Mr. Speaker, the business for next week will be as follows: On Monday the debate on the Additional Appropriation Bill will take place, after which we shall proceed with legislation. On Tuesday afternoon we shall, of course, deal with private members’ motions. The Second Reading of the Railways and Harbours Appropriation Bill will be moved on Wednesday, after which the debate will be adjourned until the following Monday. In the interim preference will be given to Orders of the Day Nos. I, 2, 3, 12, 7, 8 and 15, in that order, so as to provide the Senate with work.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, the measure which is now before the House consolidates the various laws relating to the remuneration, retirement from office and pensions on retirement of judges and the pensions payable to widows of judges.

Since the Judges’ Remuneration and Pensions Bill was passed in 1959, it has been amended on 12 occasions.

The result was that different pension groups developed, because the pensions of judges used to be fixed amounts and were subsequently linked to the salaries they were earning on retirement, and the granting of increases to judges as well as widows of judges was related to the periods within which they had retired or died.

Substantive provisions were accordingly inserted in some of the amending Acts to regulate the position in regard to certain of these pension groups. The position then arose that when amendments had to be made to the Act in regard to the pensions of judges and widows of judges, amendments had to be made to the substantive provisions in amending Acts as well, to regulate separately the position of each group of judges and widows of judges. Consequently there is now a variety of measures in existence, which makes it very difficult to calculate a pension in a particular case and greatly complicates amendments to the measures.

In the Bill which is now before the House, the amounts of the pensions to which judges and widows of judges are at present entitled have been consolidated in much simplified formulae, while the existing principles have not been amended.

The result will therefore be that the administration of the legislation will be greatly facilitated and that possible future amendments will be drastically simplified.

Mr. Speaker, I should just like to avail myself of this opportunity to inform the House that this Bill does not provide for another ten of the widows of judges who were widowed before 1 June 1956. We have decided to pay the minimum pension of R300 a month to those ten, too, and this will be embodied in other legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to say two things, firstly that we are satisfied that this is purely a consolidating measure, and secondly, to tell the hon. the Minister how very pleased we are that he is going to provide pensions for those judges’ widows whose husbands did not fall under this scheme and who were therefore not able to get a pension. We are grateful to the hon. the Minister for the urgent attention he has given to this matter.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has more or less replied to the point raised by me during our discussion of this clause at the Second Reading. He said he expected that the farmer would have to pay if it should be necessary to send a piece of meat to a laboratory to be tested. The hon. member for Bethal argued that the farmer was responsible for the infected animals sent to the abattoir. This is quite correct, for if it is found that a carcase shows signs of infection, it is very easy to conclude that the farmer is responsible for this. The argument which I advanced was that the owner of the abattoir is expected to provide laboratory facilities. Consequently, when an inspection has to be carried out, the farmer is under no obligation to pay for it. However, when such facilities are lacking and the carcases have to be referred to some State laboratory, the farmer is responsible for the cost this entails. We on this side have consistently adopted the attitude that the farmer is the man who sends his product to the controlled market. He is responsible for the transport, the cost of transport, the payment of the levy to the Abattoir Commission—which can improve the services rendered by the Abattoir Commission—and now the farmer has to pay for inspections as well, while the owner of the abattoir is actually supposed to provide the facilities. No matter how small the amount, from the viewpoint of the producer it is really going too far to expect just one man, i.e. the producer, always to bear the responsibility. After all, the abattoir and the State are also responsible for ensuring that the public health is not impaired. This has been the argument advanced by this side of the House. I am glad that the hon. the Minister has not followed the line of thought expressed by the hon. member for Bethal. The hon. the Minister knows what we mean, and he knows that the farmers are constantly being faced with rising production costs. They bear the responsibility for ensuring that the people are fed, so we should not saddle them with this responsibility as well. It was a good point which was made by the hon. the Minister, namely that laboratory facilities are expensive. For that reason the vast majority of abattoirs do not have these facilities. The hon. the Minister has held out the prospect of money being made available for that purpose. I want to appeal to him to make these facilities available at most abattoirs, so that there will be no doubt about whose responsibility it is. I therefore accept the reply he gave at the Second Reading, when he said that he was sympathetically disposed towards this matter and that he would see what could be done.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the standpoint adopted by the hon. member for Newton Park Because he wants to protect the producer he seems to me to be talking just like a Nationalist. We like that very much. As a farmer, the hon. member knows that 99,99% of the diseases can be identified. For example, it can easily be ascertained whether the slaughter animal has measles or any other disease, i.e. diseases which are visible. Now the hon. member’s request is that when meat is rejected, it should be analysed in a laboratory in cases where the inspector himself is in doubt. I do not believe that over a period of one year it will cost R1 000—that is to say the price of four cattle carcases. The hon. member is right when he says that when we are dealing with what was suggested by the hon. member for Bethal, namely the establishment of regional abattoirs where slaughtering may be concentrated, then laboratory facilities are justified.

I recently opened the abattoir at Kuruman, a fine new and modern abattoir, but laboratory facilities cannot be provided at such abattoirs. The isolated cases that may occur will have to be analysed by a State laboratory. Next year I shall give the hon. member figures regarding the cost. I do not think it can cost more than R1 000 in a year’s time. I appreciate the hon. member’s standpoint. But let us give this system a year to see how it works, and then I shall give him the figures as to the cost it entailed and the number of cases there were. However, I think it will be minimal. The hon. Opposition could be of very great help to us if they would also adopt this standpoint when we have a look at the floor prices this year. They must also give us some support when we determine the floor prices.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9:

Mr. Chairman, yesterday the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South referred to this clause in connection with facilities for slaughtering chickens. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to give us something more definite than he gave us before. He gave the assurance yesterday that if any hardships were suffered by the producer or the farmer’s wife, we should bring it to his attention. Strangely enough, only yesterday I received a letter from such a lady who has this sort of business in the Ixopo area. She said that she submitted her slaughter room to inspection by an inspector. He failed it and did not want to issue her with a permit. I then referred her to the hon. the Minister’s speech which he delivered in this House during the previous session. He referred to this matter on 16 October 1974 and it was reported in Hansard in col. 5577. Amongst other things, the hon. the Minister, in answer to the hon. member for Vryheid and myself, said that the room must at least be a clean place with running water laid on and that the slaughter room should have a screen door. He said that the place should at least be neat and clean and that such a person can slaughter as many chickens as she liked. I referred her to this passage in Hansard and I sent her a photostat copy. However, she has been unable to get anywhere. She says she has even been to see the Assistant Director of Veterinary Services who told her that there was no relaxation of the requirements for the slaughtering of poultry on farms by the housewife and that the Minister had never made such a statement in Parliament or elsewhere. He indicated that the required regulations would be tightened rather than be relaxed. I do not want to mention the gentleman’s name, but I shall take it up with the hon. the Minister at a later stage. I wonder, therefore whether it is not possible for the hon. the Minister to establish a differentiated system of grading for these slaughter rooms.

The Minister himself has agreed that it is not necessary for a person who slaughters a dozen or more chickens a week to be subjected to the same requirements as an abattoir or broiler industry where they kill thousands of chickens per week. If it were possible, perhaps, to establish a grading system for these rooms based on the quantity of meat produced there per week, I think it would help the health inspectors in determining what relaxations or concessions they should make. It would also help the farmer’s wife to know what her rights are.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for South Coast can rest assured that we are not going to be unreasonable. The Chief Meat Hygiene Officer and the Veterinary Department agreed last year that exemptions could be granted to farmers’ wives in certain cases, and this was in fact done. We do, however, have to register these people. If we were, for example, to exclude poultry from the definition of “animal” in the Act, we would have no hold over large broiler undertakings. Some of them are slaughtering up to half a million chickens per week. I think the hon. member will agree when I say that inspections have to be carried out there. I think this person should have written to me long ago. If the hon. member will give me the letter I shall immediately give my attention to this matter. Other hon. members came to me with similar problems and we rectified them. I do not, however, think that we can alter the Act to have the same situation as we had in the past. We have to exercise control over people slaughtering poultry in factories. A very good example of such a factory in Natal is Rainbow Chickens, which is a wonderful undertaking. They welcome inspections, and they use hygienic methods of slaughtering. I do feel that we can settle this matter in a practical way.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Report Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned last night I was saying that it was quite obvious that the hon. member for Langlaagte, when he spoke about the suburb of Killarney, really did not know that suburb at all. He will find that there are many such suburbs in urban areas. I believe he is quite incorrect if he ascribes wealth to all people who live in suburbs likened to Killarney, Illovo, Rosebank or others of that nature. In any case, I would say that it is quite wrong to discriminate against people who are in fact in the middle-income group. It is the duty of the State not only to look to the interests of those people who are poor, but also to look to the interests of those thousands of people who are neither rich nor poor, but to whom a reasonable standard of living means a great deal.

I wish to refer briefly to a comment made by the hon. member for Hercules, who in the course of his speech in passing accused Opposition speakers of dragging politics into this debate. I find it quite amazing that such an allegation could come from a member of the National Party. Of all the parties in this House I think that it is one party which is renowned for bringing politics into any debate where any political advantage is to be gained out of it. The truth of the matter is that the National Party would very much like to keep this Bill out of the political arena, and for good reasons. Here we have a situation in which a party which has pretended to fight for the blue collar worker over the years, is introducing a Bill which will gravely prejudice the financial situation of thousands of South Africans, ordinary white and blue collar workers. That is not to mention the pensioners in our community. No wonder, therefore, that they wish to debate this matter in a low key manner. Make no mistake that if there was five cents worth of advantage to be obtained by the National Party out of this debate, they would have been in it boots and all.

It is quite clear to me, and I think to all of us, that there is consensus at least in certain areas on some of the situations which are facing us. It seems to me that it is common cause that in discussing housing and rents legislation, we are entering a sphere in which the interests of various parties are such that a conflict must and does arise. It seems to be common cause and it has come out in this debate that when we speak of tenants of controlled flats and houses, we are talking largely of salaried family people, of pensioners and of young married couples. By and large, the more affluent section of the community, those who perhaps had or acquired some starting capital, are largely the owners of homes and flats. We seem to agree—I have noticed this during the debate—that the majority of tenants of controlled houses or flats are, with exceptions, people who earn a living and do not have a tremendous amount of extra money to work with. It is not disputed that to such people inflation and rising costs are an everyday worry and a menace. It has been freely admitted in this House over the last few hours that constantly increasing rentals are a threat to the security of thousands of South African families, particularly when the breadwinner is tied to a monthly salary which does not enjoy regular, frequent or even automatic upgrading from time to time as the value of money diminishes. If those were the only problems with which we were faced, however, perhaps relatively simple solutions could be found. As we know, and agree, that is not the position. The landlords and the building and letting entrepreneurs are not immune to rising costs. Far from it. While they should be entitled to a fair return on their investments, they, too, face constantly changing figures in regard to administrative, maintenance and construction costs. In a capitalist society, if the entrepreneur is not able to earn a fair return on his investment, the shortage of reasonable if not luxurious dwellingunits would soon create a major problem which would have far-reaching effects. Rents legislation—in fact, all legislation concerning housing directly or indirectly— should therefore focus solidly on the needs of the tenant, never losing sight of the problems of the landlord. Herein, as we have seen during this debate, lies both the problem and the conflict. Indeed, it is reflected in this Bill. In trying to satisfy both sets of demands in one piece of legislation, it is not unlikely that we will satisfy adequately neither the needs of the tenant— which are security of tenure in a reasonably maintained premises at a reasonable rental—nor the demands and requirements of the landlord. These are fully occupied dwelling units delivering a reasonable return on capital and effort. For that matter, it will not satisfy adequately the need for an incentive to provide further accommodation either. I believe, therefore, that this piece of legislation falls between two stools. The various memoranda which we have all had before us, representing such divergent interests as the Trade Union Council of South Africa, the South African Property Owners’ Association, the Institute of Estate Agents and the South African Tenants’ Association clearly show this. The hon. member for Durbanville tried to throw doubt on these memoranda by saying that they came from interested parties and were sure to show a bias. I certainly agree that these memoranda do come from interested parties and do express a partisan view because they reflect the thoughts and aspirations of the people whom they represent, but it is the job of the Government to weigh up the proposals and interests of all affected parties before making decisions. I say that these memoranda should not be ignored. From these memoranda it is obvious that none of the parties, either on the side of the landlord or on the side of the tenant, are fully satisfied, and not without reason, for while the position of the landlord is somewhat alleviated by various clauses of this Bill, ensuring in due course a higher income from dwelling units, the potential increases are not, certainly not in the eyes of Sapoa and the Institute of Estate Agents, sufficient to meet the constantly rising costs, overheads, etc. On the other hand, while from the tenant’s point of view certain protections are strengthened, after the passing of this Bill the tenants are still going to be faced with further and greater rent increases and they will not have any substantially greater security of tenure than they had before. The potential increases envisaged by this Bill will particularly hit pensioners and lower income families, and there is precious little joy for these people within the pages of this Bill.

Perhaps I should illustrate what I mean. If one looks at clause 1(b) of the Bill, one sees that it provides for the determination of a “reasonable rent” at a return of 8½% on both buildings and land. As hon. members will know, the return was previously 6% on the value of the land and 8% on the value of the buildings. The new provision will undoubtedly lead to rent increases throughout the Republic. As such, this clause brings no comfort of any sort to lessees. The South African Tenants’ Association, for instance, expresses its grave misgiving at this amendment, but Sapoa and the Institute of Estate Agents take the opposite view. The Institute proposes an allowable return of 10% and Sapoa has the following to say about this matter in its memorandum—

So, Mr. Speaker, neither section of the community is satisfied by the proposed amendment. What is more important is that the State is no nearer to solving the problems I mentioned earlier or to reconciling the obvious conflict of interests. The same can be said in regard to the proposed increase from 2% to 2½% allowed in respect of the maintenance of premises. However, evidence of this unresolved dilemma does not stop there. It permeates through this Bill. If one looks at clause 1(g) of the Bill one sees that the same difficulty rears its head. The proposed amendment allows of the situation in which a landlord who obtains electricity in bulk can sell that electricity to tenants in certain circumstances at a profit. I must say that I do not think that this is a good or correct principle at all. Electricity is perhaps one of the most essential commodities that one could envisage. The relatively small sum earned as profit will surely make no material difference to the income of the owner of a large block of flats but that additional small amount per month per lessee may well make serious inroads into the finances of a pensioner or salary earner who has to watch his cents. While I should not wish to deny a landlord a reasonable return on his investment, I do not believe that a profit should be made at the expense of the electricity consumer other than that already levied by Escom or the local authority.

Far from alleviating the plight of the tenant this Bill places further burdens on these people. In proposing to amend the definition of the word “value”, clause 1 of the Bill introduces and establishes two new principles. These will clearly result in higher rent determinations being awarded. In replacing the criterion “actual cost of erection” with the words “replacement value less depreciation”, tenants’ interests are greatly endangered. Let me give a very clear example of this which is also a trite one. An old building which was put up many years ago may have cost R30 000 or R40 000 to erect. To erect such a building today would cost three or four times that amount which would bring the value up to about R150 000. It is true that this provision is tempered by the words “less depreciation”. However, when we consider this aspect, we must realize that depreciation, even when a formula in this regard is used by a quantity surveyor, is in many cases a matter of opinion. The net result will obviously be a less certain and definitely higher valuation being placed on buildings. Furthermore, by widening the scope of the Rent Board’s vision to take into account the rent and rent value of uncontrolled premises it certainly allows such a board a greater vision or scope in making a decision. That is true. However, it immediately opens the door to the reappraisal of just about every rent-controlled building in the country. It will do nothing towards assisting or alleviating the situation in regard to providing reasonably priced housing. On the contrary—and this seems to be the general consensus of opinion—it will result in considerable rent increases.

There are several other clauses which give me cause for concern but I shall mention only two of them. I refer here to the proposed amendments to section 21 of the Act inserted by clause 12 of the Bill. This section relates to the grounds available to lessors for ejecting tenants. The adoption of one of the amendments will result in landlords being permitted to eject tenants not only for the long-established purpose of personal occupation but also now for the purpose of the use thereof by the landlord, his children or his employees. Admittedly—here I agree with the point that has been made in this connection—dwellings may in fact only be used for residential purposes. I realize this. I am nonetheless certain that by including the word “use” you are opening the door to abuses which will be very difficult to control. Accommodation addresses, holiday homes and week-end resorts may all in certain cases fall under this heading. Furthermore, by the introduction of the words “entire premises” in regard to the grounds of ejectment, further queries are raised which will confuse the issue in so far as the landlord is concerned. This section solves few problems, but opens the door to varying interpretations and I predict that it is going to lead to a tremendous amount of litigation over the meaning and interpretation of these words; litigation which tenants in most cases cannot afford.

The other amendment to section 21 proposes that the landlord shall have the right to eject a tenant not only for the purpose of reconstruction or rebuilding, as the section now reads, but also for the purpose inter alia of repairs. Sir, Tucsa in its memorandum maintains that this will result in tenants being ejected for minor repairs, thereby giving landlords an open door to eject tenants from controlled premises.

That is not true. You have not read the section properly.

I agree with the hon. member that it is not correct. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will give me a chance, I want to say that I believe that the Tucsa memorandum takes the matter far too far. After all, it is set out that an ejectment may only be obtained for repairs for which the vacation of the premises is essential.

Exactly.

Yes, but that hon. member must be patient; he must not jump the gun. Sir, there may be circumstances in which minor or not very important repairs have to be effected for which the tenant has to vacate the premises. Let us take the case, for instance, of flooring which has rotted. A situation may arise in which flooring has to be replaced, and in order to replace the flooring of the house it is possible —and I use this purely as an example, Sir —that the tenant will have to vacate the premises and that the provisions of this section will be invoked on those grounds. What I would like to know is why there is no provision in this Bill to allow tenants, in the case of repairs, to return to or at least to have the right of first refusal or option to return to the premises once the repairs have been completed. Surely this is a protection which should be built into the Bill.

True, Sir, the increased penalties envisaged in the Bill will act as a brake and as a deterrent to avaricious landlords, and taking into account the somewhat dubious activities of certain Witwatersrand property owners, these increased penalties come none too soon.

But this Bill, Sir, should be aimed at three objectives; firstly, to give the landlord a reasonable return on his investment and effort: secondly, to ensure that reasonably priced accommodation is available to the people of South Africa; and, thirdly, to ensure that tenants of rent-controlled premises have security of tenure. Sir, it is my view that this Bill fails in all three respects. The increases envisaged will not satisfy the profit-conscious entrepreneurs, nor will the/ encourage investment. The increases envisaged are, however, sufficient to increase severely the financial burden already weighing down the man in the street, the white-and-blue-collar worker who is the person about whom we are speaking. While the provisions relating to the disturbance of peaceful enjoyment are tightened up, security of tenure is but little strengthened The provisions with regard to decontrolment, which has been the subject of some debate in this House over the past few hours, the grounds for decontrolment, the procedures involved, the extent to which all interested parties are consulted or heard, are as vague as ever, and at a time when this device is being used more and more as a method of obtaining increased rentals from tenants in blocks of flats. Surely the time has come when guidelines and proper procedures for applications for decontrolment and objections to such applications should be made public.

I am the first to agree that all these problems cannot be solved solely through the medium of rent legislation. Several other aspects must also be considered. There has been much talk during this debate of the pros and cons of subsidies and incentives. The hon. member for Langlaagte, who, I am afraid, was not very lucid in his argument, seems generally to be in favour of a form of incentive, be it from the local authorities or from elsewhere. The Government, however, seemed generally to have set their collective face against doing much about either incentives or subsidies. The official Opposition, for their part, have in the past few days apparently changed their policy in regard to the matter.

That is not strange.

No, it is not strange at all. If I understand the hon. member for Green Point correctly, they are against direct subsidies but in favour of incentives and concessions which will assist the landlord to keep rents down. Perhaps I should ask the hon. member whether this is an example of their dynamic conservative and radical moderatism. [Interjections.] I am trying to make the point that this dynamic conservative and radical … [Interjections.] Sir, hon. members on this side of the House are so sensitive that if you look at them skew, they hide under their desks. [Interjections.] They also have a habit, Sir, of leading with their chins.

Who are “they”?

The dynamic, moderate, conservative radicals of the United Party. They have changed their policy in this regard. On 29 October 1974 in this House the hon. member for Yeoville, while he was still a member of that unfortunate party, proposed some possible solutions. [Interjections.] He proposed certain solutions which were then supported by this “radical” party.

And by you.

Certainly, and I still support them. They were espoused by the United Party last year, namely a subsidy, which is now denied by the hon. member for Green Point, to certain categories of tenants. If I may quote from the Hansard (column 6907 of 29 October 1974) he said this—

That was the viewpoint of the official Opposition last year. But now we are told that they are against subsidies, and as I have no reason to know of any changes up to a day or two ago, I feel this is a most recent change.

Sir, let me say that I believe the matter should be tackled by all methods, where suitable by subsidies to tenants, where possible by tax concessions and other incentives to the landlord. Sir, it seems strange to me that a block of rooms or flats which has a liquor licence in fact qualifies for certain tax allowances, while the same building, the same block of rooms or flats which does not have a liquor licence gets none, and there are many of this sort of building in Johannesburg. In other words, it is the sale of liquor which makes the building into an hotel, and such companies do enjoy certain tax benefits which flatowners of controlled premises do not receive. I am asking whether this is right. Has the Government got its priorities right? I believe that in allowing an anomaly of this kind to arise, the Government is getting its priorities wrong.

I’ll drink to that!

The problem should be tackled in a far more comprehensive manner and not in the half-hearted way as is evidenced by the lukewarm provisions contained in this Bill. The State espouses a capitalist society while it also has a vital duty to provide housing for the people. Surely the Government is capable of better and more incisive initiatives in this important sphere than is evidenced by this half-baked job we have before us. We shall, accordingly, oppose the Second Reading of this Bill and support the amendments proposed.

Mr. Speaker, in this debate we have had yet another manifestation of the negative and opportunistic approach of all members of the Opposition to Government measures in this House. I include in this the hon. member who has just sat down. I do not know whether I must refer to him as a member of a party or as a member without a party.

The member for Sandton.

That is why I say “all members of the Opposition”. Instead of studying the Bill before the House and criticizing it constructively where they consider this to be necessary with a view to improving the Act as it stands, we find that they are only interested in the point-scoring potential of the Bill that we are dealing with. They go to great pains to pose as the true champions of the lessees and to charge the Government with being unsympathetic to the interests of tenants. I want to assure them, however, that the electorate has long ago got wise to their antics and manoeuvrings and will not be misled by this kind of opportunism.

*If we look at the legislation before us, we must do so against certain background facts. In common law we find that the relationship between lessor and lessee is determined by the principle of demand and supply. If it were possible and realistic, the maintenance of this state of affairs would probably be an ideal arrangement of the whole affair. The fact is, however, that during and since the last World War there have been a variety of reasons why this state of affairs could not continue. If we want to conduct a debate here on those reasons and hurl reproaches at one another about the reasons for the present state of affairs, I am afraid we shall not come any closer to the solution of this problem. All that we shall achieve, is to score debating points off one another. It is by no means my intention to take up the time of this House by going into all the reasons why we have a shortage of housing. An imbalance arose between demand and supply in respect of housing. The demand exceeded the supply to the extent that the common law rule simply no longer remained tenable. Although this Government has already made remarkable progress with the provision of housing, it is a fact that the demand for housing still exceeds the supply.

I shall set out the shortage of housing at the beginning of 1975. The shortage in the Cape Province was approximately 2 700 dwelling units for Whites, approximately 50 000 for Coloureds and 1 700 for Indians; in the Transvaal, 1 500 dwelling units for Whites, 6 500 for Coloureds and 2 200 for Indians; in Natal, 1 200 dwelling units for Whites, 4 000 for Coloureds and 13 000 for Indians; and in the Orange Free State, 500 dwelling units for Whites and 800 for Coloureds. That gives us a total of 9 500 units for Whites, 61 300 for Coloureds and 16 900 for Indians. Therefore it is and remains, essential to intervene by means of legislation so as to ensure, on the one hand, that lessees are not exploited and, on the other hand, that the supply of housing is stimulated. Since 1950, when the principal Act was passed, it has been necessary from time to time to amend the Rents Act, Act. No. 43 of 1950, to adapt it to changing circumstances. The amending Bill which we are dealing with at the moment, must be evaluated against this background. What do we find now? The hon. member for Green Point, who is unfortunately absent at the moment, said yesterday in this House …

No, he is here.

Oh, I beg your pardon. Has he walked over? They are walking to and fro so quickly these days, from one side to the other, that one cannot keep track of them. That is the reason why I could not spot the hon. member straightaway. The hon. member for Green Point alleged yesterday that the Government was trying to cope with the housing situation by means of rent control alone instead of trying to correct the balance between demand and supply by providing sufficient dwelling units. Surely that is untrue. Why does the hon. member for Green Point tell such an untruth while he knows that this is not the true state of affairs? Surely that is a case of “point scoring”. He just makes a statement. Hon. members on this side of the House quoted various figures yesterday to illustrate the exact opposite. I do not want to take up the time of this House unnecessarily, but I should like to refer to the report of the Secretary for Community Development, his report for the period 1 January 1972 to 31 December 1972. I refer to page 11 where we find the following:

Building plans approved during 1972 in the private sector in the 77 major centres in respect of private dwellings, according to the Department of Statistics, totalled 24 897 as compared with 21 084 in 1971. The value of plans approved in respect of flats and other residential buildings, excluding private dwellings, amounted to R 114,3 million as against R119,4 million in 1971.

In 1972, eleven more private dwellings were completed than the 18 256 erected in 1971. The value of flats and other residential buildings completed in 1972 by the private sector dropped to R62,2 million as compared with R78,9 million in 1971.

Is it really the case that the Government is trying to cope with the situation by means of rent control alone? These figures show the opposite very clearly. So why does the hon. member for Green Point make such a wild statement in this House? The hon. member went on to say that the Government accepted and applied the principle of fiscal incentives in other cases. Now he wants the Government to promote the provision of more dwelling units by means of fiscal incentives. However, the fact is that the Government does not have an inexhaustible source of finances at its disposal and cannot continue to make fiscal incentive contributions indefinitely and without limit; it is a matter of priorities. The hon. member for Sandton also referred to priorities and asked that the Government state its priorities. The Government cannot make incentive contributions for every case which might perhaps be deserving. From what sources is it to do so? Hon. members on the opposite side neglect to say. They neglect to say that the Government will have to take more from the pockets of those people, on whose behalf they are supposed to be pleading, in the form of taxation to make incentive contributions. Now the hon. member for Sandton let the cat out of the bag for us this morning when he said that the official Opposition have made a policy change once again since last year.

He talks nonsense. Don’t listen to what he says.

The hon. member for Green Point says that the hon. member for Sandton talks nonsense, but who am I to differ with the hon. member for Sandton on this point, he who sat in the inner circle of the Opposition? Surely he knows what their policy was last year; surely he knows what the motivation was regardless of what was said in this House for public consumption.

Therefore this is a question of priorities. What can and must be done in one case, cannot necessarily be done in the next. I want to ask hon. members of the Opposition—there are only a few of them here, but the hon. member for Green Point is at least a frontbencher and also the official speaker on this matter and perhaps he can give me an answer …

Your benches are not exactly full.

Numbers are not at stake now. There are great numbers of your sort …

Order! The hon. member must refer to members as “hon. members”.

I shall do so, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the hon. member for Green Point whether he can tell me whether it is his party’s policy this morning—he does not have to say whether it will still be the policy next week—that we are to use National Housing funds to pay for fiscal incentive contributions. The funds must come from somewhere, after all. I quoted what has been done recently by means of National Housing funds. Now I want to know whether hon. members on the opposite side would prefer the department to stop this sort of contribution and rather pay incentive contributions. As usual, they will not favour us with an answer, because they only try to score debating points when it suits them.

If we look at this Bill before us, we find that it comprises the following: Firstly, there is a closer definition of the concept “reasonable rent”, and of “value” of premises, for the purpose of this determination. Secondly, it provides for the retention by controlled premises of their identity in certain circumstances. Thirdly, there is the further regulation of the limitation on the right of ejectment. Fourthly, there is an adjustment of the penalties for offences. Finally, there are administrative measures to ensure an effective application of the Rents Act.

In view of the rising rates of interests it was simply not a paying proposition for investors to invest in premises for letting, with the result that the supply of premises for rent was affected detrimentally. It is yet another aspect of the economics of demand and supply that if there is an inadequate supply there will be an increase in rentals in some or other form. After all, it is also in the financial interests of the lessees themselves that there should be sufficient housing, and also in the interests of those who are already housed.

A lessor of premises in a city wrote to me recently as follows (translation)—

In a positive attempt to stimulate the supply of housing, it is being provided that “reasonable rent” will henceforth be based on a return of 8½% of the value of both buildings and the land on which the buildings are situated. This definitely is much more realistic basis for calculation than the present 8% on the value of buildings and 6% on the value of land. At the same time this adjustment is not so drastic as to lead to an intolerable increase in rent for the lessee. The effect of this amendment on the rent determined in the end is softened further by the abolition of the provision that the rent may be determined, inter alia, on the basis of the amount of the interest payable on a loan which is guaranteed by means of a bond on the land on which the premises concerned are situated, instead of on the basis of a return of 8% on the value of the building and 6% on the value of the land concerned. What is more, this provision relating to interest as the basis for the determination of rent lent itself to possible abuse. In fact, it is alleged that the proceeds of bonds registered against these premises, were not always used in connection with or in the interests of the rented property, but for other purposes. Therefore the abolition of this provision is justified in itself.

It is also a fact that an investment in premises for letting is a relatively risky form of investment in comparison with other forms of investment. In determining the return on the capital which is invested, this larger risk factor should be taken into consideration. When the proceeds from rent are less than the proceeds which are offered by gilt-edged investments, such as investment in Government securities, they can hardly be described as adequate nor will investors accept this unless, and this is the important fact, some form of compensation is linked to an investment in premises for letting, such as the possibility of capital growth. After all, this is also a well-known phenomenon. We see it on the stock exchange, viz. that people invest in shares not only for the sake of the dividend which the share yields, but also with a view to capital growth. That is the principle which is recognized here, that although the fixing of the return at 8½% is possibly not sufficient from the investor’s point of view, the additional advantage to him of the possibility of capital growth is now being added. In terms of section 1 of the existing Act, “value” for the purposes of determining rent, has been determined on the basis of various factors. One of these is the actual building costs of the premises. But this factor makes no provision for capital growth. It has been limiting the investor to a nominal return on an amount which has gradually become quite disproportionate to the actual value of the premises concerned. However, the proposed amendment makes provision for a form of capital growth as well in that the value of the premises will be determined, inter alia —I want to emphasize that this is not the only factor by any means—on the basis of the replacement value of those premises less the depreciation of the premises. In this respect another factor has been built into the Bill, a factor which is in the interest of the lessee. In other words, the depreciation of the premises will act as a counterbalance to the rising replacement value. Therefore, if the owner does not maintain his premises properly, he will penalize himself in that a larger amount will be included in the calculations for depreciation. It is also in the interests of the lessee himself that the premises in which he lives be maintained. I have had much to do with Rent Board applications and often I have found that the lessee complains to the Rent Board that the premises are not maintained properly. Usually when an application is made for a rent increase or a rent decrease and the Rent Board considers that application, it appears that the argument does not concern the financial aspect of the matter, but how many window panes are broken, etc. Therefore it usually concerns the condition of the building. Consequently we want to give the owner of the premises an incentive by means of this very Bill, to maintain his premises properly.

At the expense of the lessee.

No, not at the expense of the lessee, but in the interests of the lessee. If he maintains his building, the depreciation will be less. After all, the lessee will surely be prepared to pay a higher rent for premises which are properly maintained rather than paying somewhat less for premises which are not properly maintained. I think that it is an injustice and a disservice which we do our lessees by suggesting that the lessees are not prepared to pay for the services which they receive. I do not think that lessees have ever objected to paying a realistic rent as long as they get decent service. Therefore there must be a relation between the service which he gets, in this case the dwelling which he uses, and the rent which he pays. As I have said, the effect of the latter factor, viz. the depreciation of the premises, is that the owner of the premises will be encouraged to maintain the premises in order to limit depreciation to a minimum.

It is because of two considerations in particular that owners try to get premises exempted from rent control. The first is that they can increase the rent without reference to or control by the Control Board. The second consideration is that they want to eject a lessee so that the premises concerned can be sold at a profit. If the owner does not succeed in having the property exempted, there are often attempts to circumvent the provisions of the Rents Act by changing the identity of the premises, for example, into rooms which are then let separately, serviced or furnished, in terms of section 2(l)(b) of the original Act. Clause 2(1)(c) of the amending Bill provides however that these maneouvres and methods to try to circumvent the Act will not have the effect of changing the identity of premises. In this way this loophole, too, is being closed. In terms of section 21(l)(e) of the original Act, the owner is entitled to give the lessee six months’ notice to vacate the premises if the premises are reasonably required by the owner for the purpose of a reconstruction or rebuilding scheme, regardless of whether or not such reconstruction or rebuilding scheme will make the premises uninhabitable for the lessee for the duration thereof. One may have a case of an owner wanting to make certain structural changes to a certain part of the building. Then he uses this provision to get rid of an innocent lessee. Therefore it is possible for the owner to get rid of an innocent lessee by making structural changes to any part of the premises. That is a provision which offers wide scope for abuse. Clause 21(l)(f) of the amending Bill now requires explicitly that the vacation of the premises concerned must be essential in view of any reconstruction, rebuilding or repairs before the owner will be entitled to give the lessee six months’ notice of vacation. The new provision in clause 21(2) now provides explicitly that no lessee may be ejected for trivial reasons. All these proposed amendments and additions to the Act are obviously aimed at ensuring a better dividend to the lessor on his investment on the one hand and at giving the lessee enhanced security on the other hand while the determination rentals is being kept within reasonable limits at the same time. If all three of these things are analysed objectively, and not subjectively with a view to making political capital from them, we find that all three of these things are in fact in the interests of the lessee and that there is no substance to the allegations which we have had from hon. members on the opposite side to the effect that this Government is unfeeling in respect of the interests of the lessee. Where the legitimate claim of the lessor to a decent dividend is being recognized, it is done with the very aim of stimulating the provision of housing.

Therefore I gladly support the legislation which is before the House at the moment.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I shall not follow the hon. member who has just sat down in what he said, although I shall try to provide him with what he considered to have been absent from this side of the House, namely constructive suggestions. On the other hand, however, it all depends upon what one means by “constructive” suggestions.

The question of rent control is a very complicated one. It is a highly emotive subject in many areas of South Africa. It is a matter which I am sure the hon. the Minister finds great difficulty in dealing with and it has its origin somewhere back in the past. To my mind there are two main issues which have, broadly speaking, run like a thread through this debate and which are dealt with in the amending Bill. One is the economics of rent control, both from the point of view of the landlord and the tenant, and the second one, with which I should like to deal separately and which the hon. member for Houghton raised particularly yesterday, is the question of the provision of adequate safeguards for tenants against the behaviour of a small minority—I want to emphasize that —of landlords. Mr. Speaker, when you look at this Bill and the various amendments which have been introduced to the previous Act, the judgment can only be that whilst there are definitely some improvements from the points of view of both parties, unfortunately those improvements are not of a degree or of a nature where they are going to provide lasting satisfaction to either of the parties involved, the landlord or the tenant. The economic amendments are set out basically in clause 1—I would like to come back to that at a later stage—and the tenants’ protection clauses are set out primarily, I think, in clauses 8 and 12.

Sir, the main problem of rent control really arises from the low rate of return which is allowed. Let me say that I assume that it is common ground between all parties in this House that the objective for South Africa is to provide housing to an extent which can be equated with the demand and at the most reasonable price. There is obviously a considerable housing shortage; the primary aim and objective is to alleviate that shortage, and rent control must be seen within that context and against that background. Sir, a comparison has been drawn here between the 8½% return which landlords are to receive on rent-controlled buildings and the return on other forms of investment which are risk-free and on investments where there is an element of risk involved. What it amounts to in effect is that the landlords are providing a subsidy to the community as a whole. We on these benches feel very strongly that if there is any question of a subsidy, one should face up to it and make it clear that this is the role and the responsibility of the Government. The Government should provide subsidies, in the interest of the community as a whole, where that is deemed to be necessary, but it should certainly not force one sector of the population to subsidize others, which is in effect what happens here. Sir, this unfortunate position in which landlords are placed has further effects. Inevitably, as a result of the return which they are allowed, they are increasingly going to provide lower standards of accommodation. Firstly, they are not going to be in a position to preserve or maintain old buildings, as they would otherwise have done, and indeed one could say that there are a great number of buildings in the principal cities of Johannesburg and Cape Town and, I would think, to a certain extent in Durban as well, which it would be better to demolish and to replace with new buildings. This would benefit the community as a whole. But, of course, with a rate of return of the order of 8½%, this is unlikely to occur. Sir, quite apart from the point of view of return, the landlords have great difficulty in obtaining completely vacant occupation of their buildings, which is a prerequisite. Even if a landlord was prepared in the public interest to demolish an old building and to erect a new and more modem and obviously more satisfactory building, he would first have to obtain vacant occupation, and in the terms of this Bill, that is far easier said than done. Another thing, of course, is that the terms of this Bill will discourage development, and another factor here—and this is quite apart from the rate of return—is that the Minister may by proclamation deem any building or property to be subject to rent control. Well, this is clearly a risk which is run by anyone who is thinking of going in for erecting buildings which would go a long way towards helping to solve the housing problem in South Africa. That proclamation remains. The Minister so far, as has been mentioned, has refused to give to the public or to this House guide-lines as to when or under what sort of conditions he will either allow decontrol or subject further buildings to control.

Now, the hon. member for Langlaagte last night was clearly slightly startled to find that we on these benches agreed with him in certain respects. This was mainly in regard to one particular matter which happens under rent control, namely the anomaly of people who are fairly well-off. I know that one cannot really lay down guide-lines as to what constitutes rich people but there are certainly people who obtain occupation of flats or apartments in rent-controlled buildings when they could afford to go elsewhere. They are in a better position than a substantial number of other people who in fact cannot be given occupation because it has been given to those better off. This is an anomaly and we would agree with the hon. member for Langlaagte in the sense that we find this a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs. It is of course very difficult to draft legislation which would prevent this happening, but it is part of the whole unsatisfactory state of affairs which one experiences when rent control is enforced in the way it is enforced at the moment in our country. We would like later to propose some ways of getting around this.

The final thing about this matter is that as the result of all these factors, the vast majority of landlords are placed in a very invidious position. There are a great number of landlords, not necessarily property magnates, who build up their savings for their old age by renting out much smaller premises. But I am thinking primarily here about those who own the very large blocks of flats which are found in our major cities. These landlords are placed in an extremely invidious position because their choice is quite simply whether they should sell their building because it is a highly unsatisfactory investment with a return which is far below the rate of inflation—in cases where they have done this it has given rise to a small minority of landlords such as Messrs. Wainer, Mouton and Jacobs, whom I will come to later—or let the building run down because their return is not sufficient to enable them to carry out their responsibilities to their tenants which they would otherwise have been prepared to do. In effect the vast majority of them have chosen to let their buildings run down because of these factors and because it is not their duty, as I have said, to subsidize the general public and to act in the interests of the community as a whole in the sense that the Government should. Therefore they are faced simply with the position that they have let their buildings run down. On the other hand increasingly in the major cities —more particularly in Johannesburg and I think to a lesser extent in Cape Town— they have the alternative of selling to an unscrupulous few—and I use the word “few” advisedly because they are few in number—property developers such as Messrs. Wainer, Mouton and Jacobs. Now, these gentlemen are prepared to buy because they are prepared to take all the necessary action against tenants in order to earn a better return than a more sensitive landlord would be prepared to do.

They are also prepared through their actions, by fair means or foul, to induce people to purchase flats and in some cases they earn very large profits. The callousness and insensitivity of this small minority of people in holding their tenants to the very letter of the law as it stands at present, is one thing. They also embark upon a campaign of personal harassment of tenants, both physical and mental. It is difficult to imagine that this could be more objectionable or more undesirable. I suppose that as a matter of strict economics and in the strict sense of the law, there may be some grounds for justification, but the behaviour of these people has, in a number of instances, gone well beyond just that. They have attempted and succeeded in a number of cases, by this form of intimidation and harassment, in getting tenants to vacate their flats or apartments when this could not have been further from the minds of the tenants themselves. In order to inform the Minister about the nature of the harassment, I should like to quote some examples that have come to my attention.

In my constituency, Johannesburg North, these landlords have insisted in all cases that the tenants make the journey into the centre of town in order to pay their rent in cash on the 1st of each month. No exceptions whatsoever have been permitted, either in respect of old age or disability. This is a grave inconvenience and indeed worrying to the tenants of these blocks of flats quite apart from the fact that they are required to carry large quantities of cash into the centre of Johannesburg. One elderly single woman sent a cheque by registered post. She was later served with an eviction notice despite the fact that the letter enclosing the cheque lay in the collection box from 2 January until 13 January of this year when it was collected. This eviction notice was also served on her despite the fact that the post office had sent three reminders to the landlord that the registered letter should be collected. I particularly want to inform the hon. the Minister that pressure has also been brought to bear on residents to purchase their flats under a conditional deed of sale in the expectation that sectional title will be granted in the next three to five years. We know from the hon. the Minister, however, that there is no certainty whatsoever that the flats concerned will be decontrolled and further, if they are, that sectional title will be granted. These tenants who are mainly elderly people succumb to this type of pressure—not even the hon. member for Langlaagte can call them rich—and are at risk for the down payment which is considerable. Throughout the period they also run the risk that the people who forced them into buying the flats, like Messrs. Wainer, Mouton and Jacobs, could go bankrupt. In such an event, of course, they lose everything. These offences are extremely difficult to prove. The hon. member for Houghton has already proposed an amendment to clause 12 in an attempt to stiffen the penalties. I also intend to move a further amendment to clause 12, viz. in line 18, page 14, after the word “includes” to insert “or attempts to induce”, simply because our understanding of the clause at present is that those penalties only come into play after the landlord has been successful in inducing the tenant to leave the building concerned.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I should like to move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (a) takes note of the progress being made in the field of Bantu education in South Africa; and
2. (b) expresses its approval of the Government’s system of in-service-training of Bantu workers in approved work spheres.

In introducing this motion I am not in any way implying that the Department of Bantu Education is perfect. We are all aware that this department is still burdened with many failings and shortcomings, and that a great deal can still be done to improve it. However, it is a question of what approach one adopts in respect of this department. If my attitude is a negative one and I merely want to look for faults, I could have pointed out that when the schools opened in January in my own city, Port Elizabeth, there were 637 Bantu pupils for whom classroom accommodation was not immediately available. However, such crises develop suddenly and a solution to them has to be found because the extent of the activities of the department is tremendous. When one discusses Bantu education in South Africa it is very important to find the correct perspective in this regard.

To obtain an objective picture of Bantu education in South Africa it is necessary to take note of what is being done elsewhere in Africa in the sphere of education, for we must realize that Bantu education in South Africa is inextricably bound up and comparable with education elsewhere in Africa. When one considers the picture in Africa, one is able to see what is being done in this country in its correct perspective. While I was flying across Africa last year I was fortunate to have a Black man sitting next to me after we left Kinshasha. Initially I was a little disappointed because I had thought that the seat would remain open for my hand luggage, or that I would find attractive company sitting next to me, but eventually this disappointment passed. I began to talk to the Black man and found that he was an African teacher. He was a person with a master’s degree which he had obtained in Scotland, and at that time he was some kind of liaison officer for or organizer of an educational programme in four or five different countries in Central Africa. I asked him what progress they were making, and his reply to me was that far from making any progress they were in fact retrogressing. He told me about the tremendous migration from the backward rural areas to the cities in the various countries in which he had worked. These people moved to the towns in the hope that they would be able to achieve a better standard of living, that their conditions would improve, and that there would be food and clothing for them, but in particular they did so with one important object in mind, and that was that their children should receive an education.

In most cases however this was a vain hope for there was not even enough money for housing, social services and proper hygienic services. Where was the money to be found to build schools for these thousands upon thousands of children? The Black man then turned to me and said that we should extend aid to them from South Africa. I asked him why he was asking us for aid, for we were a small country that had its own problems. I asked him why he did not ask for aid from Germany, England and America instead, which are all major, prosperous countries. He said that we should help them because we are of Africa. He said that they were aware in these countries of what we are doing for the education of our Black people. He also said that it was not only money they needed, they also needed information, planning and so on. Those words made a profound impression on me.

If one looks at the figures in the Statemen's Yearbook, one will see that the picture which this Black man presented of education in these countries with which he was acquainted, was not incorrect. The number of pupils attending school, expressed as a percentage of the population in states such as Burundi, Chad, Nigeria and Sudan, is only 5%. In Mali it is only 3,5%, in Mauritius and Niger 2,5%, in Somalia only 1,5%. In all these cases fewer than 20% of the children of school-going age are in fact attending school. If we were then to compare the situation to that in the Bantu areas of South Africa, one would see what tremendous progress we have made in this regard. Here in our country a total of 3,5 million Bantu pupils are attending school this year. Expressed as a percentage of the total population it amounts to 19,86%, higher even than in some European countries. The total number of children of school-going age attending school in South Africa is more than 80%, in comparison with less than 20% in most African states, If that is not spectacular, I do not know what is.

Of course, there are still major deficiencies and serious problems, which will probably be elucidated by Opposition speakers today. There is, for example, the question of compulsory education. I do not want to go into this question now, because the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education went into the matter very fully last year and pointed out how living standards, food, clothing, housing and all those aspects have to be taken into account when a decision has to be reached on compulsory education. There is also the question of the high percentage of drop-outs.

Then, too, there is the shortage of class-rooms, to which I have already referred, as well as the shortage of trained teachers. There is also the so-called great injustice referred to by critics of this Government, namely the low per capita expenditure per pupil in respect of Bantu pupils in comparison with that of the other population groups. If one takes this low per capita expenditure in itself, we have to admit that it is lower than that for the other population groups. In respect of Bantu pupils the per capita expenditure for primary pupils according to the 1973-’74 Budget amounted to only R24, while that in respect of secondary pupils amounted to more than R100. This gives us an average of R28,56. Since that Budget there have been considerable increases in the salaries of Bantu teachers, which has pushed up the average to approximately R38 per pupil. But even then this is considerably lower than that for the other population groups. In respect of Coloureds the per capita expenditure per primary school pupil is R91, and per secondary school pupil R124. In respect of Indians the figures are R121 and R183 respectively.

According to estimates the average in respect of White pupils in the four provinces will be approximately R450 per pupil. We are very grateful that we have been able to attain this high standard of development in regard to White education. The Whites have a special task to perform in Africa, and a special position of leadership to maintain. I do not think one of us sitting here today would want to advocate that White education should receive less or that the standard of White education should be lowered in order to raise the standard of Bantu education. But suppose we said that the two had to be equalized, i.e. that White education should not be lowered, but that Bantu education should be raised so that the per capita expenditure in respect of Bantu pupils will also be approximately R450 per annum. Do hon. members know what that would entail for the economy of this country? In respect of the present 3,5 million Bantu pupils it would mean that our annual expenditure on Bantu education alone would be approximately R1 575 million, one-third of our total Budget for the past year. Subsequently, when we come to compulsory education, it will be possible to increase the number of pupils to almost 5 million. Then the amount will total R2 500 million—more than half of our total Estimates of Expenditure. Where is the money to come from? People who discuss, theorize and idealize on these matters, should also keep their feet planted firmly on the ground and see what is really possible. This is not a road of revolution. Sir, it is the policy of this Government, and of each one of us who is interested in education, to ensure the progressive elevation of Bantu education and that of other ethnic groups. That is the ideal which has been set. However, we have a long way to go and one has to see what is possible, and that is what this Government is doing. We all know that until a few years ago the amount of R13 million plus Bantu taxation was pegged for Bantu education. A few years ago it was changed, and during the past two years the amount in respect of Bantu pupils within the White areas alone has been almost doubled by this Government. According to the 1972-73 Budget it was R32,8 million and in the 1974-75 Budget it was R56 million. This is only for Bantu education in the White areas. Therefore it has almost doubled in the course of two years. If one also takes into consideration that 20 years ago when Bantu education was taken over by this department there were only 870 000 pupils at school while there are 3,5 million today—a percentage increase of more than 400% in the short space of 20 years— then it is spectacular, and nothing else.

I have also made a study of what is being done elsewhere in the world in the sphere of education for underdeveloped peoples. In America and elsewhere I saw what was being done for the education of the Indians. I want to make the assertion that South Africa is far in the lead in the world in respect of what is being done for the education of our underdeveloped peoples. South Africa is not only in the forefront when it comes to the spending of funds and the creation of amenities, but also as regards the ability to plan and to organize this education. This is what this Black man of Africa asked me, viz. aid or information in the planning and organization of this education. It is that kind of aid which I am convinced we will gladly, if afforded an opportunity to do so, want to give to Africa. I am certain that nowhere else in the world, in the field of education, has so much been done in such a short space of time for the education of one people by another. I believe that the department has in past years erected a colossal monument here in South Africa when it comes to Bantu education, a monument which will stand for many years to the credit not only of the National Party Government, but also to the credit of the Whites in South Africa. One must add to this that not only here in South Africa but throughout Africa there is an insatiable interest on the part of Bantu parents in the education of their children. This is accompanied by great sacrifice here in South Africa and elsewhere, as I indicated at the outset of my speech. It is accompanied by great sacrifice. The people are even prepared to sacrifice their own lives in order to ensure that their children attend school, and this is not always possible. There is a thirst for knowledge, and I think that the decadent Western European nations that allow their young people to walk around with long hair, should take cognizance of this thirst for knowledge that the Black man of Africa has.

One of my colleagues will discuss the universities. What I should very much like to see, as a long-term policy, is that when the Bantu homelands become independent a national university is established for each Bantu homeland. Of course this cannot be done immediately, and is no doubt only a long-term ideal.

I come now to the second part of the motion which deals with the in-service training of Bantu workers in approved work spheres. It has become a popular pastime of critics of the Government to accuse the Government of refusing, for ideological reasons, to provide Bantu workers with training. But what are the facts? Over the years the Department of Bantu Education has devoted attention to the technical training of Bantu pupils at school. In the ordinary schools they are already receiving training from Std. 5 upwards in the elementary principles of woodwork and metal work, and a wide foundation is being laid for subsequent and further training. Already there are five technical high schools for Bantu pupils in which more than 600 pupils are receiving training in subjects such as applied mechanics, building construction, general mechanics, motor mechanics, and electrical work. There are two Colleges for Advanced Technical Education. They are inter-ethnic, and primarily they offer students advanced technical education. They are trying to meet the great needs of the Bantu homelands in this sphere. There are more than 3 000 Bantu pupils who are receiving vocational training at 22 trade schools. There are 16 different courses in which these pupils are receiving training. These courses include inter alia brick-making, tailoring and motor mechanics. Over the years the department has already laid a solid foundation for a great number of Bantu pupils to enable them to receive further training. If such a foundation has not been laid, and if one has not acquired the necessary manual skill at school, it is an extremely difficult task to do so as an adult.

Because it is becoming obvious that the sustained economic development and growth of South Africa is to a large extent dependent on an accelerated training programme for Bantu workers, particularly in the work categories to which Bantu are admitted by convention and in terms of statutory provisions, the Government attaches great value to the in-service training, of Bantu since this increases the productivity of the workers. For that reason the Government has, during the past 18 months, decided that the State will help the industrialists to launch in-service training schemes. It has been decided that eight industrial manual work centres will be established— two in Soweto for the great complex of Johannesburg, one in Sebokeng for the Vaal triangle, one at Natalspruit for the East Rand, one in Mamelodi for Pretoria, one in New Brighton for Port Elizabeth, one in Lamontville for Durban and one in Mbali for Pietermaritzburg. It is estimated that the capital which the State will spend on these industrial manual work centres will amount to approximately R1.5 million. During the school day Bantu schools will be able to convey groups of pupils, by means of a bus service which will be introduced, to the various centres where they will receive training in industrial woodwork, welding, brick-laying, electrical work, and so on. This will be a proper scheme because the industrial manual work centres are situated within the Bantu residential areas. After school hours and in the evenings there will be an opportunity for the in-service training of adult workers. Industrialists who have a collective need for trained workers, can then organize the establishment of such training classes. They will have to bear the running costs of the classes themselves, but the facilities are provided by the State. It must be stated very clearly and unequivocally that the State cannot be expected to undertake this major and comprehensive task alone. The industrialists and private initiative in general also have a major and important part to play, for after all it is the industrialist who eventually benefits from the increased productivity of a better trained worker. However, the State takes the initiative and points out how important it is. The State also establishes the manual work centres. For those industrialists who are not within reach of such centres, there is another training project by means of which the industrialists can launch training schemes in their own factories. They need only be registered and will then be controlled by the department. The industrialist can then train his workers in his own factory. What is more, the industrialist can receive tax concessions from the State to defray the costs of training. In this way the State is performing a major and important task. I want to make a very serious appeal to the industrialist and to private initiative to participate in this scheme and train their workers. It is of vital importance to the progress and development of South Africa that the State and the industrialists cooperate dynamically to eliminate effectively the wasteful expenditure of our human resources. They must also ensure that the fallow non-White labour forces are utilized as effectively and as productively as possible in the interests of our economy. There are strong indications that the world is moving in the direction of a recession or even a depression. We in South Africa will be able to offer the strongest resistance to this if we have at our disposal the enterprise and trained manpower to process the greater variety of natural resources and raw materials here in our own country, and manufacture goods for export. In that way we will be able to eliminate unemployment among our own people, we will be able to initiate local markets, and our local buying power will be augmented. We have a major and important role to play in Africa. This role which we have to play in Africa requires us to expand our economy progressively. For that reason serious attention must be given to these training schemes for our non-White workers. Of course this training must be disciplined and controlled, and must take place in approved work spheres, for we must also ensure that the trained workers of our other population groups enjoy protection. This is obvious and logical. As our economy grows and develops it is obvious that the trained White, Coloured and Indian workers will be absorbed to an increasing extent in managerial positions and that our economy will to a large extent rest on a broad basis of Black workers. If those workers are trained persons, if they are trained until they are semi-skilled, it would be so much more effective.

Since I want to thank this Government and specifically the Department of Bantu Education for their initiative and their great work in regard to Bantu education in general, and for the overall efforts which are being made in regard to this matter, not only purely academic but also of a very general nature, and since I want to express great appreciation and convey gratitude in this regard, I also hope and trust that the industrialist will co-operate in making a great success of this scheme.

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the argument of the hon. member for Algoa, and I should like to congratulate him on his excellent exposition and motivation of the motion which is before this House. Just as he is, I am thoroughly aware of the progress which has been made in the field of Bantu education. In fact, when the Vote was under discussion last year, I expressed my appreciation in this connection. So what I have to say today in this connection, must be seen against this background—that I am indeed aware of the progress which has been made in this connection. This applies to the second part of the motion as well, which concerns the in-service training of Bantu in certain categories of employment, and also in this connection one is grateful for the degree of progress which has been made. However, my problem is that the motion as it stands does not go far enough in my honest opinion and does not say enough either. It seems to me that if we discuss such an important matter as the education of the Bantu and his training to take up a proper place in the economy of our country, we must go further than merely drawing attention to what has already been achieved. If that is the aim of this motion, then it seems to me that we can do the same thing when the Bantu Education Vote comes up for discussion. When we discuss an important matter such as this, then it seems to me that this House should set guide-lines in thinking and speaking about this matter. In other words, should give an indication not only of our satisfaction or otherwise with what has been done and is being done, but also of the direction in which we are moving. Sir, in my honest opinion it is not sufficient merely to take cognizance of what is being done in this connection. It is proper for us, and the circumstances of the time demand it of us, to go further and give specific guidance from this House in connection with the direction in which we ought to move, not only against the background of what we have already achieved in the past, but likewise in the light of the needs and the necessities of the present and of the future. Surely it is clear, Sir, that the progress which has been made and is being made is not such that we can sit back and feel satisfied about what has been achieved so far; I say this once again with appreciation for what has in fact been done. In this connection I do want to react, however, to what the hon. member for Algoa said with reference to the conditions in the rest of the continent. So often, Sir, we hear the argument here that in comparison with the situation in the rest of the continent, our own Blacks are so much better off, that their standard of living is so much higher and that the educational facilities which are provided for them are so much better than those which are found elsewhere. Sir, in all humility I want to say that this argument is a sophistry which brings us no further, because any situation must be evaluated in terms of the circumstances which have a bearing on that situation. In other words, it does not help us to consider what happens in the rest of Africa, or what is being done there: the model, the standard, is created by this society in which those people are living, and in the light of this, I want to tell you that we cannot sit back in satisfaction and say that what ought to be done is being done. In this connection, Sir. I want to refer to a few things and I do it once again in the spirit which I mentioned a moment ago. Up to this moment, only 70% of Bantu children of school-going age are at school. The pupil/teacher ratio, with double sessions taken into consideration, is 49 to one for primary classes, and for post-primary classes 29 to one. If we look at the analysis of enrolment, we find the tremendous school-leaving figure, to which the hon. member for Algoa referred, and which is set out in Table 3,3,3 on pagina 184 of the department’s report of last year, and we find that of a total of more than 3 million children at school, 2 million were at school from Sub. A to Std. 2, only 939 000 in the lower primary classes, Std. 3 to Std. 6, and far more serious, only 181 000 in the secondary classes. If we take Std. I as a criterion, there are only 1,13% who proceed to form 5, in other words who can actually be regarded as qualified to play their role in education and in the economic development of the country. Sir, if we go further and take note of the qualifications of teachers, then it appears that of a total of 57 480 teachers, there were no fewer than 8 950 who were unqualified, with only a junior Certificate or a lower qualification.

Shame!

Whose fault is it?

Of the unqualified teachers there were no fewer than 14 000 with only Std. 6 and 26 586 with only a Junior Certificate. Therefore, Sir, of that total of 57 480 teachers, 49 800, more than 85% of all serving teachers, had an educational qualification of a Junior Certificate and lower. How we can build up an effective education system with teachers who have these qualifications, is totally inconceivable.

We hear this here every year.

I only say, Sir, that we cannot rest on our laurels and pretend that everything is in fact as it ought to be. If we take further note of the matriculation results of 1974, it appears that the number of pupils who achieved matriculation exemption in 1973, was only 1 860, while only 1 336 gained school-leaving certificates.

What were the figures ten years ago?

No, these are the figures for 1973. [Interjections.] I quote from table 5.6 on pagina 238 of the Annual Report of 1973. Therefore it is very clear to me that we must indicate on this occasion what we envisage with the education and training of our Black South Africans. We must also give evidence of our earnestness and good intentions towards these people and we must guarantee that we shall take the necessary steps to ensure the sound economic growth of South Africa. Consequently I want to move as an amendment to the motion of the hon. member for Algoa—

1. “(a) takes note of the progress being made in the field of Bantu education;
2. (b) accepts the principle of free and compulsory school education for all Bantu children, and requests the Government to consider the desirability of giving effect to this principle in a systematic and purposeful way; and
3. (c) takes note of the existing arrangements in regard to the in-service-training of Bantu workers, but requests the Government to take the necessary action to abolish discriminatory practices and policies in respect of apprenticeship, vocational training and employment opportunities, with a view to the effective training and utilization of South Africa’s manpower.”.

Therefore my amendment comprises three paragraphs as against the two which the hon. member for Algoa has in his motion. The first two paragraphs of the amendment deal with Bantu education and the final paragraph deals with the question of vocational training for Bantu. In the first paragraph I simply repeat “that this House takes note of the progress being made in the field of Bantu education”. In the second paragraph we ask that this House expresses itself in favour of free and compulsory school education for Bantu children. I am under the impression that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education has already said many times that free and compulsory school education for Bantu is the ideal we are indeed striving to achieve. Therefore I believe that there can be no difference of opinion on this principle. If the House accepts this amendment today, we state clearly and unequivocally that we want to give concrete confirmation to the Deputy Minister’s promise. In so doing the House will also make it possible for the Government to go further in this connection in the certain knowledge that it will enjoy the support of this House for any further steps which it wants to take in this connection. In other words, if the House accepts the amendment, it will in this way really be giving the green light to the Government to go ahead and take steps in this connection.

In the second paragraph as well we request the Government to carry this principle into effect systematically and purposefully. In other words, we want to say to South Africa in general and to the Bantu of our country that it is not only an ideal we are striving to achieve, but that we are in fact going to take active steps to realize this ideal, in a systematic way and according to a timetable which will obviously have to be flexible. We accept as obvious, in pursuance of what the hon. member for Algoa said, that it is not feasible in practice to introduce free and compulsory school education for the Bantu immediately. Apart from the financial implications, which were also set out partially by the hon, member for Algoa, it is also clear that it will take time to provide the necessary buildings and other facilities and to train the necessary number of teachers to satisfy the demand. We know that.

It seems possible to me however, to do three things without there having to be any significant delay. I want to make three practical, concrete recommendations to the Government for carrying this principle into effect. The first recommendation is that free education be introduced in respect of children who are at school. There is no sense in expecting the poorest section of our population—and there can be no doubt that the Bantu is indeed the poorest section of our population—to pay school fees or make contributions to the schooling of their children while these demands are not made on the other sections of our populations. I am grateful that a start has been made with the provision of free school books and I am merely asking that this principle be applied to all Bantu children who are at school. Secondly, I ask that consideration be given to the immediate application of compulsory education in our urban areas. I believe that the need is greatest in our urban areas. Compulsory education will be welcomed by our urban Bantu without reservation. Perhaps one will not be able to say that at the moment of all our Bantu in the homelands. This step can have a tremendous, positive effect on the social conditions in our urban areas in combating effectively juvenile delinquency, loafing and the formation of gangs of young people, who, as hon. members know, are responsible for a reign of terror in many parts of our urban Bantu areas. Once again I accept that it is not possible to give effect to this immediately. However, I can see no reason why we cannot follow the same approach in respect of our urban Bantu as we are following at this stage in respect of compulsory Coloured education We must gradually introduce compulsory education in terms of age groups and standards. In the third place it is essential to my mind that the Government reconsiders its policy of not building any new high schools in our urban areas. I have no objection if Bantu parents want to send their children to schools in the homelands. However, I regard it as wrong that many Bantu parents are obliged today, because of the effect of this policy, to send their children away from home for secondary education. I shall even go so far as to say that the ideological basis of this policy is highly disputable in my opinion.

Hear, hear!

So much for the first two paragraphs. As far as the third paragraph is concerned—and unfortunately time does not allow me to go into this fully—I want to say that although we take note of the steps which are being taken in connection with inservice training of Bantu workers, we are convinced that those steps cannot satisfy two specific primary requirements of our society. The first is in connection with the creation of opportunities for the individual Bantu to place themselves as skilled workers in an economic position and a social stratification which will guarantee them a happy and satisfying human existence. In the second place there are the requirements imposed by our economic growth process. In-service training only makes provision for the training of operators and not for the training of tradesmen and is further limited to certain approved categories of employment. Obviously it does not go far enough, and with this amendment we ask the Government to do away with discriminatory practices and policies concerning the proper training of tradesmen and employment opportunities for them. Once again I accept readily that all the discriminatory practices which exist cannot be laid at the door of the Government. Some of them are the creation of our White trade unions. When the Government gives positive guidance as in the case of the Railways, these things can be done without alienating people or without people needing to feel that their interests are threatened. The introduction of compulsory school education and the abolition of unnecessary limitations and annoyances concerning the indenture and training of Bantu apprentices, can indeed bring about a great improvement in the availability of trained manpower. In this connection it is obvious that job reservation must be abolished. I am convinced that this measure in its detrimental practical effect, or as a symbol, overshadows any positive value which it may have.

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

Afternoon Sitting

When the debate was adjourned this afternoon, we were listening to the hon. member for Edenvale. I must say that the hon. member for Edenvale is a very interesting hon. member. He introduced a very interesting amendment and made very interesting statements. The hon. member showed that he recognizes the progress made in the field of Bantu education, nor do I find it strange that he has perceived this and appreciated it. To tell the truth, one can see that he has injected new life into the United Party. I do not believe he really had time, earlier in his life, to listen to the policy of the United Party, but if he goes into the history of the United Party he will note that he has in fact introduced a very new note into the arguments of the United Party. This I myself can quite easily understand. I remember that when I was a student in the ’fifties there was one person in South Africa who, in the academic sphere and as a scientist, wrote very eminent and interesting articles concerning the development of the policy of separate development. I must tell you that the hon. member for Edenvale, however much he may now have weakened and changed a little, is unable to escape those basic principles which he himself adheres to. That is why he is in fact an innovation for the United Party. However, I must also say that because part of the United Party has now been added to them, the arguments the hon. member employs are not longer so convincing. To tell the truth, they are no longer nearly as convincing as they were in the ’fifties.

I must say that the hon. member showed us in his amendment that basically he sees nothing wrong with the policy of Bantu education. To tell the truth, he levelled no really substantial criticism, because I think that our side of the House, the people who know and understand Bantu education and who endorse the policy, could raise many points of difference in detail with the hon. the Minister concerning matters which we perceive and which we would like to do. For that reason I think that in developing his arguments, the hon. member is adopting the wrong approach. I think that the moment he returns to this side of the House and accepts the policy of separate development, he will once again be able to level substantive criticism that strikes that right note in regard to Bantu education.

There is one point I want to raise with the hon. member. He said that the hon. member for Algoa who introduced this motion cannot wish to draw comparisons between Bantu education in South Africa and that in the rest of Africa. This is an argument one often hears from the Opposition, but I do not believe that that argument holds water, either with the hon. member or with the Opposition, with regard to any facet of development in Africa, whether it be Southern Africa or Northern Africa. The Bantu education policy, as we see it today, was to a large extent established by a White Government, and surely the hon. member knows as well as I do that for centuries, perhaps for as long as the Whites have been in South Africa, or for a little less than that, it has surely been White Government in the rest of Africa, too, who applied a specific policy. It is those very governments of the African states which originated in and had their roots in European countries that failed in Africa— we are the only ones who still remain—that, together with the liberally minded, not only from the world of Europe but also in our own South Africa, levelled the most criticism against the National Party. I want to show you that the policy of education by Whites failed in the rest of Africa for the very reason that they did not understand Africa nor the circumstances of Africa. But in South Africa it succeeds because here a policy is followed that is not only correct in principle, but has been thought out and is, in fact, carried out in a considered and realistic fashion. This is an extremely important aspect, Sir, that I want to mention to you. The hon. member for Edenvale knows as well as I do what condition Bantu education was in when the National Party came to power in 1948. He is just as well acquainted as I am with the commissions that sat. Here I just briefly want to quote from the work of P. A. Duminy, Trends and Challenges in the Education of the South African Bantu. He says, inter alia, the following with regard to the period before 1953—

The hon. member, who possibly also served in the Eiselen Committee, will remember what that Committee had to say during the early ’50s—

Sir, the hon. members know what the circumstances were even before that time, in the days when missionaries were virtually solely responsible for the entire Bantu education policy. The position was such that the Eiselen Committee expressed, inter alia, the following criticism—

Then it goes on—

Sir, these are basic ideas on the situation before the National Party took over. As far as the Bantu Education Act of 1953 is concerned, I just want to say this: The hon. member will acknowledge, as I do, that Prof. Eiselen was one of the best ethnologists, one of the best experts on Bantu that South Africa has ever had. He was an expert on the Bantu and an expert on South African history. The hon. member will acknowledge that of all people, he was eminently suited to establish the foundations that the National Party laid more than 20 years ago, the purest and, first and foremost, the most scientifically correct that one could possibly have had, and in essence, therefore, it had the seed, the characteristic, of growth, so that one could build on that structure a Bantu education policy which could carry all the facets of a modern education policy and which could accept modern development; and one did all this without wanting to westernize the Black man or the Bantu in South Africa involuntarily and arbitrarily or depriving him of those basic characteristics that have determined his specific way of life. That hon. member knows this just as well as I. Actually, Sir, I want to exchange a few ideas concerning tertiary education and say that as far as Bantu education is concerned, the National Party actually took over in chaos, not that I want to blame former governments for that. Not only was Bantu education in a chaotic condition, the entire pattern in Southern Africa was something that would have taken years to put right. Bantu education was only part of the whole broader development of the National Party’s ethnic policy. In contrast to the liberal world, of which some hon. members opposite—not all—form a part, which only wanted to have a small group of Black people in the White universities, the National Party said No, one had to establish an infrastructure; one had to establish the broad foundations; and only on that basis could one allow Bantu education policy to develop. Sir, looking at the data provided by the South African Institute of Race Relations, you will note that only a small number of Bantu students were at the White universities. What is the situation in regard to tertiary education today? We established primary education on a broad basis; secondary education grew out of that and only subsequently could a start be made with the establishment of university institutions and the other facets of tertiary education. What was the position of the Bantu university colleges in 1960? Already, at that time, the hon. member for Edenvale had begun to vacillate at Sabra, before leaving it, and he knows what criticism was levelled by the United Party at the time, particularly by the Reformists and the progressively minded in the party. In 1960 there were 481 students, a small number, at the Bantu university colleges. Ten years later, in 1970, there were more than 2 000 of them. In 1974 there were 3 545. Fort Hare, the Universities of the North and of Zululand already have more than 1 000 students each. As far as financing is concerned, the total expenditure was R870 000 in 1961-’62. In 1974-’75 it was already R8 576 000. I now come to degrees and diplomas awarded. In 1974, 525 degrees and diplomas were awarded by the Bantu universities. The total number of degrees was 336, as against 189 diplomas.

Another very important point that we made at the time—and we made it against the entire liberal idea of what comprises a university—namely that the university also forms part of a specific community, that it is not separate and isolated, but must serve that community. We said that as Bantu education policy developed, those universities would become progressively more Black or national. We have already succeeded in that. The policy, then, is to appoint Black candidates as far as possible, as long as they are qualified for the posts for which they are applying. It goes without saying that standards are of paramount importance at a university. As far as possible an attempt is being made to appoint only persons with doctors’ degrees to professorships, only people with masters’ degrees to senior lecturerships, and only persons with honours degrees as lecturers. The number of students at Bantu universities who complied with degree requirements at the end of 1974 was as follows: Bachelor degrees—323; masters’ degrees —3; honours degrees—1. The only reason for the somewhat disappointing Black/ White staff ratios is the fact that suitable Black Africans are not always readily available. Where suitable Black applicants are in fact available, they are appointed, as is clear from the following statistics relating to the three universities jointly: As far as lecturing staff is concerned, there were six professors in 1970 and there were still only six in 1974. As far as senior lecturers are concerned, there were nine in 1970, while in 1974, there were 15. There were 32 lecturers in 1970, while in 1974 there were 53. There were ten junior lecturers in 1970, while in 1974 there were 16. This represents an increase of 37% over the period 1970-’74. As far as the administrative staff are concerned, there was an increase of 50%, from 26 to 53. With the specific aim of dealing with the problem of limited numbers of suitable Black applicants, a new category was introduced within the post structure of lecturing staff, namely postgraduate assistants. There was a two-fold reason for this. In the first place it was to prevent promising student material being lost, because so many graduates felt obliged to seek employment immediately they had obtained the bachelor’s degree. Secondly, young, promising graduates could be assisted in this way to continue their studies and therefore be offered the opportunity of following academic careers. This step is regarded as a strong stimulus in promoting the process of becoming a nation. It is also a known fact that from 1 January 1974, with the re-composition of the university councils, Bantu were also appointed as members. Five were appointed at the University of the North, four at Fort Hare and four at Zululand.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, with that I must conclude. I just want to say that the hon. member for Edenvale will agree with me on this Friday afternoon—if he forgets his United Party connections for a moment —that in Southern Africa there is a small group of White people, a group despised throughout the world, who made a start with a policy in a very small way, but who, because that policy was sound to the core, were able to expand that policy in the field of Bantu education as well. I want to give hon. members the assurance that in ten years’ time they will still see the great tree of Bantu education growing in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down told us that he had found the speech of the hon. member for Edenvale interesting. Now I want to tell the hon. member that I find all his speeches interesting too. I find it interesting to see such devotion to the past in a young man such as he. If we look at the amendment moved by the hon. member for Edenvale, then we see that the hon. member for Edenvale really wants this House to take a look into the future. The hon. member for Rissik quoted figures to show, inter alia, how the number of students had grown over the period from 1960 to 1974. But what he forgot to do was to relate those numbers to the increase in the number of White students over the same period.

†Mr. Speaker, in supporting the amendment moved by the hon. member for Edenvale, I wish to state at the outset that this does not mean that the United Party does not appreciate the improvement which has taken place in the field of African education. In the sphere of African education there has been steady improvement ever since 1935. During the last 13 years of United Party rule and during the 26 years of Nationalist Party rule South Africa has succeeded in increasing the literacy amongst Africans in South Africa. This is particularly noticeable when we look at the increase in the percentage of African pupils attending school. But if hon. members are really honest with themselves, they will admit that this is the beginning and the end of our success. The most serious weakness in African education is of course the tragic drop-out rate at the level of Std. 2. Throughout this period very little has been achieved in this respect. I say that this is a tragedy of great magnitude. It is an educational tragedy, a political tragedy and an economic tragedy. This is why the hon. member for Edenvale has moved his amendment. South Africa can only overcome this particular problem if there is a commitment by the Government to introduce free and compulsory education.

While it is in educational terms quite valid to regard the completion of four years of formal schooling as being sufficient for the attainment of functional literacy, we must remember that a person who has achieved functional literacy can only retain it if his education is constantly reinforced. This, however, does not happen to the average African who leaves school after Std. 2. The type of work he is likely to do, his environment and his living conditions deprive him of any further educational stimulus. Within five to ten years that person no longer possesses functional literacy. As an educational investment the contribution by the State—whether it has been increased five or ten times during the last ten years does not matter—the sacrifices of his parents and his own personal efforts have been wasted. In order to show permanent educational results the African must break completely through the literacy barrier. He must go far beyond it. I believe that I am correct in saying that the majority of hon. members in this House have at least Std. 10. I need not challenge them, Sir, because I know they are men of common sense, but if they were to attempt today to write a matriculation examination, very few of them would pass. But on the other hand, because they have the benefit of a reasonable education, I can guarantee that the majority of the members here would at least pass Std. 6. That is, of course, if we leave the new maths out of it. My point is that if you bring people only as far as Std. 2 and if, over a period of decades, 60% or 70% of them leave school at that stage, you are not really showing any definite dividends on your investment in education, seen from an educational point of view.

From an economic point of view, investment in education is aimed at and must always be aimed at increasing productivity. Here again it is a tragedy to have this dropout rate in Std. 2. It has been proved over and over that a high correllation exists between a person’s degree of productivity and his level of education. We can have scores of economic debates and finance debates and we can have people who write books about the causes and treatment of inflation and hon. members opposite can quote statistics to prove that inflation is only an imported commodity, but the fact remains that an increase in productivity is the best means to curb inflation. It is no good just to appeal to people to work harder. Hard work has its advantages, but what is required at this stage is of course better training and better education. We cannot afford the luxury of unproductive units. I sincerely believe that we are courting economic disaster unless the Government is prepared now, at the beginning of the last quarter of the 20th century, to embark upon, as is stipulated in the amendment, a planned, a committed scheme for the introduction of compulsory education. Where would we have been and what would our country have been like had our ancestors left school at Std. 2

I have already said that the drop-out rate at Std. 2 level is also a political tragedy. I wish to emphasize this statement. Let us be honest with ourselves whichever political policy we apply in South Africa, be it the United Party’s, the Progressive Party’s or the Nationalist Party’s policy— I am leaving out the Reformists at this stage, because naturally they have not yet advanced any further than a few nice-sounding clichés and platitudes—political stability and the effective implementation of Western democracy can only be achieved once the masses have broken through the literacy barrier. History has proved all over that a half-illiterate person is potentially a more dangerous political animal than the totally illiterate person. I do not belittle the fact that we are spending today more than what we spent ten or 20 years ago on education, but what is important to me as a member of this House is that I am convinced that we are not spending enough. We are spending a mere R120 million out of our total budget of R4 000 million. It is imperative that hon. members should realize that measured against our present and future needs it is just not good enough to have 25% of our pupils reaching Std. 6, 4% achieving a J.C., and 0,9% going to technical schools, trade schools, vocational schools and teachers’ training schools. This is not good enough for our present and future needs in this country. Reading through the South African Yearbook, I came across the following statistics …

When are you going to give some references?

The hon. member can find all the figures in Bantu, the education journal. In the South African Yearbook the 1950 expenditure is indicated as R13-50 per Bantu pupil, while that of 1973 is stated to be R27-20. This sounds terrific; it looks like a 100% increase, but is it really a 100% increase, is it really an improvement? What was the rand worth in 1950 as against its worth in 1973? If we look at it we find that we have not in fact brought about an improvement as far as this is concerned. The challenge is free and compulsory education for all. But how do we tackle it? By realizing that this is a problem facing not only the African in South Africa but that this is a national problem. Arguments used by the hon. the Deputy Minister’s predecessor that amounts to be appropriated for African education should be in relation to taxation must be discarded. If sacrifices are to be made they must be made by the Whites as well as by the Blacks.

Secondly, I believe, as I indicated during the Vote last year, there should be closer co-operation and co-ordination between the various departments so that they can make use of White teachers. The fact that my plea has so far fallen on deaf ears does not dishearten me. I am convinced that we should tackle this problem from the top. This is where you will have problems with the Government’s policy. The most urgent problem is the shortage of teachers and the appallingly low qualifications of those teachers. South Africa must introduce, as Britain did after the war, emergency teacher-training courses for Africans. African teachers’ training colleges should not be established in terms of the Government’s policy only in the homelands, and this is where the hon. member for Rissik is so wrong when he speaks about the Government’s policy. Those training colleges should also be established in White urban areas where use can be made of White lecturers and a system could be worked out whereby we could help them with training.

I want to conclude by referring briefly to what the hon. member for Algoa said when he mentioned that compulsory free education would cost the country some R2 800 million. That calculation is based upon a fallacy. What the hon. member did was purely to take R430, which is the cost of educating one White child per year today, and to multiply it by the total number of Bantu pupils. The fact is that this will not be the case. Let us take the 55 000 teachers involved in Bantu education as an example. Even if we paid them the rate for the job according to their qualifications, the salaries they would receive would not be equal to those of 55 000 White teachers. The answer is quite simply, as the hon. member for Edenvale indicated, that out of 55 000 Bantu teachers you have 49 000 with a qualification only equal to J.C. plus two years. You do not have this in White education where people start off with Matric plus three. Therefore, to equate these two educational systems is a deliberately wrong argument. It will take years before they have attained the same level of educational qualifications.

Mr. Speaker, I am staggered that hon. members on that side have run out of anything to say, which suggests to me at any rate that they have no answer at all to my friend on the right, the hon. member for Durban Central. I want to try to reinforce some of his arguments. I only have ten minutes in this debate, but let me take at least a couple of sentences to say that the hon. member for Algoa made a very clever speech. It is the first time I have heard a clever speech from that side for a long time. I think the hon member must have been guided, directed and helped by the hon. the Deputy Minister himself. His strategy was to begin by saying that they appreciate that there are lots of things that are wrong and that there is a lot more to do. Therefore, anybody who follows him and dares to be critical is immediately branded as being somebody hopelessly unreasonable and ungrateful. So now I stand before you, Mr. Speaker, as an unreasonable and ungrateful man, because I thing that whilst it is true that progress has been made, it is also true and needs to be emphasized as strongly as possible that we have a very, very long way to go indeed. I would support the amendment of the hon. member for Edenvale, because I think it is a salutary qualification to the once again falling over backwards to say how marvellous this Government is! The fact of the matter is that the gap between per capita spending on White children and Black children is simply not being narrowed. In fact it is getting worse all the time, namely R483 as against R28. Until such time as this is narrowed in real terms, we are not really making any progress at all.

Then there are a couple of other points which I think will help to underline and stress the urgency of the problem of people of 15 years and over who have no schooling at all. In 1960 the figure for the Whites was only 40 000, or 1.9%. In 1970 this figure had dropped to 23 000 which indicates a great improvement. This is right and this is where we ought to be going. If we look at the figures for the Africans, however, we find that in 1960 almost 4 million or 3 993 000 to be exact were without schooling at all. In 1970 ten years later, although the percentage had actually dropped, the numbers had increased to 4 469 000. This means that we are not even keeping pace. [Interjections.] Of course it is marvellous to report progress, but when we analyse that progress and find that we are not making any progress at all and that we are actually going backwards, it is time to pause. Instead of clapping ourselves on our backs we should take stock and say that we must move faster and try harder along this road. If we take the number of persons of 18 years and over who had not passed Std. 2 in 1970, we find that this figure too is an alarming one. I agree with the hon. member for Durban Central that the word “alarming” must be used. Socially, politically and educationally—these factors are all bound together—this figure is an alarming one. 4 606 000 people had not passed Std. 2 in 1970. How on earth can we sit back and say that all is well?

To emphasize and reinforce the argument on the drop-out rate, I want to mention the following points. In 1973 the hon. the Deputy Minister estimated in this House that 70% of African children in the age group from 7 to 15 years were attending school. On the face of it that is very encouraging. It means that 70% of the children between 7 and 15 are at school. However, if we look at the enrolment figures and we see the incredible drop-out rate, we notice that 65% of all pupils are in the standards Sub A to Std. 2, 28% of all pupils are in the standards from Std. 3 to Std. 6 and that only 5% of all pupils are in Forms 1 to V. According to my calculations, therefore, we have a 27% drop-out rate between Sub A and Sub B. Furthermore, we have a 50% drop-out rate between Sub A and Std. 2.

Whose fault is it?

The hon. member asks whose fault it is. It is the fault of all of us and that is why we have to give our attention and our minds to this without pointing a finger. The fact of the matter is that it is that Government which is in charge and therefore it must take not only the praises but also the responsibilities.

In the very brief time at my disposal, I want to quote from the report of the Eiselen Commission or, as it was then called, the Commission on Native Education. I quote:

I am not suggesting that we must not send the children to school. I am trying to make the point that unless we arrest the drop-out rate we are actually wasting a great deal of money. According to Unesco a period of four years of continuous and competent training is necessary merely for the attainment of what is called “threshold literacy”. If one looks at the Bureau of Literacy’s definition of “literacy” one will find that it reads as follows:

The fact of the matter is that the vast percentage of Black children in this country who even have the chance to start, are not nearly having the opportunity to end even their primary schooling. In September 1974 the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education said in this House—and I quote from Hansard, col. 3413—

Mr. Speaker, on what basis was that estimate arrived at? If one looks not at the very low-level Black worker but at all the workers at, for example, one single business concern in one of our major cities, one finds that well over 50% of those are illiterate and cannot pass the normal tests of functional literacy. Naturally that creates an explosive situation, a situation that must be remedied.

As I mentioned before, my time is unfortunately very limited. I have advanced certain facts and figures and I have pointed out that there is a desperate shortage of classrooms and qualified teachers. Let me give a single example of the sort of thing that is happening right now a mere five to seven miles from this House. The secretary of the Nyanga School Board estimated that about 1 000 children would be turned away from the schools at Langa, Nyanga and Guguletu. Principals and officials were forbidden to talk to the Press but an observer estimated that 400 pupils were turned away from these three high schools in the Peninsula in the last month. I get this from a report in The Argus of 15 January 1975. In this way one could quote example after example.

To sum up, I strongly support the amendment. There has, of course, been progress, but the progress has been at such a snail’s pace that we simply have to accelerate this progress and move ahead ever faster merely to keep up.

Mr. Speaker, to illustrate to you the sympathy shown and the aid provided to the schools of the people of colour in our country by the Government, I can only refer to what occurred when a school of 250 pupils in my town was inundated. The school would have remained closed for three months if it had not been for the fact that with the aid of the Government, the school could be re-opened again this week. Mr. Speaker, on this occasion you will allow me to convey a word of thanks on behalf of all the voters of Standerton to the Government for their willing aid and for the establishment of a disaster fund.

I want to associate myself unanimously with the motion of the hon. member for Algoa. The hon. member for Durban Central once again trotted out the old refrain concerning putting White staff at the disposal of non-White colleges or schools. We really want to assure the hon. member that the deficiency in that regard is not unusual in the department concerned. For example we could quote the case of a large Bantu college, Rathlathlilwe where White staff assist the non-White students with mathematics and science in the afternoons. This is a known and tried custom in the department. It is nothing new to us. Consequently that attempt by the hon. member to play petty politics, cuts no ice. The task of this Government is not only to train and round off the non-Whites like a piece of equipment for use in our industry. With reference to the speeches by hon. members on the other side of the House, it sounds to us like rounding off with a view to exploitation—thus a somewhat selfish approach. The policy of the Government is to educate the peoples in South Africa all along the line from an early age and to assist them with their development. This is a necessary base or level from which all the other matters can develop. It is certainly an absolute truth that one must first learn to read before one can read to learn. That is a basic fact. Why do hon. members want to hammer on in-service training and facets of that nature if we do not concern ourselves with education over the broad spectrum of the population? I want to quote what the Minister of Education of the Transkei said recently—

These people grasp the enormous problem that age-old techniques, science and development must penetrate to those people within a short period. The policy of this Government is to develop the people in their own milieu at the school stage. We do not intend to produce round people who can fit into every hole. Every person has his own individuality which we know and respect. Nor is every person’s civilization and development linked solely to his ability to produce money and gold. Today we can certainly testify to the fact that Shakespeare left the British people richer than did all the trade unions with all the efforts they are making today. We can also testify to the fact that Rembrandt left his people and the world richer than do all the hippies on the square in Amsterdam. We can testify that Langenhoven left this people, and this language I am speaking, richer than did many other developments in this country. Today we can also testify that Dr. Phatudi’s evocative writings, his songs, his poetry and his prose enriched and stimulated his people long before he became chief minister of Lebowa. We must idealize and we must lead our people, but this is a time-consuming process that demands from us a great deal of patience. It demands a great deal of patience to work with these people. They themselves testify to this. It is petty, therefore, to try to run down our Government in its great efforts to assist these people.

We could quote statistics, too. In 1960, for example 32% of all economically active male Bantu had passed some standard in a low school. In 1970 this figure rose to 44% and in 1975 the estimated number was between 48% and 50%. In my opinion this is a phenomenal increase with regard to the development of these people.

I just want to dwell for a few moments on the in-service training of the Bantu, as our Government sees it, and take a look at what we are doing in this regard. I should like to refer to a survey performed at the University of the Orange Free State. A sample of 144 employers from the private sector and the Government was taken. The sample of labourers involved here came to about half a million. I think, therefore, that this sample constitutes a substantial unit. There are interesting figures concerning the distribution of posts in the table I have before me. The Whites make up about 18,7% of the economically active sector as against 70% for the Bantu. I am not taking the other colour groups into account. In the professional, technical and associated services the Whites occupy 13,5% of the posts as against the Bantu 1,7%. There is therefore a reasonable difference. The Whites occupy 28% of clerical positions as against the Bantu 1,7%. The Whites occupy 6,5% of the semi-skilled posts of farm and forest worker as against the non-White’s 36,6%. We can see, therefore, that there really is a backlog. Now let us take a look at the facet of training; viz. participation in training. The public sector is responsible for 61,7% of the in-service training under the guidance of supervisors and the private sector is responsible for 86,7%. The public sector is responsible for 8,3% of the formal and group courses offered in employment and the private sector is responsible for 26,7%. On this occasion I can thank the private sector for the initiative displayed in this regard. The conclusion reached by this study is very important and I am going to quote a few extracts from it. Firstly, the State will have to make and continue to make an important contribution in regard to the development of the non-White. The biggest contribution the State machine can make is perhaps to expedite the boosting of the educational level of the non-White all along the line. The third but most important contribution will have to be made by the employer, by the private sector. It is of no avail, therefore, to hold the State responsible for the entire situation. The finding of the people who make this intensive study is that the most important contribution is still the contribution of the private sector.

I refer to a specific division of in-service training, namely the in-service training of Black nurses, the Bantu nurses. I want to ask the hon. members who have not been there, to pay a visit to Baragwanath hospital where nurses are trained. They can also pay a visit to the hospital at Thembesa. I should like to take hon. members to the mission field where the mission hospitals of the churches are subsidized by the State or have been taken over by the State. Here I can mention as examples the hospitals at Dennilton, Groothoek, Maandagshoek, Matlala and Saulspoort where training facilities have been established and the best medical services are available and those nurses receive medical training to be ranked among the finest.

What we should like to see is that besides the training, besides the preparation for higher productivity, we are inspiring these people with idealism within the context of their own people, that we are teaching them that other components are of just as great a value as their learnedness and that other characteristics are equally necessary for the growth of a people to full maturity. May I express the hope that the Chamber of Mines will offer a prize to the Black man who writes a verse epic on the contribution of the Black mineworkers in our mines.

Mr. Speaker. I share the hon. member for Standerton’s satisfaction in regard to the Bantu school in his area which, with the kind assistance of the State, was enabled to continue its function and operation.

I want to come back to the proud remarks which have been made by hon. members on the other side of the House in regard to their comparisons of conditions in the rest of Africa and the conditions in South Africa. I believe that the hon. member for Edenvale has already indicated that we accept that there has been progress; not as much progress as there should have been, but progress. However, I want to offer a challenge to members opposite. I want to ask them whether they can name one single country on the African continent which would by State decree peg the amount of money which the State would contribute to education for more than a decade—not for all races, but just for the Bantu race and not for the White race, the Indian race or the Coloured race. Name me such a system as the one adumbrated and implemented by the late Dr. Verwoerd when he was Minister of Native Affairs and which continued during his term as Prime Minister. Name me just one such a country in Africa which has a similar record.

Sir, I would like to address myself now to the hon. the Deputy Minister and make an earnest appeal to him on behalf of a group of Bantu who I would say represent more than a million in this country— the Bantu urban domestic servants. Sir, they are in legal employment; they are legally entitled to live on the premises of their employers in the metropolitan areas, and yet they have been deprived of opportunities of improvement and of education. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister this afternoon if he will not open the door, a door which, I believe has been shut to them for too long. I want to ask him if he will not break down another facet of petty apartheid and if he will not remove the discrimination which exists in this particular instance. Will he not please allow the re-establishment and the extension of Bantu night schools and continuation classes in approved areas of the metropolitan centres of South Africa? I suggest that this is a plan and a suggestion which would dovetail very closely into the intention underlying the motion put forward by the hon. member for Algoa and also the intention of the amendment moved by my hon. colleague.

Sir, let us just have a look at some of the facts. These schools started in the early 1940s and they operated until 1967, when by State decree it became impossible for them to operate either by permit or by registration because the group areas legislation had ordained that they could no longer operate in White areas. They were financed by Government subsidy and also by grants from the municipalities in the areas in which they operated. Sir, it is interesting to note that in 1954 in the Bantu Education Vote a subsidy of R54 000 was granted in respect of adult education and continuation classes, but 10 years later the subsidy under the heading of “Night schools and continuation classes” was reduced to R1 000, and subsequently it just became an entry in the Account “Nonrecurrent expenditure”, and the whole matter seemed to close. Sir, let us be honest about it; this is not an extensive system. It only operated in the prescribed areas. At no time was the maximum enrolment more than 5 000 odd scholars, but it served a unique purpose for the people who needed this facility. At that time there must have been plus or minus 70 schools.

Most of the schools were in the city areas and they operated under a condition which I believe the Deputy Minister would be very keen to claim today; they operated on an average teacher-pupil ratio of 14 to one. It enabled the illiterate to become literate; it enabled those who had managed to get to Std. 6 to write their matriculation examination. To quote one simple example—and there are many examples—it enabled an unskilled labourer who had learned to read and write at the night school, eventually to become the sole owner of his own contracting business. It gave him that opportunity which he could never have had under any other circumstances. Sir, I believe that the State, at minimum expense, could offer these million or more domestic servants, or those who want to avail themselves of the opportunity, new hope and open doors to greater productivity for them and help them to remove the temptation of crime and delinquency.

Sir, what is the present position in the suburbs? What happens at the end of a long day’s work when a domestic servant finishes? He either sits in his room, or else he meets friends at a street corner. He has no organized recreation; he has no means of improving his mind, because it is simply impossible for him to avail himself of the facilities which exist in the Bantu townships. There is neither the time nor the transport nor the money with which he can do it. Sir, when he goes into domestic service, what has he to offer? All he has to offer is a healthy body and two willing hands. Many of them are not able to read. They have come from the farms, for economic reasons, to work in the cities. What future have they? They cannot read; they are not able really to advance themselves so that they can play a meaningful part in commerce and industry. They have no chance to improve, and I believe that if they were given that chance to improve, a chance to become involved in commerce and industry, to better themselves, to enjoy better conditions, to enjoy better fringe benefits, the State could claim to be doing a service.

I appeal most sincerely to the hon. the Minister to give this matter his favourable consideration. It is not a matter which will involve great State expenditure. It will just need the hon. the Minister demonstrating the sympathy which we know he has, and I believe that he will have the power of persuasion to enable his colleagues in the Cabinet to give him authority to do away with the red tape of group areas legislation which prevents this very state of affairs from being implemented in South Africa at this moment in time.

Mr. Speaker, statistics and congratulations have been bandied to and fro in this House in connection with this motion. The United Party has suddenly presented itself as being very enlightened. Of course, if one compares the United Party’s utterances and policy and statement of three years ago with their latest policy statements, one can see that there is a tremendous difference. This enlightened movement in the United Party has, of course, nothing to do with the presence of the present Reformists in that party during that period. It was sheer coincidence that those changes occurred as we made attempts in that party to have such changes effected. But, Sir, we do not mind. We accept this gladly, and when the United Party uses our enlightened ideas and does so in the interests of South Africa, then we accept it. [Interjections.]

As far as Bantu education is concerned, I believe there is tremendous opportunity for the Government to make a breakthrough in South Africa, to create an impression, not only locally, but also abroad, a breakthrough that will prove that the intentions of the Government are sincere as regards its policy and as regards its promises which were made to the world at the U.N. I want to put this in all sincerity to the hon. the Minister and appeal through him to the hon. the Prime Minister as well.

Do you support the amendment?

Yes, of course I support the amendment. In South Africa, internally, we must accept that the wide gap which exists between the educational standards and results of the Whites and those of the Bantu, cannot easily be bridged in a conventional way. We shall only be able to bridge this gap if the Government is prepared to make use of unusually imaginative methods. I want to say that in South Africa there is a considerable feeling of goodwill towards the Bantu among the Whites, a feeling of goodwill towards any attempt which is made to help the Bantu in respect of the education of his child. We all realize that the most fundamental right which a child has, is to enjoy a good education, and that the most fundamental right and the greatest ambition of a parent, is to give his child a good education. I say that if the Government wants to do this, it can launch an extensive, imaginative and dramatic programme for the education of the Bantu children in South Africa. The considerable facilities which are available and the knowledge and the abilities of the Whites, have to be used to this end. All these things can be utilized and a programme can be launched which will produce results. By this I mean not only that use must be made of the Department of Bantu Education, but also that the Department of Bantu Education will have to take the lead in a programme of this kind. Through that department and by making use of other Government departments and by making use of the municipalities in South Africa—every municipality in South Africa has considerable facilities at its disposal which can be used for these purposes, facilities such as halls and training facilities—and by making use of the staff of these bodies, education can be provided to Bantu children throughout South Africa, something which will make a major contribution to the narrowing of this gap.

If we take the facilities which exist in the industrial and commercial world and in the agricultural industry of South Africa and we think of the thousands upon thousands of well educated Whites who have the basic abilities to give training to the non-White children of their non-White workers, then it is clear that the only thing lacking at this stage, is a system or scheme. The Government can provide the necessary guidance and motivation for that. Therefore I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to investigate this matter seriously. He must not simply reject it as something which is too big or too ambitious. He must investigate seriously whether the Government, in order to bridge the educational gap which exists in respect of the Bantu child, can devise and launch a scheme in which use will be made of all the facilities which exist in the industrial and commercial world, in the agricultural industry and in all the municipalities and government bodies in South Africa. All bodies must use their staff and the public of South Africa must also give the necessary aid so that that educational gap may be bridged.

We can also think of the tremendous advantage which television has for South Africa in this connection. The use of television can have tremendous advantages. In certain countries television is used to help the education of children by means of special programmes at specific times of the day. In South Africa we have a large unsophisticated population. But we have the necessary halls at our disposal and therefore I want to suggest that the Government lays down that one of the most important purposes for which television is to be used, will be the very matter of education of Bantu children and the Bantu himself in South Africa. If this is done, television will not only be used for the entertainment of the population of South Africa, but it will also make a tremendous contribution to the education of our Bantu and other non-Whites.

For détente and our endeavours in the outside world as well as those in respect of our own non-Whites to bear fruit in the true sense, and in order to reach our objectives, we shall have to give dramatic proof of our sincerity and willingness to create facilities for the Bantu and other less privileged non-Whites in South Africa which will help them to realize their basic aspirations—i.e. education. Consequently I make this appeal to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to remind the hon. member for Bryanston that the hon. member for Durban Central has been putting the point of view that other agencies should be used for educating the Bantu. This is nothing new.

*I do not think the hon. member for Rissik will accuse me of having changed my mind, for I am a practical man and remain a practical man, and I just wish to show the hon. member in what respect the Government’s approach is completely impractical.

†I would agree that the hon. member for Algoa worded his motion rather cleverly when he said in the first part that he wished the House to take note of the progress made in South Africa. That is very diplomatic and also ambiguous, because he does not say whether we should take note that there has been progress or whether there has not been progress. I wonder what he actually meant. He gave us figures which did not convince me at all.

In referring to education amongst the Bantu I am only interested in technical education, because I do not know anything about academic education amongst the Bantu. Apparently there has been some progress in this field, but I am afraid that I cannot agree that there has been progress in technical education amongst the Bantu people. The hon. member gave figures for the homelands and mentioned six technical colleges and trade schools. The figures in the 1973 annual report, however, are deplorable. It is stated there that only 3 800 pupils were receiving technical education, that the pass rate was less than 40%, and that only 1 500 qualified. Of those 1 500 only nine were trade instructors. Who is therefore to undertake the training of artisans in the homelands if there are only nine trained instructors? I do not want to dwell on this point, but I just feel that there has been very little progress in the field of technical education. One only has to compare the figures to realize this. The report states that in 1973 approximately R500 000 was allocated for technical training in the homelands. When you compare that figure with the R3 million allocated to the Pretoria Technical College in the same year, you can see how pitifully low this figure is. Capital expenditure in all the homelands was estimated at R1½ million, whereas the Pretoria Technical College was allowed R4 million for capital works in the same year.

I cannot approve of the second part of the motion. The hon. member makes a great song and dance about in-service training but he seems to forget that this was an idea of the hon. member for Hillbrow who put this idea forward several years ago. With his usual foresight he then said it would be a success. Now, of course, the hon. member for Algoa says that it is a success and we take his word for it. But this only fulfils a specific need and function. At best you can only train operators or machine-minders; you cannot train tradesmen at these in-service training centres. This is impossible. We need operators, but operators are not the greatest need in our labour market. It is also a fallacy to think that you can take illiterate people, as most of these people are, and turn them into operators. You may turn them into machine-minders, a man who stands and watches a machine and who presses a button to start the machine and another button to stop it and who puts in more material, but to be an operator a man must at least be able to speak English, use a tape and read a simple sketch. I do not think there are members here who have had the same experience, but we had this problem before the war. At that time the Railways was loaded with White labourers. It was found that it was impossible to turn those White labourers into operators or tradesmen, because they did not have a basic education. It was only the generation that was well educated during the war that was able to absorb technical education and that became the foundation of South Africa’s industrial effort. Basically it is agreed that the number of operators is governed by the number of tradesmen in a country. You can have approximately five to six operators per tradesman, but you cannot have operators without tradesmen. It is as simple as that. When one reads the Economic Development Programme for the period 1974-’79 one finds that for a growth rate of 6,4% per annum which we are aiming at for the period 1974-’79 there is a shortage of 62 000 White workmen and we require 52 000 immigrants per annum to reach this target. This is impossible because since 1963 we have never had more than 30 000 immigrants per year, which leaves us with a shortfall of 22 000 per year. We shall therefore have to draw on our Bantu for our tradesmen and skilled workers to the tune of 120 000 in the next few years and we only have four years in which to do it. Of these, at least 30 000 will have to take over jobs which are now being done by Whites. They will have to have the literacy foundation and the technical education in order to take over these jobs. The only solution is more tradesmen. This is where the second part of the amendment of the hon. member for Edenvale, which is that the apprenticeship system should be applied to all races in South Africa, is so important. It should not be governed by the colour of a man’s skin. This is universally, accepted and I know that it has been accepted by this Government because they have made some concessions as far as the Indians and the Coloureds are concerned. At the moment we have Coloured and Indian apprentices in the trades, but the reservoir is far too small. For that reason we must now start allowing Blacks, into the trades as well because most of the Black people are endowed with the gift for artisan work. For instance they are far better tradesmen than they will ever be farmers. This is the avenue in which they can be gainfully employed. We wonder why the Government is reluctant to allow these people to join the trades. First of all, I think it is the fear of organized labour and trade unions. They are afraid that the trade unions might object if the Blacks are allowed into the trades. At one time there was also the fear that this would result in unemployment and that White people would be put out of work by Blacks because employers would employ a Black man instead of a White man. This is nonsense. If you pay the rate for the job, no one is going to employ a man just because he happens to be Black, White or Coloured. A man is employed on the results which he gives you. That is the only governing factor. I think the other fear is that the Blacks would become too wealthy or too well off if they earned bigger wages, that they would form a new middle class and that they would become a danger to the White population because they would be a frustrated class with lots of money but nowhere to spend it. If a man earns money he must have the right to spend it, to buy his own home, to go where he likes and to educate his children where he likes. What was the result of this? We are suffering today because of a shortage of skilled workers. We have retarded our industrial development to such an extent that it is now virtually impossible to catch up. If a person wants to start a new industry he finds that the cost of equipment and machinery is four or five times higher than it would have been ten years ago. We have lost a good start in the race for industrialization. There is a change of heart, however, and I am very pleased to say so. We can see it from the speech delivered by the General Manager of the Railways to the Federated Trade Unions as it was reported by the newspapers only yesterday. The General Manager said to these people—

He says further on—

The chairman of the FCC, Mr. Botha, replied—

There can be no doubt that the Government has accepted that the trades should be open to Blacks. The trade unions are beginning to agree with this point of view. I feel that our only salvation if we want to establish ourselves as an industrial nation, is to take the fullest advantage of the skills of the Black people.

Last week one of the Government members in the House asked us of the United Party to persuade our friends in industry to take the training of their staff on themselves and not to leave it to the Government alone. I must say I do not know why he presumes that all industrialists are United Party supporters. However. I want to tell the hon. member that the industrialists have been doing this for years. But what is the Government doing to protect the employer who does train his own staff? No sooner has an employer trained his own staff at great expense than his competitor, or even the Government itself, comes along and pinches that trained staff. Consequently, there must be a contractual procedure similar to the apprenticeship system so that the employee can be signed on and cannot leave immediately after he has been trained. I would like consideration to be given to this matter.

I have no doubt that the hon. member for Algoa meant well with his motion. At the same time, there can also be no doubt that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Edenvale is a great improvement on it. I therefore have great pleasure in supporting the amendment.

Although I thank the hon. member who moved this motion and also the hon. member who proposed the amendment and other hon. speakers for the responsible manner in which this debate was conducted, I cannot omit to tell my good friend, the hon. member for South Coast, that I do not know precisely what the purpose of his argument was. This motion deals with the interests of our Black people and their training. The hon. member for South Coast spoke about how unjustly the Black people were allegedly being treated and concluded his speech by saying, “There must be some way to protect the employer because, after the employer has trained his staff, someone else comes along and lures them away”. The hon. member was very indignant about it. However, when one performs a labour of love for other people and also expects this from the Government, surely he should not say that he will assist in training those people provided the Government protects him, for then it would appear as though he were training the workers for his own purpose only. I think we should really examine our motives in this regard very carefully.

Oh, go on.

Yes, even if hon. members protest, as they are now doing, I am afraid that this merely confirms what one has previously heard even from people outside, i.e. that, when training is discussed, it is not so much the interests of the Black people that are involved, but personal interests. I do indeed believe that many people have good intentions—and I do not want to accuse the hon. member of it: I am simply saying that he should guard against it—but now and again there are hints which suggest that industrialists, when they are very eager to plead that the Government should provide better training, do not have in mind a better way of life for the Black people who have to live with him in this country, but that he simply wants better servants to work for him.

Much has been said this afternoon which is of great value and to which we could, in my opinion, return and discuss to advantage under the Vote Bantu Education. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Algoa on his speech. We have become accustomed to the fact that he always prenares his speech thoroughly and sets his facts in order before he rises to speak in this House. It is a pity that there were people who doubted his conclusions for I think it is necessary for us to consider what he said. I am at all times just as desirous that the Bantu be given free and compulsory education as soon and in as large a measure as possible, and when I say this I am speaking on behalf of all the members on this side of the House. I want to add that, while being idealistic, we should also be practical. It serves no purpose to promise people things and raise their expectations if one knows that one is telling those people and the world certain things which could be misinterpreted. I agree with hon. members that it serves no useful purpose if we continually draw comparisons, although it does indeed serve a purpose at times. I think it could harm us if we were constantly to draw such comparisons only when it suited us, and now I am talking to the Opposition. They reproach us when we compare ourselves with other countries in Africa, but in the same breath they themselves draw a comparison between what the Whites are enjoying and what the Bantu are enjoying.

†I now want to reply to my ex-colleague in the ministry and now a colleague here, the hon. member for Pinelands. I should like to tell that hon. gentleman that I think it is about time that he took a lesson from another person who was also not loath to put his hand on the Bible. He has so much to say about what is not being done for the Black people in South Africa. Let me say immediately, however, that what the White people in this country have achieved they have reason to be proud of. We did not steal our education from anyone else. What is more, we did not even beg for it. I am now speaking of the Afrikaans section and also of many English-speaking people who, in difficult times, had to travel miles and stay away for months, even a year at a time, to receive their education.

*Let me talk about us Afrikaners. There was also a time in our lives when we did not have any education. Let me tell that hon. member that in 1948 the whole of Afrikanderdom had a single high school on the Witwatersrand. Does he believe me? There was one high school for the entire Afrikaans-speaking community on the Witwatersrand. Afrikaners themselves then came forward, and with the co-operation arid sympathetic understanding of their English-speaking fellow citizens, began to acquire facilities for themselves. One of the leaders of the National Party, one of the greatest leaders the world has ever known. Dr. Verwoerd, once said: A nation creates its own future. In other words, a nation saves itself. I think we should also instil this spirit in respect of that which we give to the Black people, materially or otherwise. We must tell them, with the pride which I know they, too possess, that they should also work for themselves, that they themselves should also make a contribution. I think we are doing the Black people and South Africa a disservice if we constantly draw comparisons in, order to show how much better off we are than the Blacks. If we encourage them in that way, to become mendicants and merely to receive, instead of telling them to take our hands and work together for the things they desire, we are doing them a disservice.

I am pleased at the responsible manner in which the hon. member for Edenvale said that much had been achieved under very difficult circumstances during the past number of years.

I now want to refer to what the hon. member for Algoa said. We must do more. I agree with that. The hon. member for Durban Central and the hon. member for Rissik also said that we could not sit back complacently and imagine that we had done enough. If, on the other hand, there are people who say that too much is being done for Bantu education, I want to say that it is the height of irresponsibility on the part of any White or Black person to utter those words since an investment in the training and education of the Black man in South Africa is an investment in the future of South Africa. We are investing in the people of this country. It is my considered opinion that when we think of the creation of homelands—or “fatherlands” if we want to call them that—and infrastructures, we can perceive the truth of what the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark said the other day, i.e. that the infrastructure of a country does not only mean telephone and transportation services and all those things. One may have the best machine in the world and yet, as the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark said, one needs people to operate that machine. The most important part of the infrastructure, also to us who believe unwaveringly in separate homelands, is that the people who have to govern that country have to have the necessary grounding to be able to govern a country honestly and competently. I believe this is our duty, and the hon. member for Algoa and others did the country a service by bringing this to our attention again. Black people must be trained, and if they cannot be trained to run a public service within the homelands, then we have not even begun to develop the homelands into independent, viable units.

I do think we should retain our perspective in this regard. The hon. member for South Coast says in such general terms that we are doing nothing and that there are too few apprentices undergoing technical training, that would it be news to the hon. member if I told him that 5 200 persons had enrolled in 1974? This is still too low a figure, but look at the percentage increase. When I tell the hon. member for Edenvale that I agree with him that we still have too few people who are capable of giving training, but was the hon. member not gratified to learn that four training centres had been opened in the past year? Had he not taken cognizance of the existing programme when he said that we should look ahead and see to it that further and better training facilities should be provided? The hon. member for Berea referred to adult education. He can submit his proposals to us and we will most definitely consider them. I think there is one danger we should recognize and that is that when we speak about the training of children, there is one danger which will confront our country in the next ten, 15 or 20 years. We must face up to that danger now.

†I would like to put it to you in this way. We are talking about the academic and other training of our young people between 10 and 15 years of age. They will come on the labour market in another 10 or 20 years’ time. They might be better equipped to face the life that lies ahead than many of their parents are today. If we do have those better-trained people in 20 years, instead of having five people to do a job of work we may be able to cope with one properly-trained man and a machine and do away with four of them. I think that we will act most irresponsibly if we do not face the fact that those four people whose services will then become redundant, will still be on the labour market as untrained people with long years of service but unable to compete with younger people who will then take their place and who will be attracted by industry and be employed by commerce and by many other people. Others who have remained untrained over the past 10, 20 or 30 years will have families to care for and they will not be able to do so. Sir, I think if we start talking about the training of adults, we should pay attention to that aspect, and all positive suggestions in this connection are always being considered. If the hon. gentleman had come to me, I would have told him that only recently, after long negotiations with the Public Service Commission, a man was specially assigned to the task of determining the need for adult education and how it can be provided. This man is employed full time working out such a scheme.

*Sir. I can also tell you that we have gone into the question of free education as was suggested by the hon. member for Edenvale. The figures which were furnished here by the hon. member for Algoa, were not sucked out of the air. I had no more than a brief glimpse at those figures but I think that the hon. member gave a very conservative and very optimistic view of things. The real figure in respect of introducing compulsory education …

Up to which standard?

Compulsory education, as we should like to have it, up to the Junior Certificate examination at least. To introduce compulsory education up to that stage will cost us millions upon millions of rands; it is quite impracticable. Sir, what has happened in this fine country of ours in the interim? We have already mentioned what is being done in this regard, but I am mentioning it again quite unashamedly here this afternoon. Sir, I say quite frankly that we cannot have enough appreciation for the work which is being done by Operation Upgrade in the constituency of the hon. member for Berea; we cannot appreciate enough the work which is being done by other organizations under the supervision of the department, and the building of schools which has been undertaken by certain newspaper groups.

†Then, Sir, there is the work that is being done by our farming community. I wonder how many members of the Progressive Party have ever been there to see what is being done on the farms by farmers all over South Africa. Will the hon. member believe me if I tell him that the majority of school buildings are situated in the rural areas? These people are getting a subsidy of only R240 per classroom, but they go ahead with this task. They do not run to the Government; they carry on with their task.

*Sir, I had an interview yesterday morning with a farming group who provide shearing teams for the wool farmers. They established a training centre on their own initiative in which they train Bantu and enable them under proper working conditions not only to become shearers but to classify wool and to do all the other things connected with the wool industry. Today those people can compete on the labour market since they are becoming ever more highly qualified in this direction. Sir, so I can go on telling you about what people are prepared to do and what they are quietly doing behind the scenes to rectify matters as far as they can be rectified, without bruiting it abroad, as the hon. member for Standerton also said.

†Sir, may I correct a statement which was made here? It was made in all good faith, but one must not always quote a newspaper report as an authoritative statement. I refer to the statement that 400 pupils living at Langa and Nyanga in the Cape Peninsula were refused admission. Sir, that is true, but there was no accommodation available for them. Immediately it was brought to our notice, however, we acted and those pupils have been re-admitted to schools elsewhere. Sir, these things can be solved if people come to us and point out the difficulties which are experienced in certain areas. But we cannot at all times be aware of all problems everywhere. I say to hon. members: Rather than run to a newspaper—and I say this with respect to our newspaper reporters—come and check up on the facts before you believe everything that is printed in the newspapers.

You know, Sir, I do not always believe everything which is said in the newspapers. I do not even believe the newspapers when they say nasty things about the quarrels going on in the United Party and the Progressive Party. [Interjection.] My Minister points out that it is, in any case, usually an under-statement when they talk about “quarrels”.

*Sir, we have had a fruitful discussion. I think I still owe it to various members to reply to their specific problems as far as time will allow. They wanted to know what the prospects were in respect of teacher training. I just want to tell hon. members that four training schools have been opened in the past year, each of which can accommodate 250 pupils, and that the qualifications will be far higher than they have been up to now, for there is, of course, a backlog to make up in respect of standards. I can tell you that by the end of 1974 5 678 persons had qualified as teachers. The estimated figure for 1975 is 7 300 and afterwards it will improve progressively in 1976 and 1977 by approximately 1 500 per annum. In the course of the year two training schools for teachers will also be completed in Leboa, one at Praktiseer and one at Duiwelskloof, and one in KwaZulu at Nkusuma and one in Vendaland at Sibasa, and one in Bophuthatswana. At these schools, too, the annual production will be in the region of 250. I want to add that the hon. member for Edenvale mentioned the fact that standards should be set for trade tests. He put it in such a way that the impression might have been created here that no standards whatsoever are being set. I do not know whether I misunderstood the hon. member. In any event, for the sake of clarity I just want to say that exactly the same standards and tests are applied, and it is merely to facilitate the conducting of these tests that they are conducted at trade schools.

The hon. member for Durban Central made several interesting suggestions in respect of the use of teachers from White areas. I can just tell him again that in the lower primary classes training still takes place, upon the insistence of the homeland leaders and their subjects, in the mother tongue, and for that reason you must understand that there are a number of them who cannot give instruction in the mother tongue. So much as far as that suggestion is concerned. In the second place I have always believed that a teacher who is worth his salt is not able to perform other work as well. He has a full day’s work if he lectures at a school in a certain subject. One finds certain teachers who work harder than others, but I do not believe one should expect teachers to work double sessions.

Just to reply briefly to the hon. member for Bryanston, I want to say that I think that his suggestion in connection with television is a useful one. I can give the assurance that we, in co-operation with the radio corporation, have already speculated about the possible role which television might be able to play.

But now I want to conclude by saying something about a matter which disturbed me, i.e. my hon. friend, the hon. member for South Coast said that if a person could speak English and could operate a machine we should encourage him so that he would at least be able to do that. I want to say here this afternoon —and I was not instructed to do so; I just want to give my honest opinion to this House, and if it has to be taken further than this House, then that is how it has to be—that we train Black people to work in South Africa, particularly in the White areas, and in South Africa, in terms of our Constitution Act there are two official languages. Those two official languages have the right, each one of them, to be respected in the spirit of the Constitution Act. That is why I want to say that I hope that both sides of the House will agree that the training of our Black people should also take place in such a way that they will be useful workers for Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people and will thereby be able to serve their country in the best way, in the spirit of the Constitution Act.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (a) expresses its approval of the principle of the decentralization of industries; and
2. (b) accordingly makes an urgent appeal to the Government to take the necessary steps to apply this principle in certain selected rural areas.

I must point out that the motion has two legs. The first leg accepts and approves of the principle of industrial decentralization in South Africa and the second—this is the more important aspect—asks for the principle to be applied to certain selected rural areas in the Republic. The rural areas to which I refer are the vast rural areas of the southern Free State, the Northern Cape, the Cape Midlands, Eastern Cape and the Southern Cape, and possibly certain selected areas in Natal. I think that the principle of decentralization of industries has been accepted by every important industrial country in the world although the method of application and the reasons for the application of such industrial decentralization may differ.

Governments may possibly promote the principle of decentralization of industries for strategic reasons or socio-economic reasons. There may possibly be congestion and pollution in the main metropolitan areas. There is also the question of the high infrastructural cost which arises when an industrialized area becomes too big. As you will know, Mr. Speaker, the rise in costs are quite spectacular when a city or metropolitan area exceeds a certain size. There is also a third reason which I think is the most important reason because it applies to the Republic of South Africa and that is the question of the control of the movement of population. In South Africa the decentralization programme has been applied very largely, I think, to control the movement of population. In this regard I think decentralization has been applied successfully where it has been applied on the basis of taking work to the Bantu rather than on the basis of taking the Bantu to the work. I believe that this concept has merit and I would say that it has been applied with considerable success in the Republic. I want to emphasize that it is being applied now to growth points in the homelands, and it is therefore not only in regard to the development of border industries that the success of this principle of taking work to the Bantu is being made evident. It has always been the attitude of hon. members of this side of the House that development be in the homelands.

In the early 1960’s the Government embarked on a voluntary decentralization programme. However, as long as it remained entirely voluntary it was not completely successful and little progress was made. It was only in the late sixties when the Physical Planning Act was passed and realistic incentives were offered that decentralization became effective at all. I am the first to agree that in our country the Physical Planning Act has probably been one of the important factors in encouraging industrialists to move to the decentralized areas. It has not always been an effective method as far as all areas are concerned. In relation to a particular area which I represent, Port Elizabeth, the Physical Planning Act has in fact not acted as a stimulus to growth but has rather been a retarding factor in this regard. Nevertheless, having regard to the broad aspect of the matter, the Physical Planning Act has helped to promote decentralization of industries in this country. In conflict with the views of this party and also, I would say, with the first and earliest recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission, the decentralization of industries was directed mainly at the border areas. We have always believed that industry should be encouraged by all the means at the disposal of the State to develop within the homelands. We as a party now note with great satisfaction that the encouragement of growth points in the homelands is taking place. One also notes with great pleasure the great progress that is being made at places like Umtata and Butterworth. However, it is not in this direction that I wish to direct the debate. I really want to turn the debate on decentralization in another direction and towards another area of the Republic. I want the Government to give serious attention to encouraging the establishment of growth points in certain selected rural areas with a view to stimulating the economy in the platteland areas of the Cape and the Southern Free State.

I think this House would generally agree that this vast and important area of the Republic has been very largely by-passed in the important industrial development which is taking place in South Africa as a whole. Not only will development in these areas bring a more balanced development in the Republic, but most important of all—and this is the main purpose of my motion today—it will help to contain a large percentage of the population, White, Coloured and Bantu, of the platteland areas in the rural areas where they in fact belong and where I believe they can be most gainfully employed. It would be unrealistic of me to suggest that by creating growth points in these areas we are going to stop the flow of people from the platteland areas to the bigger metropolitan industrialized areas of the Republic. I realize this will be impossible in the same way as it is impossible by building big dams in the platteland areas to contain all the water in the platteland. There is always a flood, an overflowing and in the end the water eventually gets to the sea. In the same way there will always be a flow of people from the platteland to the big cities and the big industrialized areas. I believe the time has come and that it is important that steps be taken now to contain as large a portion of the population of the platteland in those areas.

In making this plea I think it is important that the House take note of certain very salient and important facts. In the Peninsula, the Greater Cape Town area, we are already facing, in respect of the Coloured people, a housing shortage at this present moment in time of some 42 000 homes. Just to keep up with the natural increase, apart from the 42 000 homes that will have to be built, a further 5 000 homes have to be built each year. In other words, in the next five years, in the Greater Cape Town complex, something like 70 000 houses will have to be built. They have to be built by the three local authorities in co-operation with the Department of Community Development. These are the Stellenbosch municipality, the Cape Town municipality and the Cape Divisional Council. It is a colossal undertaking. Very much the same situation applies in the other area where we find a big Coloured population, viz. Port Elizabeth. I am the first to agree that here in the Cape we have an impressive programme under way which undertakes to build something like 10 000 to 11 000 homes per annum during the next five years. The same spectacular programme has been arranged in Port Elizabeth. I have no doubt, the plans that I have seen, that this programme will be met, but there is one factor over which these municipalities, divisional councils and local authorities have no control whatsoever. They cannot control the flow of people who can no longer find employment in the platteland areas to which I have referred and come to the big cities to seek employment. As I see the situation, it is this uncontrollable flow of people from the platteland to the big urban areas which can neutralize the success of the most ambitious housing scheme that can be undertaken. The last thing that I want to recommend is that this situation should be controlled by law. It is simply not the policy of this side of the House to recommend in any way that influx control be applied at any time. People who flock to these metropolitan areas are doing so solely for economic and socio-economic reasons, in the hope of earning more, in the hope of a better education for their children and in the hope of enjoying the often doubtful benefits of a more sophisticated society. The only sensible and realistic way to deal with this situation is in my opinion to create work opportunities, in the areas or near the areas where these Whites, Coloureds and Bantu are in fact living, in order to try to stem the tide which is flowing away from the platteland areas. It is a well-known fact that when a certain size, the costs of the additional housing services, which have to be supplied, increase tremendously. Eventually this becomes totally uneconomical proposition. If we look at the position in Greater Cape Town, at the vast sums of money which are being spent on providing freeways, streets and other services to accommodate the ever-increasing population, we realize that this may well be a factor which stimulates the inflationary tendency in this country. I believe we should do everything we can to contain this flow of population away from the platteland into the already oversized and overpopulated areas. My plea is all the more urgent when seen in the light of the statistics of the populations of some of the rural towns. I am not going to quote all the statistics. When I quote a few, however, hon. members must bear in mind that work opportunities to accommodate the ever-increasing population are becoming less and less in these centres in the platteland. As the work opportunities become less there will inevitably be a flow to the big metropolitan areas. Take a small town like Aberdeen in the Karoo. It has a White population of 1 200 people. The Coloured population, however—I am not even going to mention the Bantu population—is already reaching the 6 000 mark. Beaufort West which has a White population of 6 000 has a Coloured population of some 16 000. Clanwilliam has a population of 5 000 Whites and 17 000 Coloured people. Prieska has a White population of 3 000 and 12 000 Coloureds. In addition we still have to take into account the Bantu people living in these centres. We accept the fact that the government is giving attention to industrial incentives to industrialists who wish to go to these up-country centres.

We realize that this is happening. We also realize that where the Physical Planning Act does not apply, industrialists can get certain assistance if they are prepared to establish an industry in some of these smaller areas. Certain other centres, which are specially named as decentralized centres, can get further assistance. At the same time we have to recognize the fact that in the whole of this rural area to which I have referred—an area equal in size to half of the Republic—there are in fact only three growth points. At those growth points very little development is taking place. The growth points to which I refer are Darling, Kimberley and Dassenberg, or Mamre as it is sometimes referred to. The area is completely barren of any industrial development whatsoever, and for this reason and several others I think the time has come for the Cabinet committee, which deals with these matters, to go into this question.

I believe there is also a committee called the Growth Points Committee. There is a massive organization which looks into the prospects of industrialization in South Africa. I believe that these bodies should have a good look at the possibility of establishing further growth points in this vast area. I think that if the Growth Points Committee, as it is called, looks into this matter, it will find in this area a vastly different situation from the situation that existed there 20 or 30 years ago. The coming of the Orange River project has vastly changed the whole situation. In the middle of this great platteland area there is now an almost inexhaustible supply of water available for industrial purposes. If one travels through this area, one will see power lines crossing this vast area from north to south and from east to west. In other words, the necessary power is available over almost the whole area.

U.P. power!

Yes, that is real power. Rail and road communication in this area has improved beyond all recognition. When we speak of growth points, one may well ask what sort of centre is envisaged. There is such a centre that very readily comes to my mind. In case I am suspected of being parochial, I want to say at once that I have no personal interest in this particular place, nor do I have shares in any company there. The place that comes to mind is the town of Cradock. This town is situated on the banks of the Fish River.

What about De Aar?

If the hon. member pays me enough I shall say something about De Aar too. Indeed, such development could also take place at De Aar. However, Cradock is situated on the Fish River and gets water from the Orange River scheme. There are power lines going right through the town. In addition it is a rail and road centre. The basic infrastructure is already available for further exploitation. There is no need to add to the town’s infrastructure. The town is simply waiting for the Government to decide that it is important in the interests of the area that the proper initiatives are taken to introduce industrial development in this particular part of South Africa. Although I have only mentioned Cradock, I think there are several other suitable centres. I believe that a town like Springbok, for instance, way out in Namaqualand, has special advantages that could well be taken into account by a growth point committee.

For making biltong.

Water is available there. I can tell the hon. member that they make very nice biltong there. What is more, it is the cheapest biltong there is. Upington, too, has the basic infrastructure available. I believe that the Government should take up this plea of mine seriously and should also use the power and influence of the IDC in this regard. I am also making a special request in respect of the Coloured people who urgently need economic upliftment in the area where they live. I believe the Coloured Development Corporation could also play an important part in promoting industrial development in these areas.

If my plea to the hon. the Minister does not fall on deaf ears, I think he could make good use of the universities in the area to do further research into the matter. For instance, he has available to him the University of the Orange Free State. Just as a matter of interest, I may mention that this university has recently undertaken a very interesting study of the future of a place such as Burgersdorp. That town was an important rail centre but, with the steam locomotives being replaced by diesel locomotives, the workshops of that centre have fallen by the way. The University of the Orange Free State sensibly embarked on a research project to find out what other industries could be developed in Burgersdorp so that there would not be a reduction of work opportunities in that town. I believe that a very interesting report has been compiled by that university as to how work opportunities and industrial development can in fact be created in a platteland town.

The University of Port Elizabeth can be of assistance, and so too Rhodes University which has already undertaken interesting research projects on all aspects of economic activity in the Cape Midlands. I do not believe that it would be in the interests of the platteland to try to develop small growth points at several centres. I believe that the whole matter must be tackled systematically. I believe that there should be a thorough investigation and that a decision should be taken about which would be the most sensible centre in which to embark on extensive industrial development. When that centre has been developed in the same way as Rosslyn near Pretoria and Hammarsdale near Pietermaritzburg, having been given the incentive to get off the ground, it can be completely self-supporting and will need no further assistance from the State.

What about New Bethesda?

The hon. member asks about New Bethesda. I hope the hon. the Minister will consider New Bethesda although I do not want to be parochial about the matter. I was the mayor of this place once.

How many people live there?

They were both there at the same time.

My plea is to get one growth point off the ground in the Karoo for a start. I have suggested Cradock as a good spot and I have no doubt that if the matter is taken seriously, in 15 years’ time we can look forward to seeing, in the Karoo, a self-generating industrial growth point that is going to achieve some of the objectives which I have suggested should be achieved to stimulate the economy of these platteland areas, not only in the interests of the White people but also in the interests of the Coloured and Bantu people. This will also help to solve the tremendous housing problem which we are facing today. I think that providing houses in the big metropolitan areas is one of the most serious problems this Government faces today. For that reason I have placed this motion on the Order Paper. Other speakers will outline other aspects of the matter.

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House is not going to move an amendment to this motion. In the main we agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central especially on the (a) part of this motion. The (b) part we shall approach from a slightly different viewpoint, but we do not think it necessary to move an amendment. We are also very pleased that we decided not to move an amendment, because it is probably refreshing for the hon. the Minister and for us on this side of the House to hear this wind blowing from the side of the United Party. However, I wonder what the hon. member for Hillbrow, who is not here now, would have said if he had listened to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central today. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central spoke about the decentralization of industries and said that the principle has been accepted in South Africa that we should decentralize in view of population shifts. The hon. member for Hillbrow nearly had a fit because of this. As eloquently as the hon. member for Hillbrow always does, he told us what it costs to train a man in the metropolitan areas. He compared this with the terrific costs in the decentralized areas.

Surely these are the border areas.

Border areas, but still decentralized. I shall come to that in a moment. I want to thank the hon. member for saying that this transfer which has taken place was a great success. We shall not reproach a person if he changes his opinion. Some days I thought there was something wrong with me after I had listened to the hon. member for Hillbrow discussing the Physical Planning Act. I imagined the Physical Planning Act to be the most horrible thing ever to have seen the light of day in South Africa. Now the hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, has come along and said that the effect of the Physical Planning Act on Port Elizabeth had in fact hurt him a little. However, he went on to say that it was this Act which had helped to bring about decentralization in South Africa. This is the greatest testimony we have ever heard for this. We now know that we have succeeded in our aim. It is a pity about the effect of the Act on Port Elizabeth, but we did see Port Elizabeth as a metropolitan area, although we might not have done so. But here we have truly had the acknowledgment now that this Act has aided decentralization. We are grateful for the progress we have been able to make up to now.

The hon. member said that he was grateful for the growth points which are being created in the homelands.

But it was too late.

For those hon. members it is always too late, for their timing is always wrong. Do you remember how the hon. member for Hillbrow carried on about Rosslyn and Hammarsdale? But border industries were started there advisedly. With the opposition of those people one could not find anyone to go to the border industrial areas. Therefore we had to select areas where this policy could succeed. Only when these areas were full and are today not receiving any further assistance, did it become Government policy to move further and further away, with—as the hon. member has said—great success.

The steps that were taken by this Government have always been commended by this side of the House, and we are grateful that recognition is now coming from that side of the House as well.

Because I do not have much time available, I now want to continue with the (b) part of this motion, in which the hon. member “makes an urgent appeal to the Government to take the necessary steps to apply this principle in certain selected rural areas”. I do not have much fault to find with this, but I should just like to tell hon. members on that side of the House that this Government has been taking these steps for a considerable time. I shall be neglecting my duty if I do not point out to the House what is being done and that, in spite of what is being done, little progress is sometimes made and this for specific reasons. The hon. member has referred to the middle region of our country, viz. the Cape, the Southern and South Eastern Free State. The hon. member referred to what is inter alia being done by the University of the Free State. The University of the Free State has produced no less than eight scientific reports on the five districts of the South Eastern Free State. We have absolutely identified the disease symptoms in the South Eastern Free State. On the basis of this symptom—I am referring to the depopulation process to which the hon. member referred—we have agreed to take certain steps to at least arrest that depopulation process. We come now to the hon. the Minister, his department and the Government. Sir, this department went out of its way to develop the town and the district of Zastron into an industrial area. The first step they took there on the basis of all this information, was to declare that little town a border industrial area. Sir, with the aid of this department, the town council and other bodies, the infrastructure of that little town has been built up to such an extent that comparatively speaking, it need not take second place to any other industrial area in South Africa. Sir, the infrastructure leaves nothing whatsoever to be desired. Apart from this, this little town is situated on the border of Herschel, which is, above all, a homeland in which water is plentiful, and on the eastern side it is bounded by Lesotho, where labour is also freely available. Sir, this department went ahead and, comparatively speaking once again, made a large amount available to this town council. Over the last five to six years an amount has been placed on the Appropriation every year to attract industries to this area. This little town of Zastron now has everything; only one thing is missing now, and that is the industrialists. These people have done everything in their power to attract industrialists to that area. People were approached, not only in South Africa, but even abroad, to come and establish industries there. In one case when an attempt was made in terms of the Physical Planning Act to persuade a very powerful industrialist to move away from the East Rand, the result was that that industrialist refused and stayed put. Eventually he said that if he had to get out, he would jump right over Zastron into East London, and it would seem to me as if this is what is now going to happen. I want to advocate here today that we do everything in our power to encourage the establishment of industries in certain rural areas. I may also say to hon. members on that side of the House that I too shall do my best in this direction in so far as it is possible. Today I merely want to do away with the impression that nothing or not enough is being done by the Government in this connection. The point I want to make here is that much has been made possible and has been done. But, Sir, there are other circumstances in the rural areas which make them unacceptable to industrialists. Other speakers will expand on this, but since I am on my feet I want to plead with the hon. the Minister and his department that we should see and accept the position as it is; and if we are not able to achieve our purpose, of keeping the rural areas viable, by establishing industries, we shall then have to think of applying other methods to make the existing rural towns viable and to keep them going. Sir, I just want to refer to a few small matters. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs are here. I think there is one matter which we should consider in putting these small towns in the rural areas as a whole in a position to better their prospects and that is to change our policy, if necessary, in such a way that it will be possible for these rural areas to utilize the electric power for which the power lines, to which my hon. friend referred to, have already been constructed. Sir, I also think that we shall have to ensure that we do nothing in the rural areas that places educational facilities there beyond the reach of our people. Even if it were more expensive education, I still want us to do everything in our power to at least keep the good schools there. Once again I have to refer to the same town, Zastron, and I think we have no reason to be complacent. There is a beautiful domestic science school with gardens and grounds, as good and beautiful a school as one could wish it to be. Yet it was closed down only recently. Sir, I think we shall have to look into this. In the Free State—and I believe in the other provinces as well—we ensure that there will be recreational facilities for our people and we ensure that we will have happy people there.

I want to conclude because so much has been said about this matter in the past. I just want to add that we shall continue to exert ourselves for the preservation of our rural areas. But we should also be practical and we should tell our people that however much we want to do it, it is impossible to establish industries in each little town or groups of towns. I know the hon. member did not plead for this, but in the case of all our small towns, when they speak to us, they always want to see whether we are not able to establish some industry in each little town in order to keep their little towns alive. From the experience we have, we know that this cannot always happen, and therefore, we shall have to ensure that there are other means of making this possible. With the new system where regional societies function, and everything connected with it, we trust that we shall be able to inspire confidence in our rural communities in the years that lie ahead, and that they will be happier communities, now and in the future, because they, the sons and the daughters of the rural areas, have the task of becoming the leaders of their people in the years that lie ahead.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Smithfield said that at one time there had been the greatest opposition on the part of the United Party to the application of the Physical Planning Act. The hon. member is of course correct to a great extent, but the real reason why there was opposition to that Bill at the time, in 1967, was because it was aimed, as the hon. member will remember, at making it impossible for any industrialist in a particular industrial area to expand his factory or enterprise or employ more people unless he received a permit from the department. The opposition of the United Party at that time was not aimed at the idea of decentralization. It was because, as we pointed out to that side of the House at the time, we did not want our present metropolitan areas to be harmed in any way as a result of the application of this Act. And because it was such an important matter—I am referring to section 3 of the Act, it was opposed. Surely it is the case that the training of a labourer in an area in which development has already taken place is much cheaper than it would be if one wants to train him in an area where there is, as yet, no development. But never, as far as I can remember, was there any opposition to the idea that we should have more industries in our rural areas. As a matter of fact, many of us, when the hon. the Minister’s Vote came up for discussion, pleaded that we should have lighter industries in the rural areas, especially in the Cape.

You never supported it.

No, the hon. member does not know what he is talking about. He only has to look at the debates we have had on this matter. I also discussed the matter, namely that we should have this type of development. Once again I want to support the hon. member for Walmer today in regard to this motion because I believe there are a number of good reasons why the hon. member moved this motion.

In the first place it is certainly not difficult to predict or hazard a prediction that our present metropolitan areas will within the next two decades be practically bursting at the seams. We are experiencing an enormous population increase. There is an enormous housing problem. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has pointed out that we are to an increasing extent having to render services to our present urban areas in the form of roads and means of transportation. In other words, I think my supposition is correct when I say that there will be fantastic development in such places as the Witwatersrand and the Peninsula and the Durban/Pinetown and Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage complexes during the next two decades. In all these areas there is a built-in growth rate. When an area has a built-in growth rate, it immediately encourages industrialists to establish themselves in that area. Where one has such a fantastic increase in population one would expect them to prefer to establish their industries in those areas. It is also a fact that even the application of the Physical Planning Act, which the hon. member for Smithfield mentioned, cannot restrict the development of these metropolitan areas in any way. These cities will simply have to grow, and it has always been the approach of this side of the House that nothing artificial should be done to restrict the development of these areas. Nor should we like to do this. However, we have reached the stage where new growth points are constantly being sought. If we were to look for them I am sure that we would find places where new development can take place. It is also an accomplished fact that the industrialist who establishes himself in the present developed areas today, will hesitate to go to any other area owing to the fact that he knows the area where he is established and because he believes that that is where the market for his product is.

In any national economy a balanced development should be sought. In saying this I do not mean that there should be a balance between the manufacturing industry, agriculture and mining. As a matter of fact, I am thinking in terms of over-centralization as against decentralization. From a demographic point of view we on this side of the House believe that the decentralization of industries is correct. For strategic reasons as well it is a good thing that all the concentration should not be in a few areas only. There was the experience during the last war that where there were certain concentrations of industrial areas, these easily became the target of the airborne and bomb attacks of enemy forces. Seen from this point of view, decentralization is essential. One could today go and look at a country such as Israel. There it is essential for them not only to expand their agriculture to those areas which are regarded as desert, but even to establish and encourage their industries in those areas owing to the fact that they do not want to concentrate everything in one place. The migration to our urban areas has had a detrimental effect on large parts of our country. Nowhere is this more obvious than in large areas of the Cape. I want to remind the hon. the Minister that, on a previous occasion, I referred to the strange development we are experiencing in this province. I pointed out that we have development along the coast and up to approximately 60 miles inland, which also extends to the borders of our Bantu homelands. In most of our interior, i.e. in the middle of this horseshoe, the development is far too slow. Dozens of our smaller towns have already bled to death, while the larger towns have become absolutely stagnant. I do not think there is any member in this House who will not agree with me on this observation. Today we find that many farmers are already experiencing a labour shortage. The main cause of this is that the farmer cannot compete with other sectors. Those people left to go to the larger cities to find work. If we could have light industries in particular in these areas, I believe that those people will not look for new pastures, but would prefer to remain in those areas and that they will not only be a labour force for the farmer, but for the light industries as well. Urbanization cannot continue unabated in South Africa. New cities will no doubt have to be created. Today I want to urge upon the hon. the Minister of Planning the necessity that when we think in terms of more industries in our rural areas, we should ensure that those industries are concentrated mainly on our agricultural industry. Close to us here we have small places which would never have expanded had a factory of some kind or other not been established there by the co-operative or major canners. Because those factories, which for the most parts process the farmers’ products, were established there, work was not only created for the people there, but this also helped those smaller towns to grow and maintain their economy. In the South Western Districts, for example, I still see great opportunities for this type of development. In towns such as Beaufort West and De Aar and Cradock, to which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred, I see the possibilities for industries based on our agricultural industry.

What types of industries?

I am thinking of the leather industry or the meat canning industry, for example. Since the world population is growing so rapidly, we shall have to can more of our food in order to provide for the future. If one thinks in terms of places such as Beaufort West, De Aar and Upington, which are mainly meat and hide producing areas, I can see dozens of small industries being established in those towns. Just take a place such as Prieska. Prieska has all the water in the world or will have it when the Verwoerd and the P. K. le Roux dams have been completed. Why is it not possible to have large-scale industrial development in that area? If it is necessary, that industrial development should be based on the agricultural industry. I think it would be a good thing. Development of this nature could very easily take place in a town such as Upington. However, there could also be new industries which have absolutely nothing or very little to do with the agricultural industry as a whole. The moment the hon. the Minister of Planning is prepared to boost that type of development he will find that the revival in the rural towns will be greater.

I want to say to him that I believe that the benefits we are giving the prospective industrialist as an inducement to come to these growth points, are the crux of the whole problem. Our problem is that the incentive we are giving is not sufficient to attract those people. I have already mentioned to the hon. gentleman that the prospective industrialist would prefer to establish himself in a place which is already developing, because the population is there. If one could get them so far as to go to the other areas and if one could give them greater benefits, the people will not be reluctant to go to those areas. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that unless he boosts this development in some way or other, this development we foresee for the future, is going to become more and more expensive and more and more difficult. Since the opportunities are there at the moment, they should be utilized. We know that these towns have an infrastructure and that rail services are already in existence. They have a postal service and transport and why should we allow those little towns to perish? I want to insist that the hon. the Minister give his support to the motion of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, as we on this side of the House are prepared to give it our support.

Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague has already said that as far as the underlying philosophy of this motion is concerned, it enjoys the full support of this side of the House. In fact, there is general unanimity throughout the whole world about the desirability of decentralization. On the one hand people are increasing while land, on the other hand, does not increase. It is also true that the insistence on decentralization of industries today, fits into a very popular set of concepts which are the key terms of the second half of the 20th century; viz. the terms progress, development and change. It is, inter alia, also concepts such as these which are continually initiating the idea of decentralization. Apart from the usual factors and the usual motivation for decentralization, we have an additional and very important factor in South Africa and that is our complicated population composition. As far as the handling of the Black majority is concerned, we have an accepted policy of freedom by territorial division and the policy goes together with the idea of decentralization. In the rest of South Africa, in the so-called White man’s land or the non-Black land, we also have other population groups such as the Whites, the Brown people and the Indians. We do not want to settle these groups in territorial areas. All these factors have an effect on our plea for decentralization or the ordering of our spaces.

Because it is fashionable to do so, I want to take part in the discussion of this motion today more specifically as someone from the Boland or from the Western Cape. I want to say that in the late fifties and in the early sixties there was great concern in our Boland and in the north western parts of the Cape Province—where three-quarters of our country’s Brown people are concentrated—because our part of the country was stagnating and coming to a halt. We on our part also wanted to try to initiate new growth and new development. Now I, as a Bolander, can give thanks to the National Government here today with great pride in my heart for the preliminary work in this connection which already shows that the Western Cape and the North Western Cape are facing a bright new future. I have little time and therefore I do not want to go into details, but I should like to mention six factors to substantiate my statement. The six factors to which I want to refer are all products of the creative work of the National Government. In the first place there is the Boland water plan, the master plan, which has been produced for the Boland in recent years on behalf of this Government. It is a plan which is doing the work of initiating and which is bringing about growth momentum in the greater Boland today. At one stage we still complained amongst each other that over-concentration in the Cape metropolis would still draw the water of the Boland to this metropolis as well, but as this water scheme is evolving today, new power and growth momentum is being generated outside the metropolis. I think of the latest announcement last year of the R42 million scheme for the lower Berg River which will serve the new metropolitan area at Saldanha. These plans were purposely drawn up to bring about wider and broader growth,, I think for example of the Saldanha complex. This complex did not simply drop from the skies, it involved hard work. The initiation work came from outside, from the side of the Government, after the Government had made a thorough study of it and had given it its consideration. This complex which is being created, will serve as a useful outlet for all forms of over-concentration here in the Cape metropolis. If I am not mistaken, the hon. the Minister himself is going to announce the final guide plans for this newly established metrolitan area on the spot in the near future. I want to tell him that we look forward to that. Then there is the Railway line between Sishen and Saldanha, which will provide new stimuli to the north western parts of our country. Once again it is a project which same from outside after careful consideration and after there had been strong differences of opinion. This massive project, too, which links these two poles, is the work of the National Government. It is the Government which came to the fore with it.

I want to mention another factor which was the explicit initiation work of this Government. I refer to the development of the Dassenberg/Mamre/Darling area. Here as well, if I remember correctly, the hon. the Minister is going to drink to the future of that new world new week. Once again it is purposeful creative work which has come from the side of the Government to bring about broader growth and to bring momentum outside the concentrated metropolitan areas with all the signs of overconcentration. There is also the nuclear power station which is planned for that region and which will provide the Western Cape with power. It is a massive project which will evolve in the years which lie ahead. I think lastly of another factor for which the hon. the Minister is responsible. Last year he announced here that his department would prepare a purposeful guide plan which would bring about the planning and the momentum between the old metropolitan area of Cape Town and the new one to be formed. According to this guideplan, a line of growth will evolve between the two metropolitan areas. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we look forward with interest to the work which his department will do in this connection.

Having said all that, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that if our Government wants to take this general growth and development in the Western Cape and particularly in the north-western parts of our country as well, any further three things remain to be done in my humble opinion.

In the first place I want to refer to the construction of a Namaqualand railway line which will link up with the Sishen/ Saldanha line. It is a project which, so I believe, must be undertaken as soon as possible. My friend, the hon. member for Namaqualand, is sitting here. From time to time he has delivered a plea here for growth and development for his part of the country. The advent of this railway line between Sishen and Saldanha now makes this a reality and our Government will be able to bring about a junction with a railway line through the Namaqualand area as soon as possible. Yesterday a reasonably speculative report appeared in Die Burger. I cannot find it at the moment, but it does not matter. The fact remains that I do not think that the Government must wait until the profitability of that railway has been proved. In the past the policy always was that the profitability of a railway line must first be proved before it was constructed. Here I think our Government may show the necessary confidence in anticipation and construct the railway line as soon as possible. It so happens that I have some knowledge of a small part of that area, and there are indications that a mighty new mine field of world stature is going to develop here, particularly in the vicinity of Aggeneis and Pofadder. This hon. friend of mine will be able to wax lyrical about what is evolving here. Almost thirty companies are looking for minerals in the North-Western Cape at the moment, and especially in the Namaqualand region. Important drilling is also being done. It has provided evidence that fantastic finds are lying hidden in this part of the world. It makes the construction of this railway line an urgent reality. The hon. the Minister smiles. I do not know whether it is from excitement or joy. But I just want to tell him that I happen to have some knowledge of the activities of one of the companies in this specific area. I may as well mention the name here. It is the Trans-Terra Mining Group. The group has drilled in that area, and their findings ought to cause the Government to decide tomorrow morning to have this railway line constructed. The project will also bring about further momentum being given to the Saldanha harbour in respect of the possibility of ore exports.

The second thing which I think our Government must do to bring about this wide momentum in the Cape Province, especially in those parts which have remained without development and progress for many years, is the utilization of the water of the Lower Orange River for mining development in this part of the world, and here I want to associate myself with the pleas which my hon. friend has delivered in the past. I am aware that the Department of Water Affairs has already begun a scheme in that specific area, and I want to join my hon. friend in a plea that the State thinks as soon as possible of the expeditions utilization of the water of the Lower Orange River in respect of mining development in that area.

There is a third factor which to my mind can bring about this growth momentum. I have delivered this plea here in the past. Just as in the case of Mamre, we must give new growth momentum to another old traditional Coloured town, Saron, I shall repeat this plea as often as I have to. In the Bolond there is concern amongst our people today. This old traditional line of growth which runs from the Cape metropolis along the main line and the national road to the North, is visible development. We only need to look at the northern urban areas such as Maitland, Vasco, Goodwood, Parow, Bellville, Brackenfell, Kraaifontein, Paarl, Wellington and others. In this situation much of the best agricultural land in the Boland has fallen prey to industrial development and housing schemes, especially in Paarl, Wellington and the Franschhoek valley. Surely we cannot afford that this asset of the Boland, its best agricultural land, should fall prey to the development works which are in progress there. A third factor which must be taken into account, is that our Government, the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Environment and of Statistics to be specific, will use all possible influence to bring about a growth point which will revolve around the old traditional Coloured town Saron. Create the momentum and the outlet for these areas which I have just mentioned and help us from outside to initiate a new growth point in this area. I am aware of this. I saw the other day that the chairman of Escom had pointed out the possibility, of the generation of power, and I hope that it will come soon. The fact remains that our power supply comes from the North at the moment. We have a vast country and there can be tremendous power failures. The only thing which can be done, is that the water of the Voëlvlei Dam, if there are times of surplus power, be pumped into the Suurvlak area to be returned to the Voëlvlei Dam in the event of power failures or shortages, in order to generate power. I see that the hon. the Deputy Minister is laughing. I just want to tell him that as far as I know, very serious attention is being given to this matter at the moment. In the coming week, the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs will visit that part of the country and here in my heart I am hoping night and day that he will come and tell our people there that this generation of power is a practical possibility in that specific area.

I think that these three basic things must be done, and if our Government does them, then it links up beautifully with the really ambitious creative task of bringing about a new growth momentum which has been coming from the side of our Government over the past number of years to help this part of the country with its massive Coloured population to initiate new growth and development.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the contributions made to this debate by the hon. members for Smithfield and Moorreesburg. One thing that seems to be quite clear from both their speeches is that economic decentralization can only be successful if it occurs in terms of economic principles. There I would agree with both those hon. gentlemen. If it occurs in any other terms, as the hon. member for Smithfield pointed out, it is likely to flounder.

We listened to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, who introduced this motion. He put forward with great feeling the case for parts of the Cape and the Orange Free State and pointed out the effects of the migration from the platteland to the cities and their concomitant industrial complexes. Unfortunately, Sir, this appeal has been heard many times in many countries elsewhere in the world and has proved, certainly in a transitional period, to be of no avail. This is exactly what is happening in South Africa; we are passing through a transitional stage, and until the growth in other parts of the country has got an added dimension, and is therefore capable of uplifting these areas, there is very little, unfortunately, which can be done.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches feel that the principle of decentralization must be treated with caution. It can be pushed too far and is also wide open to special pleadings in so far as particular areas are concerned. That is, of course, understandable, but it must not be allowed to get to the point that we are so concerned with a number of particular trees that we cannot see the wood. It cannot be denied that there are a greater number of people in our country at this point of time who are extremely poor, indeed who live or, to use a more appropriate word, exist in abject poverty. The vast majority of them are, of course, found among the Black South Africans and, indeed, the Brown South Africans, but by no means exclusively so. The ravages of inflation in recent years have affected all of us to a greater or lesser degree. It is clear therefore, Sir, that the first task must be to increase the material wealth of our country for the benefit of all, and that anything that would impair this, in the sense of retarding it, should be discarded in the interests of the community as a whole. We are a far cry from the position where we can indulge in weighing up the pros and cons of the quality of life as opposed to the necessity for an increase in production. Anything less than a concerted and a continuous effort to achieve the latter, in so far as we are concerned, is academic where so many of our people are struggling for bare subsistence; nor is the position likely to change in the foreseeable future in the light of the expected trends and the overall increase in our population up to the end of this century. I should like to come back to this point a little later, but before doing so I think it is important to review what this Government means and intends by the policy of decentralization and its track record in this regard up till now.

On 26 May 1967 the then Minister of Planning outlined the Government’s policy when he introduced the Second Reading of the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Bill. He said the following, if, I may abbreviate to a certain extent—

And then he listed five. He talked about the high per capita cost of labour which accompanies over-concentration. That is not particularly relevant to South Africa at this point in time. The next factor he mentioned was the high wage structure which results largely from the high cost structure, due, amongst other things, to high transportation and accommodation costs. That is not particularly relevant in South Africa at this point in time either. Then he said—

I would not have thought that that was particularly relevant in South Africa—

Then he went on to say—

It is interesting to note that the then Minister of Planning admitted quite openly that decentralization would make for less effective utilization of a country’s resources when seen from an economic point of view than another course which could be followed. He went on at a later stage, in relation to Black South Africans, to say—

I agree with him when he says that the policy of decentralization results in a less effective utilization of our country’s resources. Now I would like to turn to the track record, the facts in so far as that policy is concerned. I have mentioned these before, but I think they bear recalling in relation to this motion. The Board for the Decentralization of Industry stated in its report for the year ended December 1973 that over the whole period since 1960 it had approved 114 700 employment opportunities at a cost, with or without the assistance of the Board, of R637 million. We also have estimates that during the ’sixties the total male labour force of our country grew by roughly 119 000 men per annum on the average. That figure is expected to rise to 162 000 male persons coming onto the labour market per annum during this decade. In both cases it is reasonable to assume that the figure is conservative, since it excludes the possibility of women joining the labour force in one way or another, and there is, of course, considerable evidence that they do so. Overwhelmingly this will occur to an extent in excess of 80% amongst Coloured, Black and Brown South Africans. It is of interest to note, to, that the Economic Development Programme for 1974-’79, which has just been released from the office of the Economic Adviser to the Prime Minister, contains the following in discussing the implications of a 6,1% growth rate as against a 6,4% growth rate over that five-year period, and I quote—

A little later it states—

It then goes on to say—

This is a grudging admission, Sir, of the realities of life, but then comes the qualification

Sir, what can we make of that? In so far as the reality of the shortage of skilled labour is concerned in so-called White South Africa, the Government is prepared to face up to that reality and to state the obvious, which was and is indisputable, that it cannot be cured overnight but it can be cured in the short term by the training and utilization of Black South Africans. The Government goes further and says that such training will not make abnormally high demands of our country’s training facilities. So far, so good. Sir, but then comes the catch because the main thrust simply peters out. The motivation of this Government dies because they are only concerned that this should happen to the extent that there are no White South Africans available to fill the jobs. They cannot, or probably more accurately, they will not allow themselves to see that if no such limitation was placed in any South Africans and they were all freely allowed to make the greatest contribution of which they are capable, the sure and inevitable result would be a sustained and continuous increase in the material wealth of our country which would be to the benefit of us all.

When it comes to the point where the shortage in White South Africa has been met, as they see it, then they come back to channelling activities to the decentralized areas and the Bantu homelands on a sufficient scale. What do they mean by that? It is clear from the record that they failed abjectly in the past. They spent R49 million on the average each year over the 13 years up to 1973, and they succeeded in creating on the average in each year approximately 8 000 new opportunities for employment. That is far from being anything to be proud of if you are a proponent, which we on these benches are not, of the Government’s policy in practise of decentralization and the development of the homelands. It is clear, too, Sir, that this Government is on the horns of a dilemma. At least publicly, in so far as its support is concerned, and which it has not faced yet, the real decision which it has to reach is between policies which require economic growth and those which conflict with that. Sir, if the Government comes down on the side of growth, as I hope it does and to which it is publicly committed—we now have additional evidence and support for this in the increased growth rate of 6,4% per annum adopted as the aim for the five years from 1974-’79—then it cannot at the same time adhere to the policy of decentralization and separate development. It can try but it will continue to fail. It can certainly continue to have or to make, subdued in practice if not in speech, stabs at creating growth outside of the established growth complexes of the country, but that is all that it will amount to—a few crumbs from the table of so-called White South Africa. Sir, we have the concrete evidence of what actually happens. Those of our people from outside the established growth complexes try overwhelmingly to come to them. This is not surprising because the jobs and the wages are there. Influx control has not succeeded in stopping them from coming and, indeed, it is more like a policy of efflux control. It has been estimated by Professor Sadie of the Department of Economic Affairs at Stellenbosch that the income of the average inhabitant of the homelands was about R72 in 1970. More than half of that was earned in the form of migrant worker’s wages. He went on to say, interestingly enough, that in the White areas—and he put that in parenthesis—where Black South Africans are subject to discrimination, their average income of about R181 is a good deal better than in the homelands. It was, as we can see, just about two and a half times better, a rather powerful motive, I would have thought, to move to the growth areas. Sir, there may well be instances such as the location of mineral deposits or cheap hydro-electric power schemes arising from the position of watersheds or rivers which will of themselves encourage industrial development in areas outside of the established growth complexes. If and when that happens, well and good, but at this point in time they will tend to be exceptions. Where such a matrix of economic factors which make investment attractive does not occur, it is no use whatsoever, as the hon. member for Smithfield pointed out, attempting to stem the tide and to force it to flow to where the opportunities, admittedly a long way from those which we could view with equanimity, are so much better. I have no doubt that we shall hear more of the success of growth points, but the success of growth points must be looked at with a clear distinction being drawn between border areas and homelands. Most of the areas in which the Government claims success are in fact in the so-called border areas and they are of economic irrelevance when it comes to the development of the homelands. It is clear too that a consistent and the single most important bottleneck or stumbling-block which curtails the length of the business cycle in our country when it is in an upward phase, is the shortage of labour. Indeed, the Bureau for Economic Research of the University of Stellenbosch has this to say in its prospects for 1975—

There it is—the message is stark and very simple. The Government has already legislated for wide and varied incentives to encourage the decentralization of industry, but it has failed. To attempt to force it further is simply to set your face against reality. If the Government insists on the necessity for decentralization and actually puts it into practice because of its policies, it is impossible to be filled with anything but foreboding as to the economic future of our country. Such a happening is hardly likely, it seems to me, to be conducive to the survival of what the Government chooses to call the nations of South Africa, Black, White or Brown. Indeed, it is more likely to accelerate the advent of troubles which need not otherwise have occurred and which could so easily not have been born.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central for having introduced this motion to the House. While he was elucidating the motion, it was striking that there were only eight members of the United Party in their seats in the House. I wonder now—perhaps I should put the question to him—whether these were perhaps the eight of whom it was said in the newspapers that they wanted to join the National Party.

I read in the Official Yearbook of South Africa for 1974 that the greater percentage of South Africa’s industries are to be found in concentrated four areas, viz. the Pretoria/Witwatersrand/Vereeniging area, the Cape metropolitan areas, the Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage area and the Durban/Pinetown area. These four areas which, together with all the other urban areas in South Africa, comprise only 4% of the surface area of the country, still provide 80% of the total product of the manufacturing industry.

I also find it interesting that this motion was introduced by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, a member representing a constituency in one of these four industrial complexes. I am very grateful that the eyes of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central are now beginning to open.

They have been open a long time already.

Then they are only just open, because if they had been wide open, that hon. member would have been sitting on this side of the House. As far back as 1973, the hon. member who introduced this motion advocated further development in the Port Elizabeth area at the expense of the rural areas such as Sishen and Saldanha.

I should like to support the motion. I am convinced that everyone in this House is in agreement that it is undesirable for the greater percentage of the industrial activities of South Africa to be concentrated in four key areas that together comprise less than 4% of South Africa’s surface area. Sound economic, social and political reasons make it essential for industrial development to be encouraged and established in other areas, too. As regards this extremely important matter, I could quote the old and ever true saying that the United Party supporters are talking about it today, but the National Party is seeing to it. After all, it is the National Party Government with its farsightedness which has identified these problems and set in operation the necessary measures to bring about the decentralization of industries in certain selected areas. It is this very National Party Government that is painfully aware of the fact that in our planning for the future, provision must be made for employment opportunities and residential areas for an extremely fast-growing population, a population that may double within the next 25 years.

When one looks at the Black population alone, one sees that the present figure of 17 million is expected to grow to about 37 million souls by the year 20000. At present about 55% of these Black people are living in our cities. In our planning for the future, therefore, we face one of two choices. Firsly, we can allow the industrial development to continue undisturbed in the existing urban and industrial complexes and then, by the year 2000, be saddled with about 20 million citizens of independent Black neighbouring states in and around our cities. Secondly, we have the choice of decentralizing industries to certain selected areas, particularly areas where the Black peoples can live in their own cities in their own fatherland. Today I want to make the request that consideration be given in particular to areas in which neighbouring towns can develop in neighbouring states, so that in the future neighbouring peoples will be able to supplement each other across political borders with regard to labour, know-how and knowledge to the benefit of the whole of Southern Africa. We are aware of and grateful for the major success achieved by the Government in this sphere. Pietermaritzburg, Hammarsdale and Rosslyn, which are decentralized growth points, have already developed so much momentum that offered assistance is no longer necessary there in order to encourage industrialists to establish their factories there. We are also aware of the improved assistance and measures for the encouragement of industrialists to invest in decentralized growth points. I am convinced that the successes that have already been achieved encouraged the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central to have this motion discussed today. In addition, owing to the successes that have already been achieved in this sphere, the Government is being flooded with appeals to declare certain areas growth points.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central himself mentioned no fewer than 10 country towns here today which, in his opinion, should be declared growth points. Although it is the wish and the desire of virtually every country town to be declared a growth point, it is simply impracticable for the Government to comply with all requests. I am convinced that all the members on this side of the House desire a growing, prosperous and happy rural population. For that reason I think that it is specifically this side of the House that is able to speak on behalf of the country-dweller and express the wishes and desires of the country-dwellers here. I am a country-dweller as are the hon. members for Port Elizabeth Central and Newton Park; the only difference is that neither I nor any other country-dweller on this side of the House has ever found it necessary to make his voice heard in this House via the city.

As a country-dweller I want to express the wish today that the Department of Planning and our Government should give earnest attention to the establishment of industrial growth points in the Northern Cape and specifically in the areas bordering on Bophuthatswana. Neither the hon. member for Newton Park nor any of the other hon. members on that side have pleaded for development in the Northern Cape today because I believe they know that they do not stand a chance unless they cross over to the National Party. In this region we find various places that are eminently suitable for development as border industrial growth points, places where cities can become established in our neighbouring states. I have in mind specifically the Kuruman/Hotazel/Sishen region and the Reivilo/Vryburg/Vaalharts region bordering on Bophuthatswana. In these regions we find virtually all the essential elements for the establishment of industries. In these regions—and I want to make specific reference to Kuruman—we find raw materials present in inexhaustible quantities. We find that water, power and labour are also available in this region. At the moment the lack of an infrastructure impedes development, but an infrastructure can be established in those areas to the great benefit of South Africa.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg referred to the Sishen/Saldanha railway line and to the link-up with this line of the railway line from Namaqualand which would open up that cart of the North West for development. I should like to associate myself with him by asking—and I have asked this many times in this House —that the Sishen/Saldanha railway line be extended via Kuruman past the homelands to Pudimoe. This would then establish an alternative railway line from a West Coast harbour through these regions to the Rand. This could become a vital artery that would open up this part of the Northern Cape. I have already said that the industrial areas of South Africa are concentrated in 4% of the country’s surface area. This fine province which I represent in the House comprises 60% of South Africa’s surface area, but over the past four centuries only four cities have developed in it. A vital artery of this kind running through the Northern Cape with its mineral wealth, linking un with Namqaualand with its mineral wealth and then ending at the West Coast harbour of Saldanha, would also give our province its rightful share of development in the future.

I want to make special reference to Kuruman as a country town that is preeminently suitable to be declared a growth point. Kuruman has already, on its own initiative, connected itself with its neighbouring city in Bophuthatswana, Mothibistad, by means of a fine modern tarred road. Through all these years “die Oog” at Kuruman has produced more than four million gallons of water per day. Adjoining Kuruman are the world’s richest blue asbestos and lime deposits. There is also iron ore and manganese in the district. I can take it that the hon. member for Johannesburg North who spoke before me has no feeling for the rural areas, because where the hon. member and those who think as he does have come to take anything from the rural areas, all they have left behind have been holes. We feel that our minerals, which we should like to utilize in the interests of South Africa, should also be processed locally in these regions so that the end products may be utilized further in the interests of South Africa.

I have said that it is not always possible to establish growth points everywhere in the country areas, something which the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central has advocated. The necessary elements for developments are not always present in those areas.

He said: “Selected places.”

The necessary elements for development are simply not present at all of the places selected by the hon. member. I, who am a country-dweller myself, and was also born and brought up in the region championed by the hon. member and am particularly fond of that region, realize that it is not always possible to bring about industrial development there. I want to appeal today to the hon. the Minister of Planning and to the Government to consider whether we could not strengthen the future of these areas and keep our rural population strong and vigorous by other means. I want to ask whether it is not possible, for example, for us to decentralize our education and training facilities to the country areas. In this regard I want to mention the example of the University of Potch-fstroom and the University of Stellenbosch. When the University of Stellenbosch was built Stellenbosch was still situated a long way from the city. Today it is very close. Another example is the education and training colleges of Graaff-Reinet. Wellington and Oudtshoorn. I want to request today that when in future it is decided that another university, college or technical college must be built, we should not always look to the city as the obvious place to construct a facility of this kind, but that we should also consider our smaller country towns where these facilities could be established and where our young people could undergo their training in a healthy, clean and rich rural atmosphere.

Mr. Speaker, it appears that the hon. member for Kuruman supported the motion which was moved by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. It appears that he supported the motion fully. Consequently I am surprised that we heard no word of thanks from him to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, an urban representative, for proposing that there should be decentralization, particularly with regard to selected rural areas. If the hon. member for Kuruman did in fact thank him I did not hear it, and apologize. [Interjections.] I am glad to get confirmation from him that he did in fact thank the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central because I believe the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central deserves the thanks of members representing the platteland. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal a little more fully with the question of decentralization. First of all I want to sketch briefly the broad historical background of how decentralization of industries came about in South Africa. I believe that the major objective of economic policy in most countries of the world today is the satisfactory regional distribution of economic activity; in other words, the spreading throughout the country of economic activity. When considering the desirability of such a step, a Government normally considers three major factors. Firstly, it considers the social factors involved; secondly, the economic factors involved; and thirdly, we must accept that it also considers the political factors involved. These three factors should be brought into balance to bring about the most desirable result, viz. a balanced economic development with the optimum benefit based on social desirability and political rationalization. The most significant step taken in this country in this direction was in fact the commencement of the present decentralization cheme by this Government. This step was taken as a result of the report of the Tomlinson Commission in 1956. Up to that date and particularly after the passing of the Native Land Act of 1913 and later the Native Trust and Land Act of 1936, successive Governments in South Africa expressed their concern at the social and economic ills attendant upon the establishment of the Black Reserves. In fact, as far back as 1932, the Native Economic Commission as it was then called, emphasized —and I quote:..

This was as long ago as 1932. From the Tomlinson Commission report emerged a factor which I believe has, up to now, overridden all other aspects in regard to decentralization, i.e. the ideological and political factor of separate development towards the ultimate independence of the Black homelands. This is history, of course, and I realize that the hon. Minister knows that it is history. However, I want him to remember this and that is why I am repeating it.

Your party is also history.

I want him to remember the vacillating policy adopted by the Nationalist Government over the years. Prof. Tomlinson recommended that White capital be employed in the homelands. The hon.. the Minister must agree with me there. White entrepreneurs were to be encouraged to invest in that project. This concent, however, was rejected by Dr. Verwoerd, the Prime Minister, in favour of the decentralization of industries to the border areas. Thus was born what can be called border area decentralization as opposed to the true industrial decentralization as known generally throughout the world. The Government soon realized, however, that an imperative basic factor in its political philosophy of granting independence to the Black homelands was the creation, as far as possible, of a viable economic structure within the homelands themselves. Consequently after much deliberation and with great fanfare, the Government introduced a system of allowing White industrialists to embark upon projects inside the homelands on an agency basis. This concept proved a failure. The hon. the Minister of Planning must accept the fact that this proved a failure. The result was a mere trickle of interested entrepreneurs, and having now turned the full circle, the Government, only last year, reverted to the original recommendation of the Tomlinson Commission and allowed White entrepreneurs to embark upon industrialization within the homelands unfettered by any agency agreements but enjoying, of course, the considerable concessions offered by the Government, provided the homeland Government is in agreement and consents to such projects being established. The wheel has now turned full circle and the recommendations of Prof. Tomlinson are being accented by this Government.

However, what has happened to the border areas? What about the decentralization which has been taking place over the years in the so-called border industrial areas? Is it to receive the continued support of this Government and are they going to adopt the recommendations of the Riekert Commission? This Commission’s report resulted in a White Paper being issued in 1971 which stated, inter alia:

This is a question which needs a firm, definitive and clear answer from the Government to give a clear lead to the country as to the Government’s projected aims in regard to its policy in regard to the decentralization of industries as a whole. For two reasons it is all the more necessary for the Government to make clear, unambiguous statements in this particular regard. Firstly, I believe that in certain growth point areas all the Government’s efforts to attract industries—and I am speaking of the border decentralized growth point areas—by granting concessions and other benefits, have come to nothing or very little.

I would like to refer the hon. the Minister—I see he is listening very carefully— to the report of the I.D.C. for 1974. Financing in decentralized areas as a result of the Government’s plans to obtain industrial development in those areas comes from the I.D.C. It is startling to see that, in regard to the gross amount advanced by the I.D.C. in respect of industrial financing in decentralized areas, there has been a gradual decrease since 1972. In 1972 the gross amount advanced by the I.D.C. for this purpose was R29 million. In 1973 it dropped from R29 million to R21 million, and in 1974 it dropped from R21 million to R14 million. This is indicative of the fact that the Government’s plans for effecting the proper decentralization of industries in the decentralized areas is proving a failure. I say that the industrialist is just not coming to these areas for one specific reason and that is that the areas are not being sold to the entrepreneur. By this I do not mean an actual selling of land for money but that the idea of moving their industries to the decentralized growth point areas is not being put over to the industrialist properly, if at all, either in this country or overseas. As I understand it, the Decentralization Board which exists at the present time consists entirely of officials from seven Government departments and other semi-Government officials. There is no private sector representation at all. Apparently the intention of the Government was that this Board should through an executive committee deal with applications for concessions and the, allocation of land and growth points and that the Board itself would consider matters of policy. However, it is not the function of the Board to sell the decentralized benefits in a positive way. Consequently the actual decentralization which is taking place in the border areas is slowing down, as I have just said.

The White Paper on the Riekert Commission report specifically mentions the desire of the Government to obtain the support of local authorities for the physical preparation of the selected growth points. In certain areas very large sums exceeding R2 million have been spent by local authorities to prepare the basic physical situation for the adequate accommodation of the expected industries. But very few industries have come. As a result the local authorities have desperately been doing everything in their power to encourage entrepreneurs to come to their areas. Unfortunately, their efforts have failed. This is understandable; after all, the local authorities can only operate through their officials or through their elected representatives. They do not have the know-how, the financial ability or the time to carry out what amounts to a market research and sales campaign which will bring any sort of success whatsoever. It is my contention that it is the Government’s responsibility to create a sophisticated body, either as an appendage to the I.D.C. or as a special board on its own consisting of experts, for the sole purpose of selling the idea of decentralization in this country and overseas and giving entrepreneurs all the details of the benefits which developers will obtain if they do come to the decentralized areas. The X.D.C. is doing this most successfully. But, of course, they are directing their entire attention to the development of the Xhosa homelands and, furthermore, they have the expertise, time and the money. I believe they have plus-minus R4½ million to spend on administration.

The second reason why I ask the Government to make a clear and unambiguous statement regarding this matter stems from the difficult situation which has arisen just recently in regard to the competing claims for industrial development between the homelands and the growth point areas on the borders of the homelands. A very good example of this situation is the one that has come about in the area very close to the constituency which I represent, the growth point area of Berlin and the adjoining homelands. Here the X.D.C. with, as I said, all its advantages, all its expertise, is siphoning off to the homelands, particularly Butterworth, all the really worthwhile industries while the Berlin area has experienced hardly any real development at all. This is a disaster for the Berlin area because it is the only potential labour outlet with East London and King William’s Town for the massive growing Black residential town of Mdantsane which is inside the Ciskei homeland. Here, as I say, we have competing claims. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development to whom I put a question at a public meeting recently said—and I agree with this—that a balance must be brought about between these two competing claims. I want the Government to state emphatically in this regard that it is its intention to bring about such a balance and to publicly declare that it will take urgent and positive steps to see that such a balance is brought about. This goes for all the growth point areas that were established after the Tomlinson Commission was first appointed. I would go so far as to say that the social reasons for establishing border decentralization in some cases now outweigh the economic and political reasons. I say too that there should be a drastic revision of Government policy in order to protect the P.W.V. area—the Pretoria-Witwatersrand-Vereniging area—and that there should be a careful re-examination of the labour ratio prevailing in this area of one White to two Bantu. The requirements for extending businesses in this area should also be tightened up. Urgent consideration should also be given to the establishment of a body such as I have just suggested and adequate funds should be allocated to that body. Finally, I want to submit that a guide-line plan must be drawn up to bring about a proper balance between competing homelands and border decentralization of industries in this country.

Generally I support the motion thoroughly and I am very pleased to see that the Government also supports this motion.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to all the hon. members who participated in the discussion of this motion for their contributions. I am pleased that we were able to discuss this motion today, which in its first part expresses approval of the principle of decentralization of industries. The motion expresses unconditional approval of decentralization. There is no proviso attached as we have been hearing all these years. The motion does not state that decentralization should take place to this or to that area, or that it should not take place for this or that reason. If my memory serves me well, the Opposition stated for quite a number of years, that they were opposed to decentralization for ideological reasons.

We still are.

That is to say, they were opposed to decentralization to any White town adjoining a Bantu homeland.

No, that is not true.

Let us understand one another well. Today the Opposition states that it expresses approval of the principle of the decentralization of industries. Does that also mean approval of moving an industry to Stutterheim?

Yes, why not?

It therefore means removing of an industry to Stutterheim as well. Thank you.

If it is economical, yes.

That is to say, in the past it meant a moving of industries to Queenstown and also to East London.

Yes.

Then why did hon. members state in the past that they were opposed to the decentralization of industries for ideological reasons? Decentralization took place to Stutterheim and to Queenstown, Berlin and East London, but according to what they said in the past, this was wrong. Today they have removed the qualification. Let us go further. The hon. member who introduced the motion advanced pleas in regard to Cradock. What is the difference between Cradock and Stutterheim? In Cradock we want to accommodate an excessive supply of Coloured labour, and in Stutterheim we want to do the same thing in respect of Bantu labour. Some live on this side of the border, some live just beyond the border and others live a few miles beyond the border. I want to accept today that the Opposition has now abandoned that old story which it had been relating here all these years, namely that it is opposed to decentralization for ideological reasons. It meant only one thing, namely decentralization to the borders of Bantu homelands. That is all that phrase “for ideological reasons” meant. [Interjections ] It could have meant nothing else, for the Opposition is also in favour of incentive measures. That was what the hon. member who has just finished speaking said. In the past they also said they were in favour of decentralization to within the heart of the Bantu homelands.

Yes.

The hon. member for East London City has just been complaining, before he resumed his seat, about decentralization to the heart of the Bantu homelands, to Butterworth. He stood there complaining about that not a moment ago. [Interjections.] Sir, I want to tell the hon. member for Port Elizabeth that I shall deal with growth points, and I shall deal with Cradock. He referred to the 70 000 houses which have to be built here in the Cape Peninsula. Any industry which we are able to establish at Cradock will not keep a single Coloured away from the Cape Peninsula. It will perharps keep a few families away from Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage, but none from the Cape Peninsula. That was the growth point he had in mind. But I shall deal with growth points. The hon. member for Johannesburg North let me know that unfortunately he had a flight to catch, and I therefore do not want to say too much about his argument, for he adopted a different course.

Today the Opposition has, together with the Government, adopted a more or less positive course. The hon. member for Johannesburg North will simply have to state his case again under my Vote. He said: “We cannot set our face against reality.” Put I just want to tell him that one cannot establish a factory in the south of England today without obtaining what they call an industrial development certificate? Why not? Because they have too much development in the south of England, and not enough in the north of England and in Scotland and Wales. It is extremely difficult for one to obtain such a certificate for the south of England, although one can do so readily for the north of England, but without benefits, as well as in Scotland and Wales and in Northern Ireland. There one receives it with incentive measures, precisely as we have in South Africa. For what reason? To take the work to the people so that not all the people need come to the work. That is not ideological and the hon. member opposite approves of it, but in South Africa we must do nothing. We must allow the market to take its course so that people will simply come to where the supply is, to where the big market is, and to where they can produce. They then come in their millions. And then? Then, for a while, things may go very well economically speaking, but afterwards we will have to pay the account in terms of social and political problems, and in the end the cost will be far heavier in the long term than the benefits in the short term.

I am pleased that we have been able to discuss these matters this afternoon. I am pleased that we have this motion before us. However. I do not agree with the second part of this motion. The second part of this motion makes an urgent appeal to the Government to take the necessary steps. The Government is already taking the necessary steps. In fact, it has been doing so for a considerable time. For that reason I do not agree with the second part of the motion. Why do we want to decentralize? We want to decentralize because we should like to see a proportional development in South Africa. We should like to see the proportional development of our country in all its regions. We know that industrial development and production leads to increased employment. Increased employment in turn leads to higher earnings and greater prosperity. We should like to distribute this prosperity, as far as this is economically possible, throughout our entire country. We should like our rural areas to share in it as well, and today so many fine and moving pleas, with which I associate myself, were made here for our rural areas. As the hon. member for Kuruman said, we want to get away from a situation, in so far as it is economically possible, where the four metropolitan areas of South Africa are responsible for 82% of our industrial production. The Pretoria/Witwatersrand/ Vereeniging area alone is responsible for 58% of our industrial production, and we should like to get away from this tendency. Not that we want to prejudice this area or the other metropolitan areas in absolute terms. We may not do that nor will we ever do so. However, we do want to improve the ratio.

We should also like to have this more proportional decentralization in the development of our country, in order to get away a little from the problems of overconcentration in the cities. People of ten ask what it costs to decentralize. Do we realize what concentration is costing us? Do we realize what it is really costing us? At present my department, in co-operation with the University of Pretoria, is engaged in a study to calculate the costs of centralization. We already know on the basis of studies abroad that for a city up to a certain size there are certain rising costs. After that the graph rises far more steeply. It then pays to develop another city where it is possible to produce and develop more cheaply. We should like to get away from expensive township development on land which is becoming scarcer all the time, and which, in certain parts of South Africa, is our best land. We discussed this the other day, our agricultural land where less than 4% A land in South Africa produces 44% of our food. We cannot reach a compromise in South Africa in regard to that land. We may not touch it. Posterity expects us to take steps to protect that land. Other problems of centralization are longer travelling distances for workers, overloaded transportation at peak hours, as well as pressure on our water supplies. Two or three years ago we were alarmed when there was not sufficient water for the Pretoria/Witwatersrand/Vereeniging area. That happened quite recently. Now we are having good rains, and things are going well, but only until we experience another drought. Even now we are having to pump water from one catchment area across a mountain to another. In addition there is an overloading of services such as power and telephones. I am not even mentioning pollution. One thinks of atmospheric pollution and noise pollution. No, Sir, there are sound reasons as well for moving away from the idea of centralization. In South Africa, as has already been said, we also have an additional social reason. This is that we should like to have people living and working in their family context. We should like to confine migratory labour to a minimum as much as possible, and it is also our aim to strengthen the Bantu areas economically as much as possible through the re-establishment of industries within their homeland, as well as on their borders. In addition to that we also have the Coloured population of South Africa. Here we have the phenomenon that they migrate in large numbers to certain points to seek work there.

We have already built up the necessary machinery. Reference was made to this machinery today, but I think that it has already been built up well. We have the Growth Points Committee which selects growth points. It falls under my department, under the chairmanship of the Secretary for planning. What are the factors they are taking into consideration? For example they are taking into consideration the population pressure, the number of people at a place where it is possible to create a growth point. They also establish whether a growth point, if it were to be declared at a certain place, would have a chance of succeeding. Therefore they investigate the position of such a place in respect of raw materials, marketing, transportation, water supply, etc. After all, it will be of no avail declaring a place which does not have sufficient water to be a growth point, for then a dam might also have to be built at tremendous cost. A place which is declared to be a growth point must be able to serve a certain purpose, namely to provide a group of people from a certain population group—be it White, Indians, Coloureds or Bantu—with sufficient work. We also consider another factor which has been mentioned, namely the depopulation of the rural areas. If a place, if it were declared to be a growth point, could help to counteract the depopulation of the rural areas, this is a sound consideration in favour of the declaration of that growth point.

However, preparing places as growth points requires a great deal of capital. It goes without saying that growth points cannot be declared simultaneously, for example, at De Aar, Britstown, Prieska, Carnarvon, Williston and Calvinia, for all these growth points have to be prepared as far as infrastructure is concerned, and also as far as the establishment of an industrial township, of transport facilities, water and power supply, sewerage services, housing, etc. are concerned. If so many places are simultaneously declared to be growth points, it would be simply impossible for development to take place, and it would mean that money had been wasted. Growth points should be selected, and only a limited number should be developed at any given juncture. In addition the facilities which are created at a growth point should of course be of the same calibre as the facilities which the industrialists have at their disposal in the metropolitan areas of South Africa. The State cannot offer the industrialists poor facilities in the decentralization areas. The facilities which are provided at growth points should consequently be used, for otherwise it would simply be a waste of money.

Before I deal with the growth points themselves, I come to the method for the establishment of the infrastructure. This is done in two ways. In the first place it is done by my department. We have done this at Richards Bay with great success, andwe are also going to be instrumental in the establishment of the infrastructure at Saldanha. If we cannot do this ourselves, we make use of the local authority under whose jurisdiction the growth point falls. We lend the local authority the necessary money at sub-seconomic interest rates, and they then undertake the development in co-operation with us and to a certain extent under our supervision. The amount which has up to now been spent on infrastructure at the growth points of South Africa is,together with those amounts in one or two other places which are not growth points…

Are all these places outside the Bantu homelands?

Yes, all these places are situated outside the homelands. All the places I am dealing with are situated outside the homelands, for the motion relates only to areas outside the homelands. I am not referring at all to the homelands, and no figures which I shall quote have any bearing on the homelands. If the amount which is now being requested in the Additional Appropriation is included, an amount of R67½ million has been spent during the past 11 years by my department or through the agency of my department in the 14 growth points which we have at the moment in South Africa, and in one of two other places. I am mentioning this figure to point out that we have not been idle as far as the application of this policy is concerned, and that a great deal has been done at selected points in the White area of South Africa. I have the figures for the various places here, but I do not want to quote them all.

Let us consider the industrial development which has taken place outside the homelands of South Africa. In that year, in 1961, the National Party decided on the policy of decentralization. Two years of planning followed, and in 1963 the buildings had already been constructed. In 1964 the factories were able to begin production. One can therefore say that in reality this policy has only been in operation for a matter of ten or eleven years. The three places to which it was easiest to go and which were developed first were Rosslyn, Hammarsdale and Pietermaritzburg. Today no industrialists are receiving any further benefits in those areas, and I can just say in passing that the Government is recovering virtually all the money it invested in those areas from the sale of industrial sites. The calculations which I have seen give me good reason to believe that all the moneys which were invested in that development, will be recovered. A total of 108 factories with a total capital investment of R15 million were established in these three areas. The IDC contributed R40,5 million of that amount. These 108 factories brought about a total additional employment of 18 058 persons in those areas.

In addition there are 14 growth points which are situated in White areas. I could mention the names of these places for the information of the hon. member for East London City. These 14 growth points in the Cape include East London, King Willieam’s Town, Kimberley, Dassenberg, Darling and Berlin. At these 14 growth points 142 factories have been established in the past 11 years. The total capital investment in industries amounts to R296 million, of which the IDC contributed R105 million. The total employment in these factories was 30 558.

Now I want to refer to the rest of the White rural areas in South Africa. Besides the three growth points with which a start was made and besides the 14 growth points which I have mentioned., there were 44 towns in South Africa in regard to which the IDC or the State appropriated money for industrial development, and where industrial development consequently took place. I want to furnish hon. members with the names of a few of the places and particulars of the development which took place there. At Berlin more than R7 million was invested in factories, of which the IDC contributed more than R 3million. At Darling more than R1 million was invested, of which the IDC contributed almost R600 000. At Dassenberg an amount of R900 000 has so far been invested, and from next year Dassenberg will be prepared to receive its industries. We know of major industries which will move to Dassenberg. At Kimberley an amount of almost R2½ million was invested, at King William’s Town an amount of R24 million, and at East London almost R61 million.

That is minimal.

The hon. member is saying that it is minimal. I must apologize because I have made a mistake. I wanted to discuss the 44 places outside the 14 growth points, but I have furnished information in regard to the 14 growth points. I just want to mention a few further towns without furnishing particulars of the amounts which were spent there. Included in these places are Burgersdorp, George, Kuruman, Middelburg, Cape, Oudtshoorn, Queenstown, Stutterheim, Upington, Vryburg and Worcester. At Vryburg four factories have been established. The IDC invested an amount of R600 000 in these. At Upington one factory has been established with the assistance of the IDC.

How many factories in Stutterheim?

In Stutterheim four factories have been established, and the contribution made by the IDC was R380 000. The total investment in factories there was. R2 million. Let us see what places in the Free State are being affected. They are the following:. Bloemfontein, Bethlehem, Harrismith, Heilbron …

Zastron.

… and Zastron. The hon. member is quite correct. At these 44 places a total of 93 factories were established, which entailed a total expenditure of R130,5 million, of which the IDC contributed R34 million. The total employment in these 44 places was 17 257.

Over these 11 years, therefore, a total of 343 industries were established in the White areas of South Africa with the assistance of the Department of Planning, which provided the necessary infrastructure, and with the assistance of the IDC, which channelized the contribution of the State and assisted the industrialists. These 343 industries were established with a total capital investment of R585 million, of which R180 million was contributed by the IDC. In this process 68 685 additional employment opportunities were created.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has figures at hand which indicate what the average capital investment for the creation of work opportunities is.

Those figures one obtains if one divides the one figure into the others. A total investment of R585 million which created 68 685 work opportunities, amounts to an average investment of R8 530 per worker having been made.

He could not make that little calculation himself.

Apart from this industrial development which has been set in motion with the assistance of the authorities, other industries have also been established without assistance from the authorities. These other industries have also employed an additional 30 000 people according to an estimate made by the IDC. In other words, after the decentralization policy was created, 100 000 people found work in industries in the rural White areas. Consequently townships had to be established, roads constructed, and schools built. It has been proved that for each worker who is employed in industries, there are 1,5 workers who are employed in a supplementary capacity. In other words, a further 150 000 workers have been added, and this means that a total of 250 000 workers have found employment as a result of the decentralization policy in the White areas of South Africa.

I think we can say that this decentralization policy has been a great success. With that I do not want to say that we should not achieve an even greater success. We still have to do a great deal more, and there are only two ways in which this can be done. The one way is to utilize the Physical Planning Act more strongly and more stringently. We could apply section 3 of that Act more stringently. This is one way, and I want to say in passing that I was surprised this afternoon to hear the hon. member for East London City advocating this way of doing it.

I said it was because your policy …

This has not been done before in this House by the Opposition. I shall look at the hon. member’s Hansard, but my time is running out. In any case, that is what I understood the hon. member to be saying. The other way is to intensify the financial incentive measures, particularly in respect of certain areas. That is what I advocate. I think that is what should be done. I fact, at this moment the Government is giving attention to this aspect. But I think that there are certain areas to which decentralization is more difficult to achieve than to other areas. There can be no doubt about that. I want to say that I have nothing against the industries which go to Butterworth, but I should very much like to see the stage being reached where there are as many industries and even more going to East London, Berlin, Stutterheim and Queenstown, for the preservation of a strong and powerful economy in that part of our country is quite essential for the survival of the Whites in that area, and also of the two Bantu homelands adjoining that area. That is why we are looking into this aspect. We will do our best in so far as it is in any way possible for us.

The Growth Points Committee is constantly considering new growth points and will give attention to Cradock, Beaufort West, De Aar and Upington and others, for we realize that we must have even more growth points in the heartlands of the Cape and the Free State. We realize that these parts of our country are being depopulated. However, not every town can be an industrial town. Let us be honest and bring this fact to the attention of our people. Not every town in South Africa can become a Johannesburg. Just as every individual has his position in life, so each town must find its position in the overall structure of South Africa, and make the best of it. Then its people will be happy. However, we can select certain points and see what we can accomplish there, for I think this is in the interests of our country. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central furnished a reply at an early stage in the debate when he was making a plea for Cradock. He said that we do in fact have growth points. We have Kimberley. In respect of Kimberley his words, however, were: “There is no development there”. Why is there no development? After all, it is a growth point. If the declaration of a town to be a growth point has to be the alpha and the omega, one need only declare a place to be a growth point and it will grow like a mushroom. However, that is not the way it happens. The Government does not have a barrow load of industrialists with which it can travel about the country and say: Here is one for your town, and two for your town, and three for yours. The entrepreneur is the rarest of commodities—if I may call them that— in the country. One can make bricks, one can buy steel and construct a factory, and one can order machinery from overseas, but the person who has to be in control of it all, the man with the know-how, the drive and the skill …

The whizz-kid.

Yes, that whizz-kid, is the most valuable item in the entire setup. We must not lose sight of that fact. Nor should we try only to promote the interests of the rural areas in the industrial sphere. It is true that we may not neglect that aspect; we shall look into it, but we must make use of all favourable factors. We must mine and process the minerals of Namaqualand and the North-West, and for that reason I accept the pleas which have once again been made here today for railways lines, tarred roads and sufficient water. We must open up those areas, for in them we have an asset which we can develop for our rural areas. We must develop the Orange River Valley and try to ensure that industries are established there, if possible industries based on agriculture. However, we cannot save the Southern Free State, which is being depopulated as far as Whites are concerned, and in which the number of Coloureds are increasing, by means of industries alone. The same applies to the Cape.

There is one last point I also want to make clear. West of the Fish-Cat line an industrialist from any town may approach the Decentralization Board and on the basis of Coloured labour begin an industry there and apply on merit for industrial benefits. That applies to any town, including Graaff-Reinet. Middelburg, Cape, has quite a number of industries.

Small factories.

Yes, small factories, but they are making a good start

They are making Coca-Cola there.

Let them manufacture Coca-Cola. What is the difference between a Coca-Cola factory and a meat canning factory, in regard to which a plea was made here? The one manufactures one commodity, and the other manufactures something else. I want to make the point that although these towns are not growth points, an industrialist who establishes himself there, or a local person, on the basis of the employment of Coloureds, may apply for benefits. Usually it is the small industries that are established in these small places, and in many cases it is done by local people. The IDC has for that reason a Small Industry Division which concentrates for the most part on encouraging the small industrialist. They say that such an industrialist is either a success or a failure. If he is a success, he is the major industrialist of tomorrow. The same situation occurs in the Free State, in certain towns which are not growth points, but in which industrialists may apply for decentralization benefits on merit. This is also the case in Natal, for example, at Verulam, Stanger, etc., as well as in the Transvaal. When a town adjoins a Bantu homeland, even if it is not a growth point, an industrialist may, on the basis of Bantu labour, apply for decentralization benefits on merit.

I trust that I have made it clear that the Government is not indifferent to these matters. I trust that I have conveyed to you that we are in earnest in regard to this matter, and that we are not merely satisfied with the results which we have achieved. This was a good discussion because it will once again bring this matter to the attention of the Government.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. the Minister for his reply and participation in this debate. I also want to thank other hon. members on this side of the House, on that side of the House and the hon. member of the Progressive Party who participated. I think that if this debate will lead to a better understanding of our industrial problems—and I believe it can—and also to more balanced economic development in South Africa based on sound economic principles, it will have served its purpose well. I do hope that when the hon. Minister announces the 15th growth point—he said that there are 14— it will not be so far from the area in which I reside. With these few words I thank everybody who has participated. I withdraw this motion.

With leave, motion withdrawn.