I must say that we find this a slightly puzzling Bill.

We are prepared to support it, as the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) and others have said. If the hon. the Minister sticks to the word “cadet”, then it seems to me that our coloured folk, if in fact this were some kind of military training, would have every reason to be extremely proud of the fact that they will be participating in a form of practical national service, particularly those not already training in an educational institution or engaged in full-time employment, as the term “cadet” would seem to imply. But it is quite obvious that the Bill is not based on these lines, although the Minister made various comparisons in the course of his speech, and in some ways I think this is a pity because I think it would give our coloured people a very great sense of pride if they felt that they were in training for national service, not necessarily for war if the Republic were ever involved in a war, but for emergencies, on the same sort of basis on which the white civilian population can be mobilized in terms of the Civil Defence Act which we passed here last year.

Sir, no one has pleaded more earnestly than I in the few years that I have been in this House that something practical should be done about the many profound sociological problems which now beset such a large section of our coloured community in South Africa. This Bill professes to be a means of dealing with certain aspects of that problem, and I must confess that I have grave doubts about it. I think that we delude ourselves if we think that a measure of this kind provides any real or lasting answer to issues which lie far deeper than the mere registration of idle youths and their training and discipline for 12 months in what is called “a centre or some other designated place”. It is perhaps a sad thing to say but it is my honest conviction, for what it is worth, that we in South Africa often fail, where admittedly other nations in the world fail as well, in not giving precedence, as I have said so often before, to the essential human problems in this country—in this materialistic 20th century in which we live. We seem to have lost sight of the problems which beset human beings as such. The hon. member for Gordonia said that he was in favour of these won’t-works being pulled in. Well, of course, so would we be if we felt that this was going to be a long-term measure that would really produce long-term results. Sir, here in the Republic a great deal has been done for the coloured people by the European community over the years—there is no doubt about that—and some of it has been philanthropic, but not all of it by any means. If we are honest we must admit that a lot of it has been done for motives of what is rather euphemistically known in modern language as enlightened self-interest.

But in any event, few, if any, people begrudge the coloured community—I doubt whether anybody would—what progress they have made as a result of the assistance which has been given to them. But for years and years in this House—I was not here at the time but I read the debates and we used to talk about it in the Provincial Council—arguments raged back and forth when it came to the coloured people and the question of their political representation and that wonderful status symbol of the 20th century, the vote. To-day, after all this rather sterile discussion, we are faced with what I would call the reductio ad absurdum of our obsession with power politics with regard to the coloured people, linked as it always has been with colour, so that there has been a monumental neglect—I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me—of the sociological side of the lives of this small community of 1½ million people, to such an extent that to-day their activities—violence, crime, drunkenness—have become a threat to our whole way of living in South Africa. This threat is a real one. The Government and the Opposition are quite alive to it, but what are we going to do about it? The need to introduce a Bill of this kind, I must confess, is to me amongst other things an admission of failure—failure to deal with people and the needs to which we are all subject whether we are white or coloured. In order to deal with what is essentially a sociological problem—and the hon. the Minister referred to it in those terms; he said it was “’n gemeenskaplike saak”—if you are going to deal with it as a sociological problem it is also an educational problem, as the hon. member for Gardens said. We are now forced, as the result of these years of neglect, to introduce a system of labour camps—all right, call them training colonies and make it sound as nice as possible—as part of South Africa’s economic and social life. No doubt the Bill is worth supporting …

Why? You have done nothing but talk against it.

We do so in the hope that of all those dealt with in terms of this Bill, there may be a proportion, at least, who will become more responsible citizens with a better knowledge and capacity of how to work and to comport themselves in their daily lives. There will be such a percentage; there is no doubt about that. The Minister made much of the automatic conscription of our white youngsters in military service and he said that if our white boys could be called up and have to sacrifice a year of their lives in training, the Coloureds could do the same. That is a perfectly logical and fair argument, and if the Bill made provision for 12 months’ compulsory semi-military training there could be no objection to it; but the sad part about it, and I say this with regret, is that it is neither a form of national service nor is it a form of rehabilitation, because the time allowed is not long enough, and it certainly does not pretend to be an educational Bill either, so what is it? It is a sort of mix-up. We are all agreed that the crime rate among the coloured people is higher than for any other population group, and we are all agreed that something must be done about it, and that is why we on this side of the House are supporting this Bill.

I sometimes wonder whether the situation of at least part of the coloured population, having been neglected in this regard for so long, is retrievable at all. But 12 months in a labour camp or in a training camp is not sufficient time to train these youngsters, the majority of whom will have had little or no schooling at all. It will not be long enough to teach them to master any trade properly, or to equip them to become skilled workers, and that is the unfortunate part about it. That is why, I imagine, the Apprenticeship Act has been excluded in terms of this Bill. Any social worker or teacher will tell you, Sir, that 12 months or two years is seldom, if ever, a sufficiently long time to rehabilitate youngsters whose feet have already been set on the road of crime. I do not question the Minister’s motives in this regard at all, but I just wonder how effective this Bill is going to be. I would like to suggest that the Selection Board be a little careful in their choice of recruits in the first instance, because we have had this difficulty in terms of the Reformatories and Prisons Act in the past that the throwing together, which this Bill proposes, of habitual delinquents—and there will be quite a number of those—with those who may just have had no chance of going to school and who simply lead reasonable lives but who are not working for one reason or another, can have very dangerous repercussion upon those people if they are thrown together with habitual delinquents. I may be told that education has nothing to do with it, that there are simple peasants in many parts of the world who lead good, hardworking lives and that education is not really necessary.

That is a point, of course, but the answer to that is that the background of that type of community is a stable background, and the background of this section of the coloured people we are dealing with here is anything but stable. That is the unfortunate part about it. I do not refer to the 25 per cent of the coloured elite, who are first-class people, nor to the hundreds of thousands who live disciplined and good lives. I refer to the remainder, with whom the Minister is trying to deal in terms of this Bill. Only those people whose job it is to work daily with delinquents, with the poor and the under-privileged and the semi-criminal, will be able to tell you that this is an enormous social task that faces us. I just wonder, for all that this is a well-meant attempt to deal with the problem, just how far it will succeed. The coloured people have no cohesive pattern keeping their family lives together. That is one of the sad things about them. The Bantu people in the urban areas are rapidly coming to the same point. In the rural areas they have their tribal hierarchies and their patterns of living which keep them together. The Malays and the Indians are the same. They have their Islamic religion, which keeps them together as homogeneous groups and they have a discipline which they impose upon the whole community. But the coloured people have no similar pattern. They have no pattern except the Western pattern, and we have rejected them in so many ways, and the Christian churches, I am sorry to say, seem to have lost their hold upon the coloured community. So, in spite of the Government’s announced intention—and we accept that the Minister’s motives are sound and sincere—for their socio-economic uplift we are witnessing a sad deterioration, particularly in the towns, of the whole fabric of coloured family life. The hon. the Minister laid his finger right on the spot when he talked about irresponsible parents. They may be irresponsible, but among the lower-class coloured people their family structure is highly unstable and in many urban centres it is reaching the point of breakdown. It is this that turns youngsters into delinquents.

I must say as a woman that one thing is quite certain, and any psychologist or social worker will tell you the same thing, namely that the degree of care and affection and discipline—and this is where the schooling comes in—and security and instruction given to any single human being, irrespective of colour, in the first ten years of their lives, and not between the ages of 18 and 24, invariably sets their feet upon the path they are going to follow for the rest of their lives. So this Bill only touches the fringes of the problem. If a section of our coloured people have taken to crime, may I warn the hon. the Minister—I suppose he has the figures—of the enormous majority of them who have become recidivists?

Our National Bureau of Social and Educational Research regularly investigates the position and they issued a report in August last year. Perhaps the Minister has seen it. It is News Letter No. 10, and let me read very briefly one of their findings. In paragraph 1 they say that from an analysis of juvenile crime according to population groups—and the Coloureds form the second smallest group in the country—it emerges that the coloured population has the highest crime rate in respect of serious as well as juvenile crime for both age groups. Then, under the heading of research into the success achieved in reform school treatment of male juvenile delinquents, it goes on to say that, in respect of coloured juvenile delinquents, the follow-up period in all cases is five years after leaving the institution. Then they say that of the Bantu, white and coloured juvenile delinquents, 29.6 per cent Bantu, 26.3 per cent Whites and 19.7 per cent Coloureds were successes and 10 per cent Bantu, 10.1 per cent Whites and 8.5 per cent Coloureds were classified as partial successes, and thus at least 60 per cent of all the delinauents came to grief during the follow-up period and they relapsed into serious crime. These are people who were in institutions for several years and who were, after their release, followed up by the Department of Social Welfare for five years. These are facts we have to face. Broken marriages, coupled with the high rate of illegitimacy and other factors, contribute towards a position where Government institutions and welfare workers are unable to cope with the number of coloured children who are abandoned, who are simply not cared for at all.

I do not intend saying very much more on this Bill. However, I still want to ask how many coloured children—and the Minister made a great point of this yesterday—live with both their parents until they are 14 or 15 years of age? This is where we ought to start. Let us accept that this Bill will assist in some degree. The rate of alcoholism—as the senior welfare officer of the Minister’s own Department reported last year—is high. This affects the families and contributes to turning the children into delinquents. In this connection let me state how struck I was with what Mr. Justice Van Wyk stated in his report, on the assassination of the late Dr. Verwoerd, about Tsafendas. In chapter III, paragraph 3, the Commissioner stated—

In the next paragraph, i.e. paragraph 4, he points out—

These are the people whose feet are inevitably set up on the road of crime when their background is of this nature. For this reason it is imperative that we as the legislators—and not only the social workers and the parents— should be made to realize that we have to concentrate more and more upon this aspect of these problems.

As far as the age group covered by this Bill is concerned, there will be many, I must say, for whom this rather curious and unspecified type of training will already have come too late. In any event, we say that the Bill is welcome in certain respects. I may sound as if I give my support a bit grudgingly. But it is not that. It is simply because I believe that in conjunction with this Bill we should get down to fundamentals, to the basic things. This will mean long-term planning in the sociological sense in addition to legislation of this kind.

In the course of the discussions on the Vote “Coloured Affairs” last year, I pleaded with the hon. the Minister for the establishment of a training camp with a view to taking in hand those Coloureds who are a problem not only to their parents but also to their community. Therefore I want to thank the hon. the Minister for this legislation. We are getting the support of the United Party, and we are in fact grateful for that, despite the continual “but …” In fact, I wonder whether these are the lean years that they are experiencing. Take the hon. member for Wynberg, for example. She asked how many times parents would have an opportunity to see those youngsters. She also mentioned all kinds of other minor matters as though they had anything to do with this measure. That is what we get, instead of their expressing their gratitude to this Government for the fact that it is now setting right those things which the United Party bungled through the years and of which, to be short and sweet, they made a mess. It was said here that those institutions would be used as labour camps in order to replace the Bantu who are to be removed from the Western Province. Now I see matters this way, that the attempts made by this Government to raise the standard of living of the Coloureds are not to the taste of the Opposition. The lower the standard of living, the cheaper the labour available, and that is precisely what they want. Through the implementation of the Group Areas Act perhaps one of the greatest benefits is being conferred upon the Coloureds. Just as any other population group experiences problems with its juveniles, the coloured community is also experiencing problems with its juveniles, juveniles who want to lead a life without restrictions. who want to fit in nowhere and who do not want to submit to the demands imposed upon them by a normal and healthy life. In this respect conditions in European countries are already much worse. There juveniles act in organized gangs and terrorize the community. In most cases the origin of this spirit in juveniles may be traced back to a maladjusted family life, a family life which lacked all parental authority. We know that where there is no parental authority one cannot expect to find any discipline in the children. In many cases, of course, there is deliberate indifference on the part of the parents and the children become the victims of that indifference. The children fall in with bad company and indulge in all kinds of objectionable pastimes. We know the proverb: “Idleness is the parent of vice”. Thus it is with our youth—when they have nothing to do they lapse into crime and their lives are ruined.

Here we have a measure which provides that such won’t-work types will be submitted to proper discipline and supervision for at least a year. There they will be taught to appreciate the fact that they also form part of an organized community, a community in which everyone has to do his share in an orderly fashion. This is the type of juvenile— who has already been dubbed “skollie” by the Coloureds—who in many cases gives coloured communities a bad reputation. Here an opportunity is presented to obliterate that. This Bill does not interfere with the studies of young people in any way, because a young man and a young girl are free, if they so wish, to continue their studies. They will be granted exemption for that just as exemption is granted to those who are already in employment.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to move the motion standing in my name on page 151 of the Order Paper. It reads as follows:

I am sure that it is not necessary in this day and age, speaking in a Parliament in a modern country operating within the framework of Western civilization, to remind members of the advantages of having an educated population. Indeed, Sir, I do not intend to dwell at any length on this basic premise. I am sure we are all agreed on the need for an educated population, although we may differ profoundly as to the methods whereby this should be attained and even as to the objectives of having an educated population. South Africa, over the last 40 years, has been engaged in transforming herself from a rural economy into a modern industrial economy. This process, I am sure we will all agree, is not a process that can be reversed. Indeed, I am sure not one of us wishes to reverse the process. It is this transformation of South Africa from a rural economy into basically an industrial economy which has resulted in an improvement in the standard of living of all our people. For instance it solved the poor white problem of the 1920’s, and not, I might add. the setting up of the S.S.B., as was suggested earlier this afternoon. In transforming herself from a rural into an industrial economy, South Africa has of course followed the same pattern that other industrializing countries have followed. There has been a steady increase in the proportion of population engaged in white—collar work, both professional and clerical. There has been an increase in the proportion of people doing skilled industrial work and a corresponding decrease in the proportion of people doing unskilled work and a very marked reduction in the number of people engaged in agriculture.

The second report of the Education Panel of 1961 pointed out that our present —day economy could never operate with a labour force in which the proportions of secondary school, technical college, and university educated persons were the same as those of 1930. It is interesting to note that to—day just on 50 per cent, that is one out of two, of the white population leaving school and entering the labour market have completed the secondary school course as compared with one out of six Whites in 1930. Our present economy could therefore never have functioned to—day as it is functioning had we the same proportion of educated white people as we had in 1930. I think what we must note as being of extreme importance is the fact that if South Africa is to enjoy further economic expansion, such economic growth simply cannot take place unless at the same time there is a constant and rapid expansion of education. I may say at this stage that the sooner we get on with the job, the better, because naturally many years elapse between the adoption of an education programme and the first appearance of additional skilled workers as a result of these measures. People are converted into skilled workers first by their having the basic educational training and secondly by having specialized vocational training. As Osler, who is an educational expert, put it:

There are some in this House who look to immigration as the solution of our manpower shortage. The Bureau of Economic Research of Stellenbosch University points out that despite the present buoyant immigration, the number of workers actually added to the labour force by immigration is small in proportion to the total labour force. There are others in this House who believe that increased mechanization and automation are going to solve the problem of the shortage of labour in South Africa. They forget that increased mechanization and automation do not in fact reduce the overall demand for human labour. All that happens is that there is a transfer of demand from unskilled labour to semi—skilled and skilled labour. Thus we are going to have to look to our own population to provide the necessary educated labour force which we have to have if we are going to sustain economic growth in the future and particularly in view of the great technological changes that are taking place in the world to—day.

I now want to turn to the sources of future educated labour. This means of course those people who can be educated to increase the availability of an educated labour force. The peculiar structure of our education in South Africa is of course something with which I am profoundly in disagreement. I speak now of the principle of separation of education on racial lines, in other words Coloured education, Indian education, African education and White education. I believe basically that education is education and that we should not differ in the type of education that we give to the different racial groups. Let me turn firstly to an examination of the white group. I am not referring to higher education or to technical or vocational training. My motion is in any case restricted to school education. As far as school education for Whites is concerned, we are steadily moving towards the maximum pupil potential. The great period of expansion in white school education is over. Universal education up to Std. VI has already been achieved. Universal education up to Std. VIII is not far off and the maximum practicable enrolment in Std. X is in sight. The only limiting factor is the ability of the student himself to stay at school, and to have the necessary I.Q. to absorb the training and education which he would obtain if he stayed in school beyond Std. VIII and up to Std. X It follows therefore that if the overall rate of education expansion is to continue as it must do if the overall rate of economic growth is to be maintained, it is the rate of non—white school education which must be increased, and more particularly secondary school education. Great improvement, needless to say, can be obtained both qualitatively and quantitatively in all three of the non—white racial groups.

I want to turn now to a detailed examination of non—white education. I hope in so doing that I am going to anticipate some of the arguments which are going to be advanced by whichever Minister is going to honour me by replying to this debate. I see by the smile on the face of the tiger—the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education—that he is likely to be the gentleman to reply.

Is he not rather a leopard?

Well, I would say that he is just a little pussy-cat. The arguments which I anticipate are of course that I am in too much of a hurry, that a great deal is being accomplished already in the field of non—White education, that we should continue to build steadily on this foundation and that we are getting the growing cooperation of the Coloured, the Indian and the African groups, that this is how we should continue, and that there is really very little to complain about. I am assuming that the principle of universal education some time, even if it is in the distant future, is common cause with all of us. I cannot believe that there is anybody sufficiently “verkramp” in this House not to believe that it is important for everybody in South Africa to enjoy education. I am therefore assuming that universal education is common cause in this House. I want to show at once that what has long been promised to the non-White people is long overdue and falls very far short of the recommendations that have been made by many education commissions in the past both under the present Government and when the previous government was in power. I shall start with Coloured children. We heard a great deal this afternoon about the education of Coloured children. I wish to add a few words to what has been said. In 1956 the Botha Commission on Coloured Education recommended that compulsory free education for children between the ages of 7 and 14 or up to Std. V should be introduced throughout the Cape Province within a ten year period. More than ten years have passed and we seem to be nearly as far from general compulsory and free education, since the two obviously must go together—one cannot impose compulsory education on people without making it free education as well—as we were when the Commission reported. There are provisions in our statutes for extending free and compulsory education to all Coloured children, but these provisions have been used only in the most limited fashion. They have in fact been implemented in the Cape in only six areas. There is compulsory education for children throughout the whole of the Cape Province in six small urban areas. Only in Natal is there compulsory education for Coloured children. Elsewhere, in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, there are no provisions whatever that have been implemented for compulsory education for Coloured children. I say that the period between 1956 and the present day is a period of disgraceful indifference and neglect as far as the Coloured community is concerned. By now, if the recommendations of the commission had been carried out, compulsory education for Coloured children between the ages of seven and 14 years should have been an established and smoothly—working system. Instead we find that the wastage through school drop-outs is as rife as it was in 1956. Almost half of the Coloured children who go to school leave before standard two, so that they do not even enjoy four years of schooling. My contention is that unless a child has enjoyed a minimum of four years at school, the money spent on that child’s education is to all intents and purposes wasted, and the child is functionally illiterate. Indeed, the Eiselen commission on Bantu education also stated that it considered that unless a child spent four years at school, any money spent on that child’s education and any time spent in the school were to all intents and purposes wasted.

The distribution over the classes in Coloured schools still shows practically the same imbalance as existed in 1954. As in 1954 about 40 per cent of the pupils are in the sub—standards, and as in 1954 about ten per cent are in standards five and six. Less than five per cent are in standards seven to ten, and 92.4 per cent of Coloured children in the Cape leave school before they are 15 years of age. This is an indictment of neglect as far as Coloured education is concerned.

Let us turn to Indian education. Twenty years ago the Natal Education Commission recommended that the principle of compulsory education for Indians should be accepted, and that as an interim first step all Indian children who were enrolled at school should be legally compelled to continue in attendance until they had passed standard four, or until their thirteenth birthday. Twenty years have passed since that commission reported. Natal has handed over Indian education to the Department of Coloured Affairs without ever having provided for compulsory education. Not even the interim measure has been carried out. There is no free and compulsory education for Indians anywhere in South Africa. In April last year regulations were gazetted relating to compulsory school attendance of Indian children of specified age groups. So far they have not been applied to any area. Despite the phenomenal contributions made by the Indian population themselves—they have contributed over R2 million to school buildings —there is still a tremendous shortage of school accommodation. Despite the fact that Indian pupils’ school attendance has increased quite considerably over the years and that the cost of Indian education has risen considerably, the point still remains that compulsory education for all Indian children was regarded as a desirable and practical goal 20 years ago. Since then, the Indian birth-rate has declined quite steeply, making the problem so one would believe, even more manageable than it was when the commission reported 20 years ago. And yet to—day the provisions for compulsory and free education for Indians have not been applied anywhere in the Republic.

Would it not be very cruel to insist upon it?

The hon. member does not think it very cruel that white children must be sent to school. They have compulsory and free education. I am prepared to apply exactly the same standards as those applied to white children to Indian children and take the consequences of being called cruel as a result.

Now I turn to African education. It is here, of course, that the greatest need for expansion exists. A week or two ago the hon. member for Randfontein gave this House a glowing report of what had been achieved under the Bantu education system since its introduction in 1954. I want to give the House rather a different picture, not quite such a glowing picture. I should like to ask the hon. member, or the Minister, what has become of the scheme envisaged by the Eiselen commission in 1951 whereby sufficient places were supposed to have been provided by 1959 in the first four classes of primary schools to accommodate the entire Bantu population in the age groups eight to 11. I want to know what has happened to the further objectives of providing the necessary places thereafter in the lower and higher primary schools. What has happened to the need laid down by the Eiselen commission for the training of the necessary additional teachers? What about the thousands of children turned away each year from high schools in South Africa? What about the scandalous double sessions that are held in at least 60 per cent of the schools? What about the lack of teachers and the low standard of education of the teachers?

The hon. member for Randfontein forgot to tell us that whereas the pupil/teacher ratio in 1962 in White schools was 22—1, in Coloured and Indian schools it was 36—1, and in Bantu schools it was 53—1. In the lower primary schools, where the vast majority of Bantu pupils are, it is 65—1. We heard nothing from the hon. member about the low standard of African teachers. He did not tell us that only 32 per cent of African teachers in training colleges and secondary schools are graduates, or that only 15 per cent had any post—matriculation professional qualifications at all, or that over 52 per cent were not even matriculated. Of the teachers teaching in these schools, more than half of them are not even matriculated. And, of course, the hon. member did not tell us anything about the abysmally low salary scales for African teachers. He did not tell us anything about the appalling drop-outs, the wastage, the tens of thousands of children that drop out in sub. A in sub. B, in standard 1, and in standard 2. Let me give the House some official statistics given to me by the hon. the Minister himself. Out of 361,440 African pupils in sub—standard A in 1958, more than a quarter failed to proceed beyond sub—standard A, more than a third failed to get beyond the sub—standards into standard 1, and just on half failed to get as far as standard 2. So they have not had four years at school, and I say that therefore the money spent on their education, as the Eiselen commission put it, is a waste. Something like 40 per cent only got beyond the lower primary school into standard 3, three per cent of these children advanced to secondary school, and two in 1,000 reached standards nine and ten. Is this the glowing accomplishment of Bantu education over the past ten years? We did not get those figures from the hon. member for Randfontein. In 1964 fewer than 300 Bantu students qualified for university entrance, and probably not more than a quarter of those have passed in mathematics and can enter the faculties of science, engineering, and medicine. Where are all the graduates to come from, may I ask the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, to man the high posts in those halcyon areas of separate freedoms that we hear about? Where are all these people to come from? Where indeed are the high school teachers to come from to provide a system of secondary education reasonably adequate to meet the needs, not only of our African population but of our economy as a whole?

I say quite categorically that all these claims that 80 per cent of the African children are literate are nonsense. The letters written overseas, the State Information Department reports about African children practically all being at school or being able to attend a school within a few miles from their homes, I say categorically are nonsense. These stories are simply not true, and I say that the Government has scandalously neglected African secondary education to the detriment of all sections of the community. The Government seems to think that by putting the majority of African children of school—going age into sub—standards, into grades I and II and Std. I, it is fulfilling its duty in the provision of education for African children. The whole emphasis is wrong. It is essential to increase secondary education; that is where the emphasis should be so that one can provide the source of more teachers and then go back to providing more primary education, instead of doing it the other way around and turning out of our Bantu schools children who have had less than four years of schooling, who are functionally illiterate and quite incapable of taking their place in a modern economy which is going to need far more and better—trained people. Sir, the most important factor responsible for this quite deplorable state of affairs in Bantu education, is the pegging of the State’s contribution to Bantu education at R13 million a year, that is to say, for school education. Sir, this amount was hopelessly inadequate ten years ago when the principle was adopted; R13 million was inadequate in 1953. How much more inadequate is it now with the larger number of children that this R13 million has to cater for and with the reduced value of the rand? Can anybody in this House tell me that the rand to—day buys what the rand bought 13 years ago?

What about the general tax?

Let me say this to the hon. member as far as the general tax is concerned. The principle that the Africans, who constitute the poorest section of the community, should pay for their own education while no other section has to pay for its education cannot be justified morally, economically or in any other way. Africans make their contributions to this country in many ways other than by direct tax. They contribute by means of indirect taxation on every purchase that they make; they contribute by their labour and they also pay taxes. If they earn taxable income they pay exactly the same tax as that hon. member over there on the back bench. In fact, proportionately they pay a good deal more because they do not get tax—free subsistence and travelling allowance as the hon. member does.

And as you do.

And as I do, but I am quite prepared to pay more in order to educate the African children; that is the difference. Sir, Government expenditure per African child per annum has actually dropped from R17 per child in 1953 to R13.5 per child in 1960, as compared, of course, with the R114 per white child spent by the State and the R74.50 in respect of Coloured and Indian children. I might say that we spend just over 4 per cent of our gross national product on education. Sir, that is not enough. It bears no comparison to what is spent by other Western countries. But I want to point out to hon. members opposite that it is estimated that the African—and this is a Government estimate —contributes R 1,085 million to the gross national product. If we take the 4 per cent that we spend on education generally then on a pro rata basis, according to the contribution of the African to the gross national product, we should be spending something like R44 million on Bantu education instead of the miserable R13 million at which the Government has pegged its contribution.

I realize that the ideal of universal education for all our children irrespective of colour cannot be achieved overnight. I realize that it took us a considerable time to reach the present stage of free and compulsory education for white children. As we all know in the case of white children the law provides for regular attendance between the ages of 7 and 16 years or, in the Cape and Natal, until the completion of Std. VIII. Indeed, I might say that free and compulsory education up to Std. VI for white children was only achieved fairly recently, but it has been achieved, and we are on our way to achieving Std. VIII and Std. X. We had to use all sorts of devices to implement the provisions which had been laid down many years ago in our law. We had to use local options; we had to use a gradual extension of age limits; we had to use the so— called two or three mile radius system; in other words, compulsory education was introduced in such a way that children living within a two—mile radius or sometimes a three—mile radius of a school, were compelled to attend school. All these are devices which I feel will have to be used increasingly in order to provide the necessary facilities for nonwhite children. The provision of boarding facilities for children also played its part. The progress in the provision of non—white free and compulsory education will be determined by the supply of teachers, the provision of school buildings, transport facilities in rural areas, etc., and above all, of course, we have to be prepared to spend more money on non—white education. What is desperately needed, apart from school accommodation etc., is an improvement in teachers’ salaries, the encouragement of families to keep promising youngsters at school by the payment of maintenance allowances, school feeding and free books.

Sir, having said all this and having conceded right away that this ideal cannot be achieved overnight, I say once again that we have been going far too slowly in this all— important field; that the progress made, as sketched by the hon. member for Randfontein, is nothing like the progress that should have been made; that the progress in Coloured and Indian education falls far short of the recommendations made by Government commissions in the past. I want to emphasize finally that part and parcel of my entire thesis this afternoon is, of course, the basic premise that in an expanding economy there can be no immovable boundary between the work done by Whites and that done by non—Whites. This was emphasized also by the 1961 Education Panel. In other words, no obstacle should be placed in the way of non—Whites to use their education once they have acquired it. Job reservation, legislative and customary colour bars and all these things obviously have to disappear if we are to make full use of our entire population in this country. If once our people have been trained to take on higher jobs, there would have been no point in giving them that training if we are then going to enforce legislative and customary bars which prevent them from making full use of their productivity. I believe, of course, that this is part and parcel of the requirements for developing the potential of South Africa to the full. It is essential that all the barriers that we have placed in the way of the proper utilization of our human resources be swept away if we are to make the best possible use of our labour force. Let us, as Sir Eric Ashley put it, “invest in man”; the returns to South Africa will be great.

The motion of the hon. member for Houghton refers to all the population groups, but it was very clear from her speech that she is not concerned with white education in South Africa. As far as the Coloureds are concerned, it has already been accepted in principle that there will be free and compulsory education, and the same applies to the Indians. Accordingly I do not want to deal with those two population groups, because it has already been accepted in principle. In actual fact I want to confine myself to the Bantu group, because the hon. member for Houghton devoted the major part of her speech to that group.

In the first place I want to go into the financial implications of the hon. member’s motion, particularly as far as the Bantu group is concerned; secondly I want to go into the economic implications and thirdly, into the general implications as far as Bantu education is concerned. I want to deal briefly with the hon. member’s motion under these three headings. There is a fundamental difference between the National Party Government and the Progressive Party, which is represented here by the hon. member for Houghton. The policy of the National Party Government is one of separate development of the various population groups, while the Progressive Party advocates integration. This fundamental difference gives rise to different interpretations of the requirements of the situation as far as our economy is concerned. It also leads to differing approaches to the problems that arise, for example in education; it leads to differing policies in education which are quite irreconcilable. The hon, member for Houghton as well as the National Party Government believes that the education service for the Bantu is fundamental, but it is only in that respect that there is some agreement. There the similarity stops, because the Government believes that the service must be rendered to the Bantu as Bantu, while the hon, member for Houghton sees it as a service to a multiracial community, not as a service to the Bantu for the Bantu, but as a service to a multi—racial community consisting of all the population groups. There are two principles underlying the Native Revenue Account which was introduced as far back as 1925. As far as the Government is concerned those two principles are fundamental. What are these two fundamental principles embodied in the Bantu Revenue Account of 1925? The first principle is that the Bantu peoples should to a large extent provide the means for their own development themselves. The second fundamental principle is that it was sound education policy that the Bantu should develop responsibility by accepting financial responsibility for their education. In other words, in terms of these two fundamental principles, we want to help the Bantu to help themselves. If the Bantu is given too much assistance one will frustrate this natural development that the Bantu will learn to help themselves; an unnatural development will result if they are assisted too rapidly in this process, if they are given too much, because if they are given too much they will again become dependent upon white assistance, and if they become dependent upon white assistance they will no longer be able to help themselves and will lose their self—reliance. Their self—reliance will be undermined, their self—respect will be destroyed and they will become nothing but beggars from the Whites. As an example of this I may mention the Black states of Africa, which are given various forms of assistance on a platter. In that way their self—respect is destroyed and they become nothing but beggars from the major nations.

Parasites.

The hon. member’s motion is in fact intended to speed up the present process of development, and that may lead to the entire policy of separate self —development—not only separate development, but also separate self—development—being wrecked. Disraeli said: “On the development of the people rests the education of the country”. The amount spent on education should therefore keep pace with the level of development of the particular people to be assisted thereby. We must reject the reproach levelled across the floor of this House this afternoon by the hon. member for Houghton that the amount per Bantu child is too low. Likewise we have to reject the reproach that a rich country like South Africa spends too little on Bantu education. The Bantu themselves determine what amount is to be spent on Bantu education.

Order! It seems to me the hon. member is reading his speech.

Mr. Speaker, I am only referring to notes I have made.

It seems as though the hon. member is reading his notes word for word.

No, Mr. Speaker, I am not.

The hon. member may proceed.

Bantu education is financed by the Bantu and there are two ways in which that is done. The first is that a fixed statutory amount is voted. That is the assistance given by the Whites. Then we have the general Bantu tax, which is spent on Bantu education. All of that tax is spent on Bantu education. Then there is miscellaneous revenue which is also spent for that purpose, but it is only a small amount and we need not take it into account. The two main funds are the fixed statutory appropriation, which had always been R13 million, but which was increased to R14 million during the past two years, and the general Bantu tax, which has also shown an enormous increase in recent years. It has increased since 1956—’57—I do not know whether the hon. Mr. Speaker meant that I should have learnt these figures off by heart, but I have to refer to my notes here. In that year it was R4 million. It has gradually increased to an amount of RIO million in 1966—’67. An amount of R15.75 million was spent on Bantu education in 1955—’56, while an amount of R23.5 million was spent in 1963—’64, but then the Transkei still shared in it. Now that the Transkei has been granted self-government it provides for its own education out of the funds allocated to it. Since then the funds spent on Bantu education amounted to R20.8 million in 1964—’65 and to R23.4 million in 1965—’66, while it is estimated to be R25.3 million in 1966—’67. That is how the amount has increased, but the Bantu themselves are responsible for this increase. The statutory amount is fixed and the increase comes from the Bantu themselves. In other words, the Bantu are being trained to bear the responsibility for their education themselves and the more education they want the more they will have to contribute towards it. If there is to be compulsory education for the Bantu, it is clear that the Bantu themselves will not be able to finance it at this stage, because all these Bantu taxes are already being used to pay for their education. The Bantu make no contribution from that tax towards the other services they receive; the other services are paid for by the Whites and not by the Bantu. Compulsory education for the Bantu is therefore not possible at the moment within the Government’s view of things. The attitude of the Government is that the Bantu should accept responsibility for their own education, and within that attitude the Bantu is not yet in a position to shoulder the entire financial burden of compulsory education.

I now want to deal with the economic implications. That is the second aspect of the motion with which I want to deal. Here too I want to stress the fundamental difference between the hon. member for Houghton and the Government. On the basis of her motion it is clear that she was very impressed by this little book from which she quoted repeatedly, namely the Second Report of the 1961 Education Panel of the University of the Witwatersrand. When I received this little green book, Sir, if you have read it—and I may just add that every one of us in this House received this book as a gift from that panel of Wits—I said to myself: “I wonder for what motion of the hon. member for Houghton this is to serve as a basis”. I shall now show that this is, in fact, the basis of her entire motion. It is understandable that she made ample use of it, and I can forgive her for doing so, because it was given her on a platter, but something I cannot forgive her for is that an attempt was made here by the learned gentleman of Wits to hawk the policy of the Progressive Party. Briefly, this is how this report approaches the problem. They say that on the basis of the economic objectives of the Government as laid down by the Economic Advisory Council, the aim should be to have a sustained rate of growth of 5½ per cent per year for the next five years, and then this Education Panel calculates what the education requirements should be for the year 1980, and those are the requirements on which the hon. member has based the whole of her motion.

The report refers to the rapid industrialization of South Africa and states that more and more skilled labourers and fewer unskilled labourers will be required. I can quote that from the report. In fact, the hon. member referred to the fact that this rate at which we are developing will demand certain educational requirements in future. This report points out that of the number of skilled workers which, according to their calculations, will be required in 1980 in order to maintain the rate of growth, the White population group will hardly be able to supply half, but through natural increase and through immigration, and the report states further that the rest will have to be supplied by the non—White population group. For that reason this report demands compulsory education for all races, and that is why we have this motion of the hon. member for Houghton this afternoon. Of course, it was very kind of the learned gentlemen of Wits to furnish her with this report and to prepare it for her, but let me quote to the hon. member just one small passage written by another learned person in an article which appeared in Modern African Studies: Manpower, Education and Economic Growth. In this article the following is stated about these speculations about the future requirements—

That is what the hon. member wants to be supplemented by means of non—White education.

I merely quote this to show how dangerous these speculations about the future requirements which now have to be supplemented by non—White education can be. One may forgive these gentlemen of Wits their blunder, but something I really cannot forgive them is that in this report they state, inter alia, the following (translation)—

Because they say the emergency measures which have to be taken are compulsory education—

Then they give three schedules, the first indicating the pupil/teacher ratio at the primary level. They compare us with Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique and all the countries which have no compulsory education, but when dealing with South Africa they do not show the pupil/teacher ratio for all the population groups in the so—called multi—racial state, but they show it in respect of the Bantu only in order to get some sort of comparison. The second schedule indicates the percentage of the gross national production spent on education. In this case they again do not compare the gross national production of the Bantu alone as they do in the case of the other states, but when it comes to South Africa they take all the races, so that it is out of proportion as far as the Bantu are concerned. The last schedule indicates the percentage of the various education groups attending school. They take all the different countries which do not have compulsory education and compare them with South Africa as far as only the Bantu are concerned. This is the unequal comparison they draw. It makes me think that these scientists did not behave as scientists in this respect, but that they are, in fact, Progressive hacks because they may be political donkeys for the hon. member for Houghton.

What is the Government’s attitude in regard to this matter? The Government approaches each population group separately and tries to determine the requirements of the economy of each population group separately. The economy of each Bantu population group is in its germination stage, in its initial stage. There is only a limited need for skilled and unskilled labour, white—collar workers and technicians and technologists at present. As the Bantu develop their own economy and as more requirements develop within their own separate economy, more money will have to be spent on their education and then that education will be made available to them. If we now have compulsory education we will also have an unnatural growth which we will have to take into account. Compulsory education will mean that an enormous number of pupils will be produced which will be out of all proportion to the Bantu economy and which that economy will not be able to absorb. The attitude of the Government is that there must be natural growth, which necessarily means that the road leading to compulsory education will be a long one, much longer than the hon. member for Houghton would wish it to be. But if we do not take this long road and if we introduce compulsory education at this stage, we are going to create many more problems in the cultural, political, spiritual and all other spheres than we will solve through it.

Throughout the speech of the hon. member for Houghton this question was approached from the point of view of the white economy. She completely lost sight of the limitations of the Bantu and how this matter should be approached from the point of view of the Bantu. When one looks at Bantu education, one should view it firstly from the point of view of the Bantu community and not from the point of view of a multi—racial state. I want to stress that when Bantu education is considered the first question should be, What are the requirements of the economy of the Bantu at this stage? Bantu education must only meet with those requirements. The motion of the hon. member, of course, stems from the fact that she supports and contemplates integration. After all, that is clearly stated in this report from which she quoted, although she was very careful not to quote that. She said that all the barriers in the economic field, barriers such as the “Colour bar”, should disappear. But what do these people say now? They give all these facts, but they also state what the requirements of the white economy will be by the year 1980. According to their calculations, half the number of workers required will have to come from the non—white population groups, and then they go further (translation)—

They suggest that recruits be obtained among the Bantu. However, they approach the matter exclusively from the point of view of the requirements of the white economy and not from the point of view of the requirements of the economy of the Bantu. For that reason we say that the education of the Bantu should not be harnessed in the service of a multi—racial state; neither should it be harnessed in the service of the economy of the Whites or in the service of any other economy. We say it should be harnessed only in the service of the economy of the Bantu themselves. I want to formulate the most important objectives of Bantu education as regards its nature and scope as they have already been formulated in our policy. According to that the school should form an integral part of the Bantu community. Schools should be established out of and by the Bantu community and should meet the requirements of the Bantu community, economically and otherwise. The Bantu themselves should take the initiative in the erection of their schools, and also as regards the control thereof. Bantu education should be centred in the Bantu community. For that reason the Bantu should accept responsibility for the finances and administration of their education to an increasing extent. This last point leads to the conclusion that the Bantu should be given compulsory education only when the Bantu themselves want it, when they themselves ask for it, when they themselves can afford it and when they themselves can provide it. Those are the requirements laid down by us.

I may continue indicating what the present education system has already meant to the Bantu, but on the one hand I do not have the time to do so and on the other hand it has already been discussed under the motion of the hon. member for Randfontein the other day. For that reason I want to content myself by moving the following amendment—

I should like to express my pleasure at being able to take part in this debate although much that has been said so far was also said when we discussed the motion by the hon. member for Randfontein a few days ago. I am glad that both hon. members who have spoken so far made reference to the 1961 Panel. That was an excellent piece of work. The analysis they gave and the plan they projected for the future are worthy of the attention and study of every member in this House.

It was one-sided.

I would not say it was one-sided. I think it is a vision of constructive thinking, especially the analysis they gave, and the graphic representation and hopes of the future. This is worthy of our attention. I cannot praise it too highly. It is an excellent piece of work. I disagree with the hon. member for Heilbron where he said that the Bantu must be responsible for his own education, that he must get his own share of the economy. We have discussed all this before. I cannot possibly accept that view. It is not a view one should take in a state such as South Africa. We cannot do it. We have to lift them along. We have to change our minds about this as we are changing our minds about admitting white capital into the reserves. It is part of the same outlook. These people have to be assisted and it is our duty to do that. I do not understand the question of self—respect. What about the self—respect of every white man who has his children being educated free right up to the secondary stage? He does not lose any self—respect. People who have been educated that way seem to have maintained their self—respect. Therefore, there is no danger in that. The financial side we have discussed over and over again. Consequently, there is nothing new to be said on that. The hon. member seems to think that compulsory education would create problems. I agree that it will create problems but they are problems in the school. I do not think that will create problems in society. It will, however, to my mind create problems in the school.

I now come to the speech of the hon. member for Houghton, the mover of this motion. When we speak of the Panel, we must realize that the vision they had was education in 1980—in other words, progress towards 1980. They worked out a 14, 15 year plan. As far as I am concerned, I would be prepared to see us working together on a 10 year plan. In Parliamentary government the modern tendency is to establish committees for departments. In this way, I think we should establish a committee of this House on education, a committee representative, of course, of both sides of the House. It should be a committee similar to a select committee but sitting regularly throughout a session or throughout the year if necessary. That is done in America and it is also now being done in Great Britain. I think that could be done. There are things we could discuss together. For instance, we could examine proposals that are made and we could put forward constructive ideas. I think we need this in Bantu education because it is unfair to place this very heavy load only on the officials administering this system. Theirs is a very heavy task and, as far as I am concerned, I should like to be placed in a position where I could be of assistance to them. If I could give them any assistance, however modest that may be, I would be delighted to do so. In all my criticism of the present system of Bantu education throughout the years there has never been any suggestion of any criticism of the administration of this system. My criticism is that it is a system which is too difficult to administer. When I come to the motion—I do not agree with the hon. member for Houghton —I think that education is education. No matter whether you are educating a white, brown or black person, education, that elementary preparation for life, is the same for them all.

When we come to this question of expansion we are anxious to see, that is what I regard as the real problem. I should like to offer a few thoughts on that which I have been able to gather as I heard the speeches here to—day. In the motion the hon. member says that the Government should “consider the advisability” at present. I think we should say the “desirability”. I would be prepared to discuss that at length, but to expand Bantu education at present I think would be inadvisable. I am sorry to say so, but I think it would be inadvisable at the present time. I would like to say a few words about that, Mr. Speaker. I think that every official in the Bantu Education Department and in the other Departments regards compulsory free education as the ideal for the system. Their ambition for the future is that what they are doing, will eventually lead to that. I think we all agree. We cannot conceive of a system where we have education for a section of the population without that system being expanded so that everybody will be included. That is the ideal. I think they have that ideal. But how did we develop our Bantu system? We developed it by saying at the beginning: “We will get as many children as possible into the schools.” That is where I think, not that we went wrong, but that we did not plan properly. We brought all these children into the schools in order that we could say: “We now have half a million children in the schools. We can now advertise in the British national Press that the Republic of South Africa has this large number of children at school. Look at Ethiopia, Ghana and Nigeria. They cannot compare themselves to us. We have more children in the schools.”

We have, but they are not being educated. The hon. member for Houghton has pointed that out. They are not being educated. There are what we generally classify as two systems in education. In formulating a system of education—not for an old long—standing system, but for a new system—there is the English plan. In the English plan they believe in developing an intellectual élite. They produce the leaders of the people who will then gradually extend the system over a long period of years. It was too long a period of years in England, but that is what they believe in. Then there is the American system, where they believe in having a broad basis, gradually getting as many pupils in the school as possible and educating them a little. I think in South Africa we should have to compromise between those two views.

I met a leading educationist, a lady, in Tanzania a few years ago before their full independence. I asked her which system she preferred. She said the English system. She believed they should educate an élite, she was one of them, and that they would direct and rule the nation in the future. And, of course, that is what they have done, and they made a great mess of it. That is how the British colonial system is operating. If we are going to develop for the Bantu a system similar to ours, thus having a broad basis, we must get teaching staff. As the hon. member for Houghton has pointed out, you must have buildings, equipment and teachers. The important thing is teachers. When you start a new system, you must provide in your system for the production of teachers.

The hon. member for Houghton says that we do not have the number of secondary school pupils we ought to have. Of course we do not! We do not have teachers for them! We have white teachers assisting and it is suggested we should have coloured teachers assisting in Bantu education. But to produce the teachers is the greatest difficulty and that is the problem of our Bantu Education Department to-day. How did they tackle it? They said: “We will provide our teachers by keeping Std. VI pupils after they have passed Std VI and training them for a period of three years. Then they will go into the schools as lower primary teachers.” I have never condemned it. They had to find a plan, but I prefer the plan that was introduced in England when they introduced compulsory education almost a hundred years ago. They decided on a pupil-teacher system, which was in the old days extended later to the Cape Province. I think the pupil-teacher system could be developed in a community such as Soweto. We could have outstanding headmasters in charge of schools with a number of pupil teachers working under them. The pupil-teacher system was developed in England and Matthew Arnold in the Matthew Arnold Commission which provided them with a scheme for compulsory free education in England, said that the basis, the strength of the whole system was the pupil-teacher system.

When we blame the Bantu Education Deportment for having teachers with very poor qualifications, we must remember they cannot do otherwise. They have not been able to produce them. We have expanded too rapidly, well, I will not say we have expanded too rapidly, but we have lost quality by extending as rapidly as we have. This is how I feel about it. To put children in school as we are doing to — day with a hundred children under one teacher, who is not well qualified, with 50 in the morning and 50 in the afternoon, I feel is not getting very far. I do not agree with the Eiselen Report to which the hon. member for Houghton referred and which reported that from that kind of education no benefit is derived. I do not agree with that. I think they do derive benefit from it. Even if they go to school for two or three years only, they do pick up something. They will probably spend three years for about one year’s work; that is what I think it comes to. They do get something, but they do not get what they ought to get. The question is: “What should we do?” I do not condemn the motion of the hon. member for Houghton. It is no good “considering the advisability” at present. I am prepared to say it is desirable. We all are for compulsory education, but it cannot be introduced now. We must have a plan, a programme. We must look to the future. I would say this: “We must find some way of establishing what progress we are making.” When I have criticized the Bantu education system and the Government for the manner in which they have run it, as I have done regularly, I have realized the difficulties of the staff. What can we do at this stage to see how we are approaching the ideal of better teachers, a better type of school, and how can we get the necessary money? I would say that in any annual report on education, not from the Department of Education, Arts and Science, but from the Department responsible for coloured education and from those responsible for Indian and Bantu education, there should be a section describing how far they have progressed towards our ideal of free compulsory education. What progress is being made? That is what I want to put to the House this afternoon. I think we can do that. I am not going to combine with that the suggestion of a parliamentary committee, but I am going to move this amendment, which I think will express that view.

Mr. Speaker, I move as a further amendment—

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to pick a quarrel with the hon. member for Kensington about educational systems, because what the hon. member has forgotten about them, I must still learn. That is very clear. But I now want to associate myself with the statement that no government in South Africa has done or could do more for Indian, Coloured and Bantu education than this Government has done. There is not the least doubt about that.

This motion deals with compulsory education for all races, and it includes the Indians, the Coloureds and the Bantu. Of course it is obvious that in the short time at our disposal for a discussion of this motion, neither the Minister of Coloured Affairs, nor the Minister of Indian Affairs can participate in the debate. I have been asked to reply to that motion. However, I did consult the two Ministers and asked them for their reaction to the hon. member’s motion. For a while now I shall have to read what those Ministers had to say about the motion. The comment of the hon. the Minister for Indian Affairs was that section 23 of the Indians Education Act, Act No. 61 of 1965, provided the following—

As far as the Indians are concerned, therefore, the principle of compulsory school attendance has already been accepted. Regulations in respect of compulsory school attendance for Indian children were promulgated in April, 1966 already but up to the present it has not yet been possible to put into operation the relevant section of the Act because sufficient school accommodation was not available.

When the Department of Indian Affairs took over educational services in Natal on 1st April, 1966, there was a considerable shortage of school accommodation. The Department was therefore compelled to continue with the then existing system of double classes, the so—called “platoon system”. It is obvious that compulsory school attendance cannot be introduced before sufficient school accommodation is available.

It is the policy of the Department to eliminate double classes as quickly as possible, and as soon as sufficient school accommodation is available compulsory school attendance will be introduced. Since the taking—over of educational services in Natal the number of pupils in double classes has decreased from 24 to 20 per cent of the total number of school—going children. That took place over a very short period of time. In the central area of Durban, for example, the number of double classes in six schools was reduced from 29 to eight at the beginning of 1967. Considerable progress has also been made.

Is that the double period?

Yes, that is in respect of double periods.

But they have different teachers.

Yes, the aim is to eliminate double classes completely as soon as possible. With that object in mind a comprehensive building programme has been drawn up. Eleven new primary schools and five new high schools, which will be completed in 1967, are at present being erected. Apart from that additional classrooms are being built on at 12 existing schools at least.

The statutory provision is such that compulsory school attendance can be introduced in any specific area as sufficient and suitable school accommodation becomes available. It follows therefore that the introduction of compulsory school attendance need not be neglected until it can be introduced in a province as a whole. The present building programme of the Department is calculated to make it possible to introduce compulsory school attendance as soon as possible.

The Education Section of the Department of Indian Affairs is already undertaking a survey of areas where sufficient school accommodation will be available for the introduction of compulsory school attendance in the near future. The education planners of the Department are also at present giving consideration to the age group to which the regulations can initially be made applicable. In this regard consultations are already in progress with the Natal Indian Teachers Society.

Free education for Indian scholars in Natal has already been introduced. No school fees are being collected up to and including Std. X. School books are also being provided free of charge in primary as well as in high schools by means of a monetary per capita grant which is aimed at enabling the schools to purchase all the textbooks over a period of two to three years and subsequently to maintain their stocks. The textbooks are being lent out to scholars free of charge. That does not of course include prescribed books for language subjects or stationery.

Mr. Speaker, after I obtained this information there was not the least doubt in my mind that rapid progress had already been made amongst the Indians in Natal falling under the Department of Indian Affairs. I maintain that no other government could have done it any better. It is much more than was done by the Natal Provincial Council.

I agree with that, but the Government should have done more.

The hon. member is now saying that this Government should have done much more. If there was any neglect then it occurred while the hon. member for South Coast was administrator of Natal. The progress there was made since the Department of Indian Affairs took over, and I think the Department is deserving of the highest praise for the work which they have done. Every responsible Indian is proud of the achievement of this Department of Indian Education and is quite satisfied with the progress which has been made.

I come now to Coloured education. Information in this regard was furnished to me by the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs and his Department, to whom I am grateful. In certain areas in the Cape and Natal compulsory education was introduced even before the Department of Coloured Affairs took over. However, it was not possible to apply it in practice chiefly as in the case of the Indians, as a result of the tremendous increase in the number of school—going children and the problems in connection with accommodation. But I want to point out that the same applied in the case of the Whites in years gone by. Compulsory White education was introduced in the Cape in 1905 by the School Council Act, and that Act made it compulsory for children between the ages of seven and 14 to attend school. It was only nine years later, in 1914, that a start was made with the implementation of that compulsory education for Whites. The progress which has been made with Coloured education in the Cape, as well as throughout the Republic, is simply fantastic. I want to mention a number of figures here. In respect of the Cape Province I want to compare the number of pupils in 1945 with the number of pupils in 1966. In 1940 there were 124,000 while in 1966 there were almost 350,000 pupils. That is an increase, within a period of 26 years, of almost 300 per cent. The number of schools increased from 972 to 1,646, which proves that the increase in the number of school-going Coloured children outstripped the ability of the State to build new schools. In the Free State the number of pupils increased from 1,700 to 5,609 over the same period of time, an increase of more than 300 per cent. In the Transvaal they increased in number from 10,200 to 29,500, that is to say by almost 300 per cent. In Natal they increased from 4,400 to 15,800, in other words an increase of almost 350 per cent. It is obvious therefore that in view of this tremendous influx of pupils the accommodation problem has made any compulsory school attendance quite unrealistic. The hon. member spoke about the “detestable system of double sessions”. Does she want the system to be abolished? She wants more schools to be built, but one can only build schools within the limits of the finances which are put at your disposal. The hon. member knows that very much greater progress has been made under this Government than was ever the case before. The progress made was as great as the economy of the country allowed. I just want to tell the hon. member what will happen if her request were complied with. It is calculated that to introduce compulsory education gradually, beginning from 1968, there will, over and above the normal growth rate over the nine years after introduction, be ½ an additional demand for 3,139 teachers, and I that 3,139 additional classrooms, over and above the present rate of growth for which R6 million per annum was voted, will have to be built. The cost per classroom is at present R7,000. Therefore in addition to the present provision, which is already ample and can hardly be supplied, additional buildings will have to be built for an amount of almost R22 million over the following nine years, i.e. R2,440,000 per annum just to supply the necessary classrooms. I have referred to the number of additional teachers which will be necessary, and the hon. member for Houghton knows as well as I do that it is totally unpractical to introduce compulsory education at the moment or even in the near future. As progress is made, however, it will be introduced. The other limiting factor is of course the factor of the provision of staff. There are in fact sufficient training facilities for Coloured teachers, but the number of successful recruits from the senior certificate classes is very small. May I just illustrate this. In 1960 there was a total number of school-going children of almost 400,000 Coloured pupils, but of that total only 1,323 were in the senior certificate classes and of that number only 775 passed. The fault is not only to be sought with the Government or the authorities; the fault must also be sought amongst the Coloureds themselves, and I think it is very shortsighted, unscientific and in a measure childish to put all the blame on the Government.

Do you know how many White children reached that standard before there was free and compulsory education?

It is totally unrealistic to compare the development of the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians with the development of the Whites. These people have the opportunity of going to school, and they receive free schooling. The Coloureds who go to school are at least on the same basis as the Whites, but a higher percentage of the Whites reach standards 8, 9 and 10.

That is because of the economic position of their families.

As far as time allows I just want to tell the hon. members of the facilities which are now being made available for the Coloureds. In 1962 the Peninsula Technical College for Coloured Apprentices was established. In 1966 it was replaced by the Technical College in Bellville South and a vocational school was established in Cape Town. In 1963 there were 652 Coloured apprentices in the Peninsula; in 1966, three years later, there were 1,259—an increase of almost 100 per cent over a period of only three years. Time does not allow me to say very much more about this matter but similar schools are at present being established in Kimberley, Johannesburg, Durban and Port Elizabeth. I can go on in this vein but time does not allow me to do so. A catering school has been established; there are after-hour courses in Cape Town which are at present being attended, in Cape Town only, by 1,600 adults. I think that what the Department of Coloured Affairs has achieved in this regard, is really a proud record.

I come now to Bantu education. It is totally unrealistic at this stage to talk about compulsory education as far as the Bantu are concerned and the hon. member for Houghton, as an educationist, knows that it is unrealistic to do so. If she wants to do her country a service then she would have pointed out the tremendous progress which is being made in regard to education of the Bantu in South Africa. She pleads here for something which, as she knows very well, is totally impossible and she does so not—and I am saying this in all earnest—because she knows that it is possible under this Government or under any other government. She pleads for these things because it is her deliberate intention to present South Africa in an unfavourable light. I could not escape the feeling that the hon. member, with all these frightful things that she said here—“disgraceful neglect”, “scandalous double sessions”—that she was the unofficial representative in this House of the United Nations, the Afro-Asiatic group and the Organization for African Unity. It is pathetic that it should not be a source of pride to the hon. member for Houghton that we are doing more for Bantu education in the Republic than is being done in any other country on the continent of Africa. The hon. member said that we can do so because we are rich. Is England not rich? Is France not rich? Was Belgium not rich? We have in this country, for Bantu education, achieved ten times if not 100 times as much as England has achieved in the former Protectorates. We have achieved more than France ever achieved in any of its colonies in Africa. We have achieved more than Belgium achieved in the Belgian Congo and in its other possessions on the continent of Africa. With what countries does the hon. member compare us? She does not want to say that we should compare ourselves with the African States because they are poor states, but if we compare our record with that of a rich England, a rich France and a rich Belgium then I say that the Republic of South Africa stands head and shoulders above those countries as far as the furnishing of education facilities to the Bantu is concerned. I think the hon. member ought to be ashamed of the fact that she is continually presenting South Africa in this unfavourable light while she knows that we have done better than any other country in the entire world as far as the education of underdeveloped people is concerned. Fifty-five per cent of our Bantu population is literate, as compared with 10 per cent in Liberia and 5 per cent in Ethiopia, 85 per cent of the Bantu between the ages of seven and 20 in South Africa are literate. That is the record which cannot be equalled, not only in Africa, but also in certain European countries.

That is not true.

What proof do you have that that is not true?

Order! The hon. member for Houghton is not allowed to make a speech from her seat.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what the attitude of his party was to the United Party Government when we wanted to spend more money on Bantu education?

The little money which the United Party Government wanted to spend on Bantu education, cannot be compared with the money which this Government has spent on it. I shall furnish the hon. member with the figures in a moment. There is just no comparison. That was one of the reasons why I was kicked out of that party. Six years ago there were approximately 2,000 non-White students attending South African universities. That is after matriculation. To-day there are 7,000, of which 3,000 are Bantu. There are to—day more Bantu at the universities than there were Coloureds plus Bantu six years ago. It is definitely a record to be proud of. And as far as the quality of the education is concerned, I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that the quality of the education at the University colleges of the Bantu is equal, or almost if not entirely equal to, the standard at the White universities. She will be doing herself a favour if she visited those colleges and saw precisely what grogress had been made and what is being done there, instead of visiting gaols.

I now come to the amount of money which is being spent on Bantu education. In 1955 a total amount of R15.8 million was spent on Bantu education, including the Transkei. In 1966—’67 it is estimated that R25.4 million will be spent there. It is almost R10 million more than ten years ago, and this time the Transkei has been excluded. We have progressed from R15 million to R25 million, with the exclusion of the Transkei and that is approximately R5 million. If one includes the Transkei then almost 100 per cent more is being spent on Bantu education than ten years ago. I want to ask the hon. member whether that is not fantastic progress? Is that not something to be proud of? Is that not something one should blazon abroad instead of doing so in regard to the problems we have? But the hon. member is what she is, and we shall have to forgive her because to tell the truth, I have a very soft spot for her. It is the idea of the hon. member for Houghton that we should pour out white money for the Bantu in a continuous and unlimited stream. We totally reject that idea. It would, in my opinion, and in the opinion of practically all educationists, with the exception of the group of extreme liberalists in her circle, be regarded as an offence against the Bantu. I do not want to go into what the hon. member for Heilbron dealt with so brilliantly, i.e. the unhealthy aspect of continually stuffing the Bantu with money and spending more on their education than they can absorb, of giving him more education than he needs in proportion to his economic position. It has been found throughout the world, and this was the finding of Unesco too, that one of the major errors which has been made in the rest of Africa is that more money has been crammed into education than was necessary in proportion to their economic growth and requirements. We are very proud of what we have achieved and upon the policy we have, and we are willing to defend it before the entire world. No one has done better than we have. Our policy rests on four pillars. They are firstly that education for the Bantu must be undertaken by the Bantu themselves, and in the long run financed by the Bantu themselves. I want to point out to the hon. member that of the R25 million which we are going to spend today on Bantu education, R10 million is being derived from Bantu taxes, and the other R15 million is coming out of the white account. We are also helping the Bantu in another way. There are many of them who do not pay their taxes. The Minister is having a study made to come up with a better system of tax collection in order to see whether we cannot help the Bantu in that aspect by collecting much greater amounts of money for their education. But the Bantu will simply have to remember that if they want more education and better facilities they will have to pay their taxes more regularly, and all of them who are not paying taxes now will have to pay those taxes. This I regard as real educational work amongst the Bantu: To make of them not a lot of parasites living off the Whites but independent people who can serve their own nation. The next thing is that we envisage the training of the Bantu for service to his community, as I said just now. Thirdly, the Bantu must be responsible for the financing of their education, and in the meantime we are helping them to a far greater extent than they are helping themselves. The fourth thing is that the Bantu themselves determine to a great extent the rate of development of their own education, as the hon. member for Heilbron has stated so brilliantly.

I have only four minutes left, but let us hear what the Bantu themselves say about this education system. I know of no Bantu education expert, and there are many, who has asked at this stage for the introduction of compulsory education, because they realize the lack of realism which doing so would imply. Joseph Gana writes in a letter in Bantu—

Then there is Mr. T. J. Gina of the Dintuli Bantu School, Natal, who states—

[Interjection.] Certainly they support the Minister. If the hon. member for Houghton had seen half as many Bantu in the past ten years as I have seen in the past eleven months since I was made Deputy Minister, she would be proud of herself. I want to invite her to visit Bantu schools with me, but I shall see to it that a third person accompanies us. There is another from Mr. H. L. Sehlodimela, principal of the Ndlovu Community School, who states (translation)—

That is what the Bantu want. They do not want miracles or nonsense, of the type the hon. member for Houghton spoke. They want steady progress and that is what they are getting at the moment and are accepting with enthusiasm. The hon. member can say what she pleases. Outside the little circle of so—called Bantu intellectuals surrounding her and the University of the Witwatersrand, stands the bantu population of to—day who, as far as Bantu education is concerned, are solidly behind the Government. I am afraid my time is up. I could have taught the hon. member a great deal more. She was a lecturer in her day and it would have been a pleasure for me to teach her.

Mr. Speaker, I would not dream of attempting to reply to the hon. the Deputy Minister because I think that he was entirely right when he started off by saying to the hon. member for Kensington that what he knew about education was dangerous. I agree with him entirely. From: the wording of this motion and within the framework of our amendment, it is quite clear that we on this side of the House give it a degree of support. In fact, I would say that there is a very real need on the part of the Government to indulge in, what I would call, positive thinking on this particular issue. Of all the communities in South Africa, small or large, which go to make up our population, it seems to me—and hon. members may get tired of my talking about the coloured people, but I know about them—we could do so much more for the coloured community than we do. The question of Bantu education has been very adequately dealt with by the hon. member for Kensington. I do not intend to say much about that except that it seems very largely to have failed as a system. There is no question that insufficient care and attention has been given to the training of Bantu teachers which implies I think, as the hon. member for Houghton correctly said, wanton neglect of secondary schooling, with the result that for all the Government pride in having half a million Bantu children in school to-day, as the hon. member for Kensington also correctly said, the whole structure is top heavy and unproductive. That is where it has fallen down in an educational sense, because the majority of these children leave school in sub B, Std. I or Std. II. Granted it is an advantage that they should be able to read and write even in a very simple way, but the fact is that it is not good enough either in terms of their future or in terms of the economy of South Africa. As hon. members know, the majority of them receive no further training for the rest of their lives. I would say that there is no excuse whatever for the attitude adopted by this Government towards the coloured people over the years, particularly in the Cape. Attempts to have a degree of compulsory schooling introduced into the Cape Province go back a great many years. As I said earlier this afternoon I think that our failure to deal with this question has been very largely responsible for the pathetic sociological conditions in which many of them find themselves to—day. If you look back, and I was in the Cape Provincial Council for nearly ten years, at the reports of the Superintendent—General of Education of the Cape Province for the last few years, you will find that from 1953 to 1963 (coloured education was taken over by the Central Government in 1964) the number of coloured pupils who remained at school from Std. I right through to Std. VI increased at an average rate of between one and two per cent per year over this decade which is quite fantastic. In other words, at no time did more than 40 per cent of all coloured children in school get further than Std. VI. The biggest fall-out during this decade, something which I think is symptomatic, was the higher percentage who left for good in Std. IV or well before that; in other words, approximately 65 per cent of the coloured schoolgoing population never get any further than Std. IV. This is better than nothing. Hon. members may say that at least they have a degree of schooling, which is something to set them on the right road. I think that the Government has been unwise and I think also that with a little more foresight and particularly a little more financial generosity in this matter, they could have subsidized coloured schooling in order to ensure that the remaining 30,000 coloured children who are not in school in the Republic to-day, could in fact have received a basic training in the three R’s during the twenty years that they have been in power. It would, as we have already agreed, given these children a sense of discipline and remove many of them for a period from their home environment which is so often inadequate and rather pathetic.

Instead the Government has let this problem lapse. What did we find in our last Budget? We found in the capital estimates that a sum of R3,973,000 was allocated for coloured child welfare and that R3,382,000 was allocated for primary, secondary and high schools and the training of teachers. In other words, over R½ million more was needed for child welfare amongst the coloured population for indigent and delinquent children than for education itself. When I refer to these sums of money I do not refer to the Loan Votes or anything under the Public Works Vote in regard to buildings. The fruit of this neglect, as I have already said during the debate on the Coloured Cadets Training Bill, is all the Minister told us yesterday afternoon that the initial enrolment in these training camps will be 90,000 coloured youths between the ages of 18 and 24, who are not gainfully employed nor receive any specific training whatsoever. He then went on to say that there would be an annual intake of 20,000 per annum after that. I want to say something to hon. members and especially to the hon. the Deputy Minister, since he has this unfortunate responsibility here this afternoon of replying to the debate, about the story of compulsory schooling, particularly here in the Cape, where we have the majority of the coloured people. I may say that it is a very dreary record. The hon. members opposite have been in power for over 20 years. It is a very dreary record of vacillation and cynicism which seems to me to cast a stigma on the policies of the Nationalist Government on his matter more than anything else. The hon. the Deputy Minister claimed, with enormous enthusiasm, that his Government had done more for coloured schooling than any other administration. I think that this is absolutely fantastic.

Way back in 1953, the hon. member for Houghton mentioned it at the time, when we had the majority in the Cape Provincial Council, we appointed a commission of enquiry under the chairmanship of the late Dr. De Vos Malan and subsequently under the chairmanship of Professor M. C. Botha. Its terms of reference were to investigate the whole question of Coloured education. I should like to remind hon. members on that side of the House of the people who served on that commission. There were some good Nationalists among them. Apart from Dr. De Vos Malan, Professor M. C. Botha and Mr. H. S. Bowden, there was Professor J. F. Burger, professor of education at the university of Cape Town; Mr. C. J. Hofmeyr, formerly chief inspector of schools in the Cape Education Department; Mr. W. A. Joubert, formerly principal of the Paarl Training College for teachers; Mr. N. E. Lambrechts, formerly chief inspector of schools in the Cape Education Department; none other than Mr. A. H. Stander, M.P.C., who sat in this House not so long ago, who was chief inspector of schools (Native education) in the Cape Education Department, and who was the former member of Parliament for Prieska. Then there was Mr. H. R. Storey, formerly chief inspector of schools (Coloured education) in the Cape Education Department and Mr. J. de Villiers, head of the Coloured school section of the Cape Education Department. The majority of the people on that commission were Afrikaans-speaking.

There is no doubt that they had views which would line up with those of the governing party to-day. It is almost fantastic to realize, when one reads the names of the people who made this investigation and issued a first class report, from which the Government could have taken many recommendations and put them into practice without at all breaking the bank, that as far back as 1945—I refer to Ordinance No. 11 of 1945—the Cape Provincial Council made special provision for the permissive introduction of compulsory attendance at school for coloured children be.tween the ages of 7 and 14, who lived within three miles of an undenominational school, subject to the provision that there was adequate accommodation. There is always this excuse that there is not adequate accommodation. This is not an insuperable difficulty. It is quite possible to hire buildings if you cannot afford to build them. This is the current excuse and it seems to me to be a thoroughly bogus one in regard to dealing with this urgent matter. The comments of the commission make such interesting reading that I should like to quote from them very briefly. I should like to remind hon. members that it is now 21 years since the Cape Provincial Council embodied the principle of compulsory schooling for coloured children in that ordinance.

Worst of all is the fact that the position has hardly changed in the whole of those 21 years. I want to tell you why. The hon. the Minister says that there has been such spectacular progress. Just let me read him something from the Commissions report. This is a report which was issued in 1956. They quote Ordinance No. 11 and speak of children who were entitled to compulsory schooling. Then they say—

Now I want hon. members to listen very carefully to this next paragraph, because it is relevant to a reply to a question asked by me in this House last session. The next paragraph says—

Six specific places are mentioned. When I asked a question in this House on the 23rd August of last year, whether compulsory schooling had been extended by this Administration at all, shall I tell you what the hon. the Minister’s reply was? He said—

Here they all are. They are the same ones which I read out in the report which was published in 1956—ten years ago. They are the Alice Primary School, the Wilfred Scott Primary School, King William’s Town, the Douglas Ross Primary School, Keiskammahoek, the Carinus Primary School, Cradock, the Arsenal Road School, Simonstown and the William Pescod High School at Kimberley. From 1956, when this report was published until the hon. the Minister gave me his answer in 1966 there was not a single new area to which compulsory schooling was extended.

When did the Department take over?

The Department took over on the 1st January, 1964. The only province in which anything was done was the province of Natal which, of course, is United Party controlled. [Interjections.] The Coloured Education Bill was passed in 1963. The province of Natal, of course, having intelligent people running it, has compulsory schooling for Coloured children up to and including Std. VIII on precisely the same basis as the Europeans. Do you know what the hon. the Minister ended up by saying to me in reply to my question? The hon. the Minister’s final words, having given me this answer, were that this upheld “the status quo prior to transfer”. I was in the provincial council at the time when we were told that the Government was going to do marvellous things for Coloured education and that that was why we had to give it up. The Government was going to spend so much money it just was not true. What has been done? Practically nothing. First of all, let us have it put on record that there have been no further steps towards compulsory schooling for Coloured children since 1953. That may just as well go down on the record. [Interjection.] No, the hon. the Deputy Minister has a different feeling about me, I am sure. In spite of all the fuss that was made at the time, nothing has been done, according to the Minister, to change the status quo since 1953. In terms of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington, we want to know how much longer this status quo is going to remain. Only yesterday we were told by the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs that the capital expenditure for the two training centres under the Training Centres for Coloured Cadets Bill was estimated at R 1,026,000, and recurrent expenditure for salaries, clothing, food and maintenance for both institutions was estimated at about R380,000. When I raised the question of compulsory schooling under the Vote in this House in my second session in 1965, the then Minister, the hon. P. W. Botha, said: “I also pointed out the shortage of school buildings as well as the fact that the Coloured population as such is not yet ripe …”—listen to those words—“… for general compulsory education”. I would say that this is utter rubbish. In fact, it is much more than rubbish. It is a form of wicked cynicism to suggest that any people anywhere in any part of the world are not ready to begin to learn how to take their rightful place in society, wherever they may be. When in 1965, on the same occasion, I interjected and asked the Minister whether they were not even ready for it up to Std. IV, his reply was: “No, and I told the hon. member why not. There are other means that we can employ.” What are the other means? This is very interesting. We would like to know what those other means are. Was it that he felt that he could leave these children just to rot until such time as they became old enough to be conscripted into the training camps which are under consideration? It seems to me that it is quite clear that the hon. the Minister’s predecessor—not this Minister— really did not care very much about this community in his charge. He could not have done, or else he would not have made a reply that was quite as stupid as that. As other hon. members have pointed out, ironically enough, the whole principle of compulsory schooling —in this instance for Coloureds—is written into the Coloured Education Act in Section 23 (1). It seems to me that if this Government wanted to, there is absolutely nothing to prevent them from introducing compulsory schooling in the Free State and the Transvaal for Coloured children to-morrow. I shall tell you why. Natal already has it. In the Free State, at the beginning of 1965, the estimated number of children not at school was only 808. Those were figures given to me in reply to a question in this House. In the Transvaal, at the beginning of 1965, the estimated number of Coloured children not at school was 3,181. That is all. Look at all the money we have. R 150,000 has been allocated to the Department of Sport. For what? [Interjections.] It depends on the sport, but the fact remains that there are less than 4,000 children in the Free State and the Transvaal who could be put into school for compulsory schooling, as they have it in Natal, for a very small sum of money, relatively speaking, instead of our having to allocate thousands of rand to set up training camps for juvenile delinquents. How much more profitable, from a human and from an economic point of view, it would have been to have done that as soon as this Government took over from the provinces, instead of fooling about as they have been doing ever since they took charge.

We know that the Cape Province presents a very different problem. We accept that. In the Cape Province in 1965 it was estimated that 28,300 Coloured children were not in school. Those were the Minister’s figures. Here in the Cape we are faced with the most serious aspect of all, namely the shortage of teachers, which is relevant to the whole problem. But it is all part of the general neglect, and if one looks at the figures—which are most depressing—of potential student teachers who made application to attend the training colleges and the training schools one sees how bad the position is. Far more made application than any of those colleges or schools were able to take. No real effort has been made to improve this position.

I want to point out to the Minister what the position is in regard to these training colleges and training schools. I feel sorry for this hon. Minister. I think that he has his heart in his job. But he has inherited an almost impossible problem at this stage. If one takes the businessman and the farmer, these two categories of people, then one finds that the shortsightedness of the Government’s policy in these two fields alone is quite incredible. Because, Sir, and I think that this point was made adequately by the hon. member for Houghton, for those who are mostly or only concerned with obtaining labour—let us put it only at that level—and with maintaining production, the warning has been quite clearly given to South Africa by the 1961 Education Panel in their report when they said—

Of course, Sir, they are quite right. Job reservation should never, under any circumstances, have been applied to the Coloured people. There is no doubt at all that if South Africa is going to develop at a reasonable rate economically expenditure on education will have to rise from the R 160,000,000 to R200,000,000 —the two figures between which the Estimates fluctuated during the 1960’s, for all races;—to something like R800 or R900 million within the next decade. We will have to face that. This would be a national investment, no matter who is educated, i.e. whether it is White, Coloured, Bantu or Indian. There is no doubt at all that the main target—and I put it this way deliberately—should be a degree of compulsory schooling for all races in South Africa. It seems to me that it is axiomatic that the higher the standard of non-White education generally, the greater will be their productivity as workers. With it goes a greater ambition to educate their own families and a greater sense of responsibility, whilst educational avenues are open to them. It means also that with a higher standard of living they themselves become consumers, they become an enormous potential consumer population, which benefits everybody all round.

Let us also get another point absolutely clear in our minds so that our thinking is not woolly on this subject. The extent to which the non-White people are able to contribute to the national economy of South Africa is based on how much they earn. The Minister talked about their not paying enough taxes. Well, the better wages they earn, the better they are able to contribute to the national economy, both as consumers in the first place and as taxpayers in the second. They are also less likely to remain an intolerable burden upon the European taxpayer and the State.

So we get back to the crux of this motion. As far as primary teachers are concerned, the enrolment figures of Coloured student teachers are very revealing indeed. The following figures appeared in Hansard this session. In 1965 1,594 student teachers were accepted. In 1966 1,357 were accepted, that is 237 fewer than the year before. Where is this wonderful progress? In 1967 only 1,304 were accepted, that is 53 fewer than the year before. So the numbers go steadily down, not up. They do not go up at all. So where is this phenomenal progress? It is just as well that the Minister had his say before I got up, because it is so easy to shoot him down, it is just not true. It would appear that no new primary teacher training institutions have been completed either in the Transvaal, the Free State, or Natal since this Government took over—not one. In the Cape Province one institution has been built in replacement of existing buildings. They were already there but they have been expanded since January, 1964. The Minister told me in reply to a question last year that the training college for primary teachers at Bellville is in the planning stage and is expected to be completed by the 31st December, 1969; in other words, the students will start enrolling there on 1st January, 1970, three years from now. This can hardly be described as what the Deputy Minister said was “spectacular progress”.

Let me say in conclusion that the pity of it is that if these children could be kept in school until they are fourteen, the position would be very much improved. We could make the law more flexible. Let us say they must be at school from seven to fourteen years of age. If we cannot afford to keep them at school right through to standard eight, there being such a large number of Coloured children in the Cape Province. If they can be kept at school until they are 14, they are entitled in law to go and work when they are 15. They would have been disciplined until they were 14. Then there would not be the need for all these trainees, pulling them in, pushing them around, forcing them to do things, because they will not work. More than half of them would find employment without any difficulty whatsoever if they were able to write and read, if they were able to handle agricultural machinery, and in general do things intelligently. They would be able to do all these things if they were at school until they were 14.

As things are our urban areas have become increasingly congested with these children who are growing up without any schooling and the burden of dealing with these youngsters, as the hon. members will know, is now falling more and more upon the State. I can only say that if the Government had enforced— and it is not yet too late, it can do so if it wants to—a degree of compulsory school attendance in our urban areas for these youngsters, it would be doing more for the Coloured community than any single Coloured Representative Council or any other political body. The shortage of teachers and the shortage of school accommodation sound as though they are practical obstacles. The accommodation aspect does not interest me at all because it can be found if there is a will to find it. However, the training of teachers is a different matter. It is a long-term project, and should have been started long ago.

I want to end by saying this. The danger for the community, for the Coloured community and for all of us as well, is the thousands of youngsters who have known no discipline whatsoever because they have not been taught it at school. They have had the minimum of care under very difficult home circumstances, as we know. These children, who have had the maximum amount of neglect during the first ten years of their lives, will form the recruits for these training centres which we are talking about now. Once children of this sort reach the age of 15 they are under no circumstances suitable candidates for rehabilitation, whether they are put into reformatories, training centres or anywhere else. If a child has been neglected up to its tenth of 14th year it is extremely difficult to retrieve the situation in terms of the development of the human psyche and in terms of that child’s future. I would say that the amendment is a very good one and that there is a real need for this Government to give an account of its stewardship in this field of education.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to go into the ideas expressed by the hon. member for Wynberg at any great length except to point out that I do not believe that the application of compulsory education is in any respect a criterion for the progress which has been made in the sphere of Coloured education since it was taken over by the Department of Coloured Education. It would appear from what the hon. member for Wynberg as well as the hon. member for Kensington said that the United Party want to support this motion. That amazes me because if one recalls how very little they did in the interests of this matter which they want to support this afternoon, when they were the governing party in this country, then it is surprising that they are inclined to give this motion any measure of support.

The hon. member for Wynberg spoke about the United Party-controlled province of Natal. I think it is fair to point out that in the ten years, including the war years I lived in Pietermaritzburg, not a single Coloured school was built there. The facilities were simply not provided. I think the hon. member for South Coast will know what I am talking about. I think it ought also to be asked to what extent the teachers’ training facilities were expanded in that period. I am talking now about the years just before this Government came into power. It would be very interesting to learn how many inspectors were allocated for the various race groups in that province during those years.

I now want to return to the motion and the U.N. rostrum speech made by the hon. member for Houghton. Before proceeding to a discussion of her motion I just want to say that I cannot understand how she can refer so often to the “scandalous double sessions”, which exist in Bantu education. Apparently the fact that the same method is being used in other countries of the world, in Israel for example, and probably for the same good reasons, does not worry her. This is inclined to create the impression in one that unsound political motives are involved in her motion. I am saying this particularly because the hon. member for Houghton, who introduced this motion, is a member of the élite political party here in our country—one of those who are able to purchase their own facilities of separate existence but who have a great deal to say about the numerous other South Africans who have to take into account the reality of their White survival in terms of a national policy. I wonder whether there is any significance in the fact that the Progressive Party constitution stipulates that Std. VIII must be the minimum educational qualification for a voter, and whether what the hon. member for Houghton is actually doing now is to canvass voters for herself with the Government’s money by asking for compulsory and free education for all racial groups.

That is a very good point.

I thought you would appreciate it; I only wondered whether you realized it.

One finds no concrete approach in this motion. It asks for free and compulsory education for all races in the Republic. I feel that the motion is a striking example of childish thoughtlessness. Even the mighty America has recently been made to realize the erroneousness of this view, and it is significant that recent scientific investigations made on a social and economic basis in that country were able to point out in statistical terms the dangers of this misconception. I maintain that the motion has a political tinge because I do not believe that anybody with experience of education amongst the Bantu could adopt such an attitude. Mention has been made here this afternoon of “universal education”. That is a hollow cry, Mr. Speaker.

The problem centres about the extent to which education can adapt itself to the mentality and level of development of the people to whom it is being given. Social background, culture and tradition also play a role. It is found, for example, that the thought processes of the Bantu are inclined to take place on the concrete level, more so than is the case amongst the Whites in South Africa. Hence also their inability to think in abstract terms, to theorize or to free themselves from the tangible. I may mention that as part of an exercise in experimental introspection I one day asked a B.A. student how much a quarter plus another quarter was. There was a pause, and then he told me it was a half. I then asked him to tell me by way of introspection how he had arrived at that conclusion. He told me that when he heard my question he thought of a stone, cleft it down the middle in his mind so that it broke into two, he then broke one half down the middle, realized that he had two quarters, counted the quarters together and realized that he had a half, whereupon he told me that the answer was a half. That is the thought process; it is typical of the lack of abstract appreciation of numbers which one often finds amongst the Bantu. That is why it is important to take these things into consideration when dealing with education for the Bantu. This fact is a determining factor in the kind of education and the method of instruction. I can give you the assurance, Sir, and I want to emphasize it for the sake of the hon. member for Houghton, that persons who are not professionally well-qualified find it extremely difficult to hold classes for the Bantu and work with them. It requires more of a teacher to hold classes for Bantu children than to teach Whites. In addition there is still the problem which was actually inherited by the Department of Bantu Education and which they are having to deal with at the present stage, namely that there was not much of a method of technique, of a pedagogical grounding in the education systems which we inherited in 1953 from the various provinces. The method of instruction there was often, almost in all cases, based merely on teaching through memorization, i.e. instruction from without That was the old Anglo-American psychology of learning. We are getting away from that view. It is something which takes time, however. Quite recently a Bantu psychologist told me that education for Bantu to-day is in many respects like a ripe fruit which one gives a child—the fruit is very good but the child’s stomach is unable to digest it. I am quoting in this regard from the book by Paul Giniewski. He states (translation)—

I want to maintain that what Bantu education is doing to-day is precisely to help the Bantu in South Africa, in our midst in the most sensible way possible.

Mention was made here this afternoon of an “expanding economy”. I quote from an article by the American writer Rado, where he says—

In this regard another writer, Don Piper, states the following—

I think my voice sounds sweet in the ears of the hon. member for Houghton.

The hon. member for Houghton also asked for post-primary educational facilities to be increased. She said that there are too many pupils at the schools at present, and the hon. member not only wants them at the primary school, they must also be transferred to the high school. According to an article by Arnold Anderson the correlation between postprimary pupils and per capita income for all countries is positively only .48. That testifies to the misconception that education, particularly post-primary education, means economic prosperity.

The ratio between post-primary pupils and total populations varies from 0 per cent to 7 per cent, even amongst nations with a per capita income of R250. It is a fact that where 5 per cent or more pupils receive post-primary instruction, the per capita income is usually more than R400, but then there are also high income countries with low post-primary pupil numbers. I am mentioning Japan for example. It is also a fact that even though literacy amongst adults and post-primary education correlate, there are countries with a low level of literacy, high post-primary education, but a low per capita income nevertheless. Examples of such countries are Egypt, Jordan, India and Taiwan. It would appear that other and very subtle cultural influences determine the way in which education affects the economy.

Sir, the cry for “compulsory education” is a hollow one therefore. Yet we in our country have nothing to be ashamed of. On the contrary, where the percentage of pupils to potential school-going children in four different countries in Africa is an average of 25, the figure in South Africa in 1966 was 83. Add to that 10 per cent for those who cannot receive instruction and that brings it up to 93 per cent. That leaves a meagre 7 per cent of the Bantu in South Africa who have not already been assimilated into schools. With that the argument for compulsory education practically lapses. Where the average percentage in respect of literacy in Africa varies between 15 and 20 per cent, it is 55 per cent in South Africa. I want to emphasize, although I do not have the time now to go into it, that education for Bantu in South Africa only differs from that for Whites in quantity, and very definitely not in quality.

I can prove that in 1966 15.9 per cent of the total Bantu population of 12.2 million was attending school. I will not burden you with the figures for the other African states, Sir, but they are in any case much lower. They vary from 11.5 per cent to 0.9 per cent in some countries. The fact of the matter is that in South Africa schooling is within the reach of every Bantu child.

I return to economic considerations. Hunter, a manpower consultant in South East Asia, warns against the temptation to expand economically in conditions of manpower shortage because these shortages can too easily be converted into surpluses, particularly in the earlier stages of economic growth; and once the standards have fallen to such an extent they are difficult to raise again. The numerous unemployed engineers and taxi-drivers with university degrees in countries where universities have developed faster than the economic growth in those countries, serve as warning.

Formal compulsory education is therefore not always the reply to manpower shortages and economic growth, particularly if it is injudiciously supplied. Merely to ask for compulsory education for all non-White race groups in South Africa is therefore foolish. It can cause considerable economic disruption in a few years.

That brings me to the cost aspect of free education. It is true that, of the current spending of R28.2 million in the interests of Bantu education, almost R16 million is in the current financial year being recovered from the white estimates. That means—I think it is a significant figure—that an average of R21 is to be borne by the approximately three quarter million White persons who normally pay income tax. I do not think that this figure has been furnished before. I do not think there is another African state which can approach anywhere near this figure. However, if one adds to the R28.2 million a proportionate part for the pupils who are not yet at school, plus the money which is paid by the pupils of the parents themselves, plus additional classrooms, teachers salaries, books, furniture, stationery, administrative costs and the costs of the normal annual increase in the Bantu education account, then the account for Bantu education alone totals more than R50 million. Up to now we have not mentioned the additional amounts for Indians and Coloureds.

It is unfortunately so that accounts have to be paid and the question is: Who is going to pay these accounts? Could it be the Progressive Party? That Bantu education has real problems with which it is struggling, nobody will deny. But it is not true either that progress is not being made; it is not true that those problems are not being tackled. That is why I want in conclusion to lend my support to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Heilbron.