I move as an unopposed motion—

That the House at its rising on Thursday, 28 May, adjourn until Friday, 29 May, at 2.15 p.m. instead of at 10 a.m.

Agreed to.

I want to direct the hon. Minister’s attention to Item 9, that is the proposed new tax on pipe tobacco. When the hon. Minister dealt with this matter at an earlier stage, he said that as a result of the change that is proposed here there would be a reduction in revenue to the extent of something like R500,000. The pertinent question that arises now is: Who is going to receive the benefit of this reduction of R500,000? The hon. Minister said that the reason for these changes is that there are certain administrative difficulties experienced by the department in administering this Act. The hon. Minister added that one of the reasons for the change was that there should not be any variation in the present retail prices of tobacco. The question is who is going to get the benefit of the R500,000? As far as I can see the only people who are going to get the benefit are the wholesalers or the manufacturers. What about the producers and what about the consumers? It seems to me a shortsighted approach when changes of this nature are made that the Department or the Minister cannot come forward with a proposition for a reduction in the tax whereby the benefit at least would go to the producer or the consumer. I know I have a great deal of sympathy from the hon. Minister when I raise this matter here, because I understand he is also a pipe smoker. I also realize the difficulties the hon. Minister has. He is not responsible for this legislation. He is merely acting in this matter. But I hope that the hon. Minister can give us some indication as to what it is intended to be done with the R500,000. The position is rather serious for the producer in the country at the present moment. According to figures that I have available on the 1963 crop alone there is something like 24,000,000 lbs. pipe tobacco surplus and the estimate for the 1965 crop is already that there will be something like 20,000,000 lbs. pipe tobacco as a surplus. If we are going to be faced in the 1965 season with something like 40,000,000 lbs. pipe tobacco, one would have expected that in such circumstances steps would have been taken in order to get possibly a greater consumption of tobacco, because this type of tobacco is largely smoked by people who fall into the lower income group, and they are certainly not getting any benefit out of the R500,000. And what about the producer who sits with these large surpluses of pipe tobacco? Is the producer not going to get any benefit either? If you take the R500,000, the producer might get an additional 2 cents or 3 cents per lb. for the tobacco that he is producing. What I cannot understand in regard to the reasons given by the hon. Minister is that it is impossible to evolve a scheme whereby pipe tobacco can be taxed at the point of sale, on the basis of the retail price. It can be done in the case of cigarettes, but the Minister now says that one of the difficulties is that tobacco is sold loose in 10 lb. containers. My information is that less than 10 per cent of the entire pipe tobacco sales are affected by this method of selling tobacco in 10 lb. containers in order that the retailer may sell small lots in ounces across the counter. The tobacco sold to the lower income groups is usually sold in ¼ lb. weights and I see no difficulty to do what they do in other countries, i.e. to attach a seal to the ¼ lb. quantities of tobacco. I can also mention for the hon. Minister’s information that a ¼ lb. of the ordinary type of mediocre tobacco is sold at 19 cents a ¼ lb., and of the 19 cents nearly 9 cents of that is taxation. One therefore would have expected the Government to have come forward with a reasonable rebate on this type of taxation so as to benefit either the consumer or the producer. We on these benches consider this to be a most unsatisfactory method of presenting taxation proposals in this form, merely to overcome administrative difficulties.

I explained at the second reading what the reasons are for the new formula. I said that first of all the present formula was almost impossible to administer, and also that it had an adverse effect on the quality to the tobacco being sold. The reason for that is that the present excise duties and the rebates on pipe tobacco have the effect of block duties with considerable jumps from one block to another. The differentiation between the blocks is based on the retail price which is a variable factor and cannot be satisfactorily controlled or verified. I gave that information in my reply. The effect of the existing duties is to restrict quality as the result of the big differences in duty between two duty blocks. The introduction of numerous small retail packets has made the administration of the duty virtually impossible, and the Department consequently have to find a new formula that would make it more simple to administer and would give more satisfaction. This was the only formula that could be evolved. I am told that the new formula will eliminate any restriction in the improvement of quality which existed under the old duties. As a result of the many anomalies which existed under the old duties it was very difficult to find a new formula which would not affect prices unduly. The object has to a large extent been achieved, but then, as I said in my second-reading speech, an amount of approximately R500,000 had to be sacrificed. Where the new formula represents a decrease in duties, the consumer should benefit. R500,000 of course on the total amount of tobacco sold is a very small amount, and if there is any decrease it will be a very small one.

I am well aware of the fact that the intention is not to affect the retail prices unduly, but I cannot accept that as a reason.

You will have to.

Well, then it shows that the Government has very little sympathy for the few pleasures enjoyed by the lower income groups.

¼c per lb. would not make a great difference.

Of course that would not make all that difference, but 2c does and 3c does, and what is the effect going to be? But my question is why should the wholesaler or the manufacturer get R500,000 benefit when the Government should have come forward with proposals to benefit the consumers or at least the producers. That is the whole point at issue. But to come forward with a proposal of this nature and to give as a reason that it assists in the administration and secondly that the retail prices must not be unduly affected—what a reason! Why should not the consumer have a lower price tobacco if that is possible? Let me point out to the hon. the Minister that the present price of pipe tobacco is what it is as a result of the extra taxation and surtax on tobacco that was placed on tobacco by the Government some three years ago. Why should not the Government with a R40,000,000 surplus give at least some benefits to the consumers? To come forward and say that it is administratively difficult! If it is administratively possible to put an excise stamp on a packet of cigarettes, and we have different priced cigarettes and different qualities, why can it not be done in this case? After all the excise on tobacco is by weight and not by quality. Surely a government in sympathy with the consumer would have given an extra rebate and would have reduced the tax so that the man in the lower income group who largely consumes this type of tobacco would at least have had some benefit and the producers at the same time would have had the benefit by bringing down the large surplus of pipe tobacco at presently held in the country. The Minister says that R500,000 would only mean ¼c per lb. If the hon. Minister does not want to give it to the consumers, on the present estimate of pipe tobacco that will be produced in the 1965 season, where the producer now gets only 17c maximum for the best top quality tobacco, this R500,000 if given to the producers would mean that they would get another 2c to 3½c per lb. extra. One would have thought that some step would have been taken in this connection. This is a typical example of the little sympathy the Government have for the wants of the little man and the lower income groups in our country.

I am not impressed at all by the hon. member’s sudden sympathy for the lower income groups. That is all nonsense! Smoking tobacco is after all not an essential but a luxury, and it would make no earthly difference to the lower income groups whether he pays ¼c less for his tobacco or ½c. Apparently the hon. member knows much better than my Department does how to administer this Act and how to administer excise duties. He must be an expert. If the hon. member were not a member of Parliament, I would have advised him to make application to the Department of Excise to become appointed there. The hon. member says that this should be given to the producers. Since when when there is a reduction in excise duty, is it given to the producers? The hon. member does not know what he is talking about.

If the hon. Minister says that tobacco smoking is a luxury, does the hon. Minister consider that the total volume of tobacco produced in this country by a large number of farmers rests entirely on what the Government considers is a luxury consumed by the small working man? If the hon. Minister says it is a luxury, the cheap tobacco, why does not the Government take steps to tax it further in accordance with the hon. Minister’s logic? The hon. Minister says that the Department informs him that it is difficult to administer. I want to ask him whether the Department has consulted anybody else before these changes were made, either through the tobacco industry or the Department of Agriculture or anybody else, because my information is that there was no prior consultation and that the sole consultation has been with the manufacturers? I want to remind the hon. Minister that after the surtax was placed on tobacco three or four years ago as a sop to the producers of tobacco the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services came with a Bill before the House to establish a Tobacco Research Account and he gave R500,000 back to the producers. The purpose of that account was to go into matters of this nature, the marketing of tobacco products and how it could more readily be made available to the consumers. I want to ask the hon. Minister whether the Department has consulted the Board of the Tobacco Research Account? But as I say, this is the typical manner in which this Government carries on. “It is purely an administrative matter, let the man in the street pay what we think is proper, and give to the big boy R500,000. Give it to the big boy but give nothing to the little man”.

Schedule put and agreed to.

Title put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

I move as an amendment—

This is the definition clause, and if this amendment is accepted, it will mean a slight widening of the scope of the definition of “office”. Mr. Chairman, if you refer to the explanatory memorandum, you will see that the definition of “office” has been altered and has been extended by bringing in the words “cashier or a telephone switchboard operator”. So the purpose of this amendment is to bring into the purview of this Bill those persons who are employed in small offices where there is no switchboard but where they employ a telephone attendant. A number of small agencies that exist have persons in their employ who are merely telephone attendants, but the nature of their type of work and the size of the office does not necessitate the installation of a switchboard. Consequently they do not have a switchboard operator. Therefore I hope that the hon. Minister will accept this amendment, the object of which is to extend the protection of this Bill to persons so employed in business concerns.

The switchboard operator is included under the definition. Now if there is a telephone attendant—I do not know of any case where there is a telephone attendant who does nothing else but attend to the telephone.

Oh yes!

In most cases that have come to my notice a telephone attendant usually does clerical work as well. Can the hon. member give me any case where a telephone attendant is the only person who is employed on that particular job and who does nothing else? It seems to me that a telephone switchboard operator may also be a telephone attendant. I do not think this definition here limits it to a switchboard operator who is sitting at the switchboard all the time. There are many cases where the switchboard attendant also does other work, clerical work. Can the hon. member give me instances where a telephone attendant does nothing else, does that work exclusively? Then I will be glad to get such examples.

The reason for the amendment is that I know of cases where persons are employed as telephone attendants to receive messages. They are employed in agencies. Whether the hon. Minister considers that by virtue of the fact that the person will write down a message she will be brought under the definition of an office employee I do not know, but I know of many instances where persons are employed at a point where they receive telephone messages at small agencies and where they record messages received over the telephone. The reason for this amendment is that the definition as it stands specifically states “a telephone switchboard operator”. I fail to understand how the hon. Minister can say that a person who is a telephone attendant will be a switchboard operator. If there is no switchboard, and that is the case I am putting forward, then there can be no switchboard operator. The people I have in mind are people who are merely there to answer the telephone, but there need not be a switchboard.

The hon. Minister’s argument is a little difficult to follow, because if this Bill covers the position of a telephone switchboard operator, one can hardly imagine a switchboard operator not doing a certain amount of writing as well. That person would probably fall under the Act as doing work of a clerical nature, although it is not the main occupation of the person. If the argument of the hon. Minister is that the person that answers the telephone, more or less exclusively, but also does a little bit of writing, would fall within the ambit of the Bill, then there is no reason for the switchboard operator being specially included. If there is a need to mention the switchboard operator specifically, then there is just as great a need to mention a person who is answering a telephone. Most likely both of them will also do a certain amount of clerical work. I think we must have clarity in regard to the position rather than to discover that girls who operate a switchboard are covered, but girls who answer three or four telephones as their main duty, are excluded.

Did you discuss the matter in the select committee?

No, but the weakness that we now detect is that because a switchboard operator is mentioned, we may be excluding a person who does the same type of work in an office which has not got a switchboard but may have three or four telephones to attend to.

I have no strong feelings in the matter and if the hon. members can assure me that the work of this particular person whom they have in mind is primarily to attend to the telephone …

Yes.

Then I will accept the amendment.

The hon. Minister will know that in most modern offices to-day the Post Office has introduced a new type of telephone, the P.A.B.X. system, and under that system there is no necessity for a switchboard. A girl can answer three telephones and put a call through to the appropriate office. In many modern offices to-day they have dispensed with switchboards and introduced a bank with two or three telephones which connect to probably 20 or 30 lines in the organization through the P.A.B.X. system, and one operator sits in one office and answers the telephone all day long without the aid of a switchboard. I think this meets the case the hon. members have in mind.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I move as an amendment—

The first leg of this amendment deals with the concession made by the select committee to the mining industry. The mining industry asked that it should be stated very clearly that underground workers who fortuitously used a pen or pencil should not fall under this Act. The select committee made that concession and we find it in Clause 2 (1) (o) which reads as follows—

After the Bill was published the mining industry made further representations and pointed out that all mines did not always have a shaft. Some mines are open and others go down at an angle. In other words, there are even mines which we thought should be excluded from this Bill which will be included. In the second place they also pointed out that there were some people who worked above ground but who did not do office work but who do use a pencil or a pen. If hon. members look at the definition of “premises” they will find that it is very wide. It is defined as follows “any land and any building or structure above or below the surface of any land and includes any vehicle, aircraft or vessel”. In other words, it is very wide. The object of the Bill is to cover all bona fide office workers. If there are people like artisans who work on the surface at a mine and who have to use a pencil to make certain notes or to complete requisition forms for material or tools from the magazine or who have to fill in their work sheets or sign them, it does not follow that they are office workers. That is why I think we should have this amendment. You have the same position in other industries like the motor industry and the building industry. In the motor industry you find that mechanics have to sign their cards and fill in requisition forms for spares, etc.

They are covered by an agreement.

That is why I want to move this amendment. That was the first leg. The second leg deals with a concession made by the select committee in respect of employers who have so-called gentlemen’s agreements with their employees, and employees who are prepared to enter into such agreements with their employers. The select committee have given those employers the opportunity, in Clause 2 (1) (u) of handing in those agreements with the Department and if the Minister of Labour is satisfied that the conditions of those gentlemen’s agreements are not less favourable than the minimum requirements laid down in the Bill he can grant them exemption. Clause 2 (1) (u) provides for 100 employees. On reconsidering this clause it was thought that this minority of workers could bind the majority. If there are 1,000 workers and 100 enter into an agreement they can bind the remaining 900. To make it clear that a majority agreement is the basis of our Industrial Conciliation Act you have to prove that an agreement entered into by the majority is representative of the minority. The reason why this clause has been inserted is to make it clear that a minority of workers in a certain class cannot bind the majority. I therefore feel that this amendment is a further concession, in that it can take place on a regional basis. In other words employers in a certain town or certain region may now enter into such an agreement with a certain class of employee and submit it to the Department for exemption. This is an improvement on the old clause.

I think the best illustration of the need for this amendment in the form in which it is now is the evidence given to us by the representatives of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange on page 179 of the report of the select committee. The question was put to one of those witnesses: What about the possibility of drawing up a gentlemen’s agreement such as those, for instance, applicable in certain banks? And Mr. Ferguson, on behalf of the Stock Exchange, replied that he saw no reason why that should not be possible. Now at the time the Bill was before the select committee we did not have this clause in it allowing for collective bargaining between employers and employees who are not registered as trade unions, or employers’ associations in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act. We spoke there of gentlemen’s agreements because those were permitted and made possible under the existing Wage Act. So that the provision we are now discussing will take the place of gentlemen’s agreements and so far as the Johannesburg Stock Exchange is concerned it would mean, because of the nature of their work, that if the majority of the employees together with the employers agree to conditions of employment, hours of work, etc. and that agreement is submitted to the Department of Labour and is accepted, then certain provisions of this Act would then not apply. Those were the provisions which the Johannesburg Stock Exchange were very much concerned about. So that as I see the position now, the provision we are now inserting will make it very easy for an institution such as the Stock Exchange to overcome its difficulties, provided they can arrive at an agreement with their employees which the Department of Labour will find acceptable, upon which the other provisions of the Bill will take effect and such agreement will be binding, the tremendous advantage being that this will be as the result of collective bargaining in an undertaking which has peculiarities in so far as its hours of work are concerned, and the employers and employees in such an undertaking are in the best position to judge of the type of agreement which would meet the specific difficulties they have, provided, of course, that the Department of Labour is satisfied that the new proposals do not do violence to the provisions of this Act.

I am going to accept this amendment. I think it is an improvement on the existing sub-sec. (q). It makes it quite clear that instead of a minority of 100 employees having the right to enter into agreements, it simply provides for the majority to enter into agreements. There are many industries where there are considerably more than 100 employees. There are some where there may be 1,000. I think it is only fair that the provision should be that if the majority of the employees wish to enter into an agreement, that provision should be inserted instead of the original (q).

I wish to refer to paragraph (g) of this clause. It provides for the exclusion of certain types of employees. It reads, “employees on work or in connection with any university, college, school or other educational institution”. I see good reason to exclude that group of employees in terms of this clause. However, I believe that in defining “other educational institutions” a large number of employees could be excluded from the provisions of this Bill, if an amendment is not made to this paragraph. I wish to move—

We know that at the universities, colleges and schools and other educational institutions the employees have to work at various hours and times, and therefore they are excluded from the provisions of the Bill. But now there are those employees employed in the offices of correspondence schools and colleges, which employ clerks, typists and cashiers and others, who should fall under the definition of an office, but due to the fact that they could be classified as “other educational institutions” it could mean that those persons might be excluded from the provisions of this Bill. Therefore I hope that the Minister will give consideration to this aspect. There are a large number of these correspondence schools and colleges and they are even called academies, and a number of these employees are called upon to work long hours. They do not benefit from the normal school holidays and vacations which come the way of those employed at universities, colleges and schools. Therefore the object of my amendment is to exclude those persons who are employed at such educational institutions which are partly or wholly maintained by public funds, which means that the employees of correspondence schools and colleges will also enjoy the protection provided in the other clauses of the Bill.

This is a reasonable amendment and I will accept it.

I think there is one point we should bear in mind in regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt), and that is where an agreement is effected by a class of employees in a particular trade, that there will be no limitation of the income level of the employees concerned if they arrive at an agreement approved by the Minister. So one may say that in that respect the amendment which the hon. member has moved and which the Minister has accepted enlarges the scope of this Bill because it supplies the necessary incentive to employees to organize themselves to get better conditions than the Bill actually provides, and those better conditions will obviously apply without any limitation of an income ceiling. It will apply to all employees in that trade. We should appreciate that. I mention that because I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

That is in so far as paragraph (n) is concerned. That does not set a ceiling: it simply gives a figure, an arbitrary figure in the Bill, which is not fixed and which can be altered in terms of Clause 14 at any time, because the Bill accepts the principle that this is not a predetermined figure but merely a guide to the Minister as to the level at which the Bill will apply. Clause 14 makes it quite clear that the principle accepted there can be extended in any direction; it can either be reduced or increased. What I cannot understand is this, that here we are providing a workers’ charter to cover many more thousands of workers than are covered by either gentlemen’s agreement or industrial agreements, and what we are seeking to do here is to place a limitation on those persons who will have this legislative protection as far as their conditions of work, leave, sick leave, etc., are concerned. It seems to me that taking into consideration the position that applies in the Factories Act, the figures stated in the Bill are unrealistic. Admittedly, this figure is only there as a guide, because in Clause 14 the principle is accepted that it can be extended to any limit which the Minister wishes to apply. But I want to suggest to the Minister that we should take another guide. We should take the figure laid down in regard to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. There the ceiling is fixed at R2,500 a year. All persons earning up to that level can enjoy the benefits of the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and there was a good reason for increasing it to R2,500, because it was recognized that people will receive promotion, that there is a reduction in the value of money and an increase in the cost of living, and other factors. But this figure mentioned here is unrealistic, even in the light of what the Department itself has done. I am surprised that the Minister did not refer to this when his attention was drawn to it in the second reading, because the Minister said that he accepted as his guide the figure laid down in the Factories Act, and that figure can also be laid down by proclamation, as is provided here. I want to point out to the Minister that where we have a figure of R1,920 in Area A, that figure was fixed in August 1963 and for a period of ten years before that there was no change, because in 1953 the figure was only R1,560. But now in March 1964, seven months later, since the fixing of the last figure of R1,980, the Minister by proclamation under the Factories Act has increased the figure to R2,110 in Area A and R1,980 for Area B, and R1,850 for Area C. The Minister says he stands by the Factories Act in regard to accepting these figures, but I want to ask him to look a bit ahead. We want to cover as many people as possible, and the difference between R2,110 and R2,500 is very small, because the increase granted in the eight-month period from August 1963 to March 1964 is more than the difference that I am suggesting in my amendment. I would therefore plead with the Minister to give very sympathetic consideration to this amendment, because from the very nature of our industrial complex the bulk of the white collar workers are covered by Area A, which embraces all the magisterial districts of our major industrial centres. Area B covers the new emerging rural industrial areas where there is not the same level of income and standards of living and cost of living as in the more highly industrialized urban areas. But I would plead with the Minister to accept this. We know what the position is. The evidence is clearly there, as was given by his own Department, and I would plead with him to accept this figure of R2,500 because it is in his power, in terms of Clause 14, to extend the level, and it is inevitable that he will have to do so in a very short time, because of the pressure that comes from the workers themselves.

My final plea to the Minister is this. We are attempting to protect the white collar workers, but not only white collar workers who are White, but also white collar workers who are Black and Coloured. There is no racial discrimination in this measure whatsoever; there is no apartheid in it. This applies to all workers in South Africa, no matter the colour of their skins. This is the finest piece of legislation to serve as a shop window for South Africa and to counter the adverse propaganda, and I ask the Minister to accept this figure of R2,500 to show that we make no distinction on the grounds of colour and that we want to embrace the widest possible number of workers.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has seen fit to move this amendment.

I regret that I am unable to accept the amendment proposed by Mr. Durrant as it seeks to extend the scope of the Bill to a class of employers not contemplated by the Bill as read a second time.

May I address you on that, Sir?

Order! I am sorry but I cannot accept the amendment.

On a point of order …

Order! Will the hon. member please resume his seat. I have given my ruling.

I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to Clause 2 (1) (m), I wish to point out to the Minister that as it reads at the moment certain office workers whom we should very much like to include will be excluded. There are many receptionists in doctors’ and dentists’ consulting rooms to-day who are mainly concerned with making the appointment, making out the accounts and attending to the telephone. But at the same time a certain percentage of their work consists of assisting at small operations or handing instruments to the dentist. I should like to get clarity from the Minister whether, as the clause reads at the moment, it will not exclude that type of worker and if so I want to plead with the Minister that that type of worker who assists the doctor or the dentists to a very small degree with the handing over of instruments, should definitely be included as far as this legislation is concerned.

The second point I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister is in connection with (o) which says “who is wholly or mainly engaged in work which is performed below the collar of the shaft of a mine”. I should like to know this. What about the case of the sampler and the surveyor on a mine? Are they included in this legislation or excluded? I maintain that a surveyor on a mine, although he works below the collar of the shaft, spends most of his time in the office. He only goes underground once or twice per month. I should like to know what the position is of that type of worker. Are they included or excluded? Where the amendment of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) wants to extend the scope of the legislation, where he refers to people who only occasionally use a pencil what about all the clerks who work in the stores on the mines? Are they included?

Yes.

In regard to this amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein, which you disallowed, I should like you to consider the position that has now revealed itself. In sub-section (6) we have the position that the State President may from time to time by proclamation in the Gazette amend paragraph (n) of sub-section (1) by increasing any amount mentioned therein. Does that mean that because of your ruling this sub-section will be out of order as well? Because if the principle has been accepted that there cannot be an amendment of this amount, the provision that the State President may by proclamation increase it would seem to be an anomaly. I think we should have your ruling, Sir, on sub-section (6), so that we can understand what the position is.

I do not think it should be discussed further at this stage.

May I therefore move—

Agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I wish to move—

The Minister has given various reasons why he is not prepared to reduce the figure from 46 to 44, but he did invite further discussion in the Committee Stage because he said he had an open mind in this regard. The first point that the Minister made was that there were many different types of offices not covered up to now, in support of the rejection of the reduction of the hours worked per week. I think for that reason, coupled with the further reason which he gave, namely that the reduction of the hours of work should be left to collective bargaining, indicates that, what the Minister has in mind here is that he would rather have the 46-hour provision remain in the Bill and that if as the result of collective bargaining there is a reduction to 44 hours or less, he will be prepared to reconsider the position in this Bill. I think we have to accept that as the result of collective bargaining in relation to workers who are covered by this measure, we already have a reduction from 46 to 45 hours, and that if we were to go by the criterion of collective bargaining we will discover that the majority of agreements which are being made throughout the Republic to-day are laying down less than 46 hours a week as the maximum hours to be worked. I would suggest that the tide is running against the Minister, and that in fact collective bargaining has brought about a reduction in the working hours below the 46 hours specified in this Bill. Then there is also the point made by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) that the select committee was morally bound not to accept a reduction from 46 to 44 hours, but there again I cannot see that discussions on the select committee can bind the Minister who, of course, is not part and parcel of that select committee. The hon. member feels that the select committee is under a moral obligation; I fail to see that, because he did not get specific evidence that there would be hardship if the hours were reduced from 46 to 44.

They never asked for that.

In evidence the hope was expressed that there would be a change in the figure of 46 hours. Many of the witnesses were surprised to find out what was really meant by a 46-hour week. Many of them did not realize that they did not have to pay over-time until such time as more than 46 hours had been worked. They were thinking in terms of what is the practice in their particular industry, and that is that the accepted number of working hours per week is 42. That being the case I am convinced that if we were to receive representations from the same representatives who gave evidence before the select committee, they would point out that in fact their employees are working less than 46 hours to-day, and the only question would be whether an undue burden would be placed upon them if they had to pay overtime rates after 44 hours in any one week rather than 46. I feel therefore that the case made out by the hon. member is not very strong, and I would not like it to be thought that Parliament is bound by what happened in the select committee in this regard. I am quite sure that that is not an argument which is going to weigh very heavily with the hon. the Minister, but if it does then there is no way of bringing about this change unless this matter is referred at a later stage to a select committee to get specific evidence on this point. I do not think that that is a reasonable way of approaching this matter, so I would ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider this position and also to take into account the fact that the International Labour Organization had also suggested that member countries should aim at a 40-hour week. What the hon. member for Pretoria (West) had to say in connection with that organization was a clear indication to me that they were thinking in terms of a country that decided to introduce a 40-hour week not a 44-hour week as we are suggesting here. I cannot see the same degree of disruption arising out of a reduction in the weekly working hours by two hours as I could well imagine if there was a reduction of six hours. The Minister also made the point that if he accepted the suggestion to reduce the number of hours to 44, many offices would have to be reorganized. Well, reorganization is part and parcel of the normal activities of any shop or office that is determined to keep up to date with modern trends throughout the world, and one of the trends throughout the world is to get a greater volume of work done in a shorter time, not by reducing staff but by making the staff more efficient and the conditions under which they work more comfortable. It is for that reason that there is this tendency to reduce the working hours rather than to increase it. I think reorganization is something which is normal in any office which is worthy of being called an office. The hon. the Minister also said that because of the sick pay provision there would be this additional burden upon a considerable number of offices and shops which up to now have not paid sick pay. That is true, but the point here is that if in fact the majority of workers who are going to fall under this Bill are working 46 hours, that is a point that we will have to consider in conjunction with the sick leave provision, but our information is that the majority of those who are going to fall under the provisions of this Act are already working 44 hours per week or less, so the question is whether groups of workers who work more than 44 hours should be paid overtime when they work more than 44 hours or whether they should be paid overtime when they work more than 46 hours. That appears to me to be the only additional cost factor which would come into the picture. The existing position has existed over the last 25 years; there has been no reduction in the working hours during that period and it seems to me that this is the time to bring the provisions of this Bill in line with what is accepted to-day as normal practice. That is why I have moved the amendment which I have put forward.

I want to repeat what I have said before: I think the hon. member will place the select committee in a difficult position if his amendment were accepted. You will see from the report of the select committee, Sir, that hon. members of the Opposition did not make any suggestion and did not ask any employers to give evidence in connection with a 44-hour week. On the contrary, in all our attempts to persuade employers to accept this Bill we put it clearly to them that the Bill made provision for a 46-hour week and, as the hon. member himself has said, many of the employers did not understand it very well. Where their employees had been working a 40-hour week they were under the impression that as soon as their employees worked more than 40 hours they would have to pay overtime. We explained to them that that was not the position; that the maximum was 46 hours. In other words, if their staff worked a 40-hour week they had a 6-hour reserve which their staff could work before they would be legally obliged to pay overtime. As the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) pointed out the other day, we, together with hon. members of the Opposition who served on the select committee, brought the employers under this impression. That is all I want to say in that regard.

I wish to return to the reason advanced by officials who gave evidence why they wanted to retain the 46-hour week. They stated very clearly that the provisions of the principal Act were faily drastically extended in this Bill to a large number of workers who had not previously fallen under the Act. They did not want to increase the burden of the employers. That was why they felt that they did not, at this stage, want to bring about a drastic curtailment of working hours as well.

As far as the I.L.O. is concerned I wish to say that in reality few countries have reduced their working hours in conformity with the request of the I.L.O. In actual fact a convention was held in 1937 where a resolution was adopted asking member countries to reduce their working hours to 40 hours per week, and up to the present only one country, namely New Zealand, has subscribed to that convention, although there are two countries which I have already mentioned, the United States of America and Canada, who also work a 40-hour week but they adopted that for different reasons in the ’thirties. The report of the I.L.O. from which I have quoted really gives the suitable circumstances under which the working hours can be reduced. The I.L.O. mentioned three circumstances. They said in the first place that if there were no pressure on a country’s balance of payments the working hours could be reduced. Well, the hon. member himself knows that in this Budget speech the hon. the Minister of Finance pointed out that the increase in our balance of payments, compared with the increase in the previous fiscal year, had declined tremendously. The increase has decreased from R288,000,000 to R87,000,000. He added that over the last three months of the calendar year our balance of payments more or less just came out square. In other words, it does not seem as though there will be an increase in our balance of payments. Another circumstance referred to by the I.L.O. was that of too much money chasing too little goods; in other words, when there was too much money in relation to the goods. We know we are to-day experiencing a period of prosperity in this country where money is plentiful. As I have already explained, the reason why America adopted a 40-hour week in 1935 was in order to put more money into circulation. There is not the slightest need in this country to-day to put more money into circulation because that will increase the inflationary tendency which already exists. In the third place the I.L.O. says that when plans for economic development are in the process of being implemented the time is ripe to reduce the working hours. We are living at a time when big schemes are being implemented in the country, schemes which have not as yet been completed. In other words, the three factors mentioned by the I.L.O. are all three valid in this country to-day and that is why we cannot reduce the working hours to less than 46 per week. I again want to advance the other argument I have already advanced in connection with this Bill; I said that if the working hours were reduced in this Bill I was convinced the trade unions which came under the Industrial Conciliation Act, and which did not yet work less than 46 hours per week and all the other workers who came under the Wage Act to-day and who did not work less than 46 hours per week, would insist on their working hours being reduced and that that would mean a fairly stiff increase in the wage bill of the country. I also gave another reason and that was the shortage of manpower. We cannot afford to reduce the working hours at the present juncture. That is why I do not think hon. members of the Opposition who have apparently only introduced this amendment to gain a small measure of political advantage, are doing a wise thing by moving it to-day.

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) has raised the question of manpower shortage. He puts that forward as an argument against the acceptance of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) to reduce the weekly working hours from 46 to 44. The hon. members must bear in mind that it was clearly stated in the evidence which was placed before the select committee that in the vast majority of cases, particularly in the distributive trade, employees were working a 42½-hour week at the present time. I cannot see how it is going to affect the manpower position if you reduce the working hours per week by two hours only. I think this question of manpower shortage does not enter into the picture at all as far as this particular aspect is concerned. Sir, the hon. member also referred to the Factories Act. Having had some personal experience of the implementation of the Factories Act and the administration of an office attached to a factory which stands under the Factories Act, I can say with the utmost confidence that there must be very few offices attached to factories where the office staff work a 46-hour week. I know that in a large number of instances they work a five-day week. In factories which are situated away from the centre of the town, employees require time off and they work a five-day week by arrangement with their employers, but they certainly do not work a 46-hour week. If they were to work a 46-hour week, particularly on the basis of a five-day week, it would mean that an officer worker would start at 7.30 a.m.; he would then work until 12.30 p.m., which is five hours; he would then have an hour for lunch; he would start again at 1.30 and he would then be required to work until 5.45, which is four hours 15 minutes. His total number of working hours per day would then be nine hours 15 minutes; over four days that would make a total of 37 hours. He would then work until 5.30 p.m. on one day of the week, which would make a total of 46 hours per week. Sir, I cannot see any employer requiring his office staff who are subject to the Factories Act and who are working a five-day week to work such hours. I think in almost all instances office employees work far shorter hours.

What about factory workers?

Factory workers work 46 hours, I agree with that, but it is an acknowledged fact that employees in offices attached to factories do not work on certain public holidays whereas factory workers do.

If you reduce the number of hours in this Bill they will press for a reduction in their working hours.

Well, they have not done so. During the 12 years during which I was in an office attached to a factory in terms of the Factories Act there were no complaints from the factory workers that they were working longer hours than the office workers. Office workers have never been required to work the same number of hours as factory workers.

They are paid on an hourly basis.

I am dealing here with the number of hours that an employee would be required to work. Sir, this clause provides for a 46-hour week and the hon. member for Pretoria (West) says that the manpower position in South Africa is going to be adversely affected if we reduce the working hours by two hours per week. I believe that in the vast majority of cases the office workers are not working a 46-hour week. How therefore will a reduction of two hours affect the manpower position? If you are going to encourage employers to accept 46 hours as the minimum as well as the maximum number of hours, then I can appreciate that the manpower shortage might be relieved because employees are required to work such extended hours, but I fail to see how the manpower position is going to be affected by reducing the number of hours from 46 to 44 when most of these workers already work 42½ hours. Sir, one of the main complaints of employees in the distributive trade is the long hours that they have to work on Friday evenings and often on Saturdays. If provision is made for a 46-hour week, these people will receive very little benefit from the provisions of this Bill. If workers in shops are required to work 44 hours, it would mean that they would work from 8.0 a.m. to 12.30, 4½ hours, then from 1.30 p.m. to 5.0 p.m., which is 3½ hours, that is to say, eight hours per day for five days and then on Saturdays they would work from 8 a.m. until 12 noon, making a total of 44 hours per week. If, on the other hand, we take the basis which is provided for in this Bill, i.e. a 46-hour week, it would mean that they would be required to work until 5.30 for five days of the week, which would make a total for the five days of 421 hours, and then they would be required to work another 3½ hours from 8.30 a.m. to 12 noon on Saturdays. Sir, you will see that there is not such a great difference, and that is why it baffles me why hon. members opposite are not prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. If they agreed to accept this amendment, they would be making a concession which is in line with the modern trend to shorten the number of working hours. If we had asked for the number of hours to be reduced from 46, to say, 40, then I could understand the opposition from the other side, but in practice we find that in many instances employees, by private arrangement, are already working less than 46 hours per week, but then there are other employees in smaller establishments who are required to work long hours particularly on Friday evening and on Saturdays, and what I have in mind is protection for those people who can so easily be exploited by employers, with the resultant disruption in the daily lives of these people because of the long hours they have to work. I do hope that the hon. the Minister has had an opportunity to reconsider this matter. He did say in the second-reading debate that he had an open mind as far as this aspect was concerned, and when he replied to the second-reading debate he indicated that he had been convinced that the number of hours should be left at 46 hours per week. I hope that after hearing the views expressed in the committee stage, the hon. the Minister will realize that a reduction from 46 to 44 hours will not be such a revolutionary step as suggested by hon. members on that side of the House.

Had hon. members on that side who plead for the working hours to be reduced from 46 hours per week to 44 hours advanced a single good reason, had they proved that it would be in the interests of the workers or in the interests of industry or in the interests of the country, I would not have hesitated to accept the amendment. But apart from a number of vague academic arguments they have not advanced any sound reason why this amendment should be accepted.

I gave practical examples of the number of hours employees could be compelled to work.

That hon. member reminds me of the man who caught an ostrich during the night and who called out in excitement: “I have got him, I have got him”; he held on to that ostrich, as he thought, the whole night only to discover the next morning that he only had a hand full of feathers.

With your record as a former member of the Labour Party, one would have expected you to support this amendment.

That hon. member has no idea what the history is behind the reduction of working hours. Members of the Opposition think that when you discuss the interests of the workers you only have to come forward with a number of academic points and you have justified yourself. No, Sir, no sound reason has been advanced why the amendment of the hon. member should be accepted. If we had said that more people should be employed in these groups for which this Bill makes provision, we would indeed have had a reason to reduce the hours. Moreover we could prove that if these people have to work these longer hours they will be physically overtaxed, you would have had a case, but not one of those hon. members made the slightest attempt to prove that any of those reasons was valid in this case. There is no other yardstick. Of course you can apply all sorts of theoretical yardsticks, but the only thing that is of importance is the interests of the employees, the employers and the economy of the country.

May I ask a question?

The hon. member can take part in the debate later on. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said he moved this amendment in order to bring the employees who came under this measure into line with other employees. He did not tell us, however, with which other employees he wanted to bring them into line and nobody-else on that side told us that. The hon. member must specifically tell us that when he again dares to speak about the interests of the employees. You cannot bring the employees who fall under this Bill into line with other employees in one respect and not in another respect. If you want to bring them into line, as the hon. member put it, with other employees you have to do so in all respects. Sir, when we talk about the interests of the employees who are the people who exert themselves most physically? Is it not the artisan who does manual labour and are his working hours not much longer? To start with, therefore, as far as working hours are concerned, you cannot bring these groups of employees into line with other employees. Why does the hon. member talk such a lot of theoretical nonsense? [Interjections.] That hon. member does not know himself what he has been pleading for. His main plea was that we should bring these employees into line with other employees. With which class of employee? Hon. members of the Opposition make a meaningless plea of this nature and then they wonder why the employees of South Africa despise and reject them more and more. Year after year they come here and pretend to put up a strenuous fight for the interests of the workers, but there is neither rhyme nor reason in their plea. I think they should rather look for recruits for their dwindling party in a field other than the field of the workers. I can assure them that the type of plea they have made here, supposedly in the interests of the workers, will not bring them one recruit from amongst the workers.

Sir, I am surprised to near the views expressed here this afternoon by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) because I can well remember the days when he was a most violent fighter for shorter working hours. He always struggled and fought for a reduction in the number of working hours for the poor working man. I can even remember that on one occasion the hon. member fought so hard for shorter working hours that his political opponents in his constituency chased him up a tree. I remember it very well.

Sir, the hon. the Minister said in the second-reading debate that he had an open mind in this matter of the number of working hours. Well I hope to convince the hon. the Minister in the course of my reply to the points made by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt). The first point the hon. member for Pretoria (West) made was this, he made it quite obviously because the Minister is very much guided by the discussions that took place in the select committee; the hon. member for Pretoria (West) said that we were making his position as chairman of the select committee difficult in moving this amendment because no evidence was submitted on this question in the select committee. Does he still stand by that? [Interjections.] The hon. member says he stands by it. Let me give the hon. member some of the evidence that was put before the select committee; I have all the memoranda here. In the first instance you had the Society of Bank Officials. They indicated to the select committee that they work an average of 39 hours a week. Then you had the trade union representatives. The Trade Union Council of South Africa said—

As the hon. member for Pretoria (West) well knows we took evidence in the main from employers’ representatives although there were certain employees’ organizations who submitted evidence. A very important workers’ organization from which we took evidence was the distributive workers’ organization, which is perhaps the only one truly representative of the class of workers to which this Bill is offering protection. I questioned Mr. Altman who gave evidence before the select committee specifically on the question of a 44-or 46-hour working week. I asked him this question (paragraph 25, page 15)—

Mr. Altman replied—

Sir, there we have direct evidence on this point and there is also other evidence, so I cannot understand how the hon. member for Pretoria (West) can come here and say that no evidence was taken on this point. In the main the employers’ organizations which gave evidence before the select committee did not have any objections to the provisions of this Bill. There was one objection and that came from an agricultural union, I think. The evidence in the main was that the employees worked a week of less than 44 hours. No single employer indicated that his employees worked more than 44 hours. Surely that is the criterion, Mr. Chairman. If it has become the general practice amongst employers in South Africa to let their employees work 44 hours a week and even less in some cases, why should it be provided by law that the working week should be 46 hours per week?

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) said this was drastic legislation. Let me tell the hon. member that when legislation is introduced to improve the working conditions of employees it cannot be described as drastic. Sir, there are so many arguments that can be advanced to convince the hon. the Minister of the desirability of having a 44-hour week. I want to advance just one of those. It is a recognized fact that an employee turns out better work when he works a reasonable number of hours. If he has more time for relaxation, his mind is rested and when he does go back to work he can do a better job of work. That is the trend throughout the world. Let me tell the hon. member for Krugersdorp that even in communist China they have adopted the principle of reducing the number of working hours. They have reduced the number of working hours in communist China to 46 per week.

On what authority do you say that?

If my hon. friend goes to the library and gets the book by Edgar Snow titled “The Other Side of the River” and reads it he will realize that what I am saying is correct. That is the trend throughout the world. In some countries they work 35 hours per week, in other 40 hours, 42 hours and 44 hours. That is also becoming the practice in the industrial agreements of the hon. the Minister.

There is one further argument I wish to advance to the hon. the Minister. In the main this Bill covers people in the lower income bracket—clerks, typists and that type of worker. Many of them are the future mothers of this country, Sir, and I do not think we should do anything that will detract from the role they have to play in this country in future. My hon. friend must think again before he talks against, as he has done, the interests of the workers of South Africa. I do hope the hon. the Minister will seriously reconsider this question. As I have said it has become the practice in this country to work a 44-hour week.

The hon. member for Turffontein says I am wrong in saying this is drastic legislation. But that was not what I said, Mr. Chairman. I said it was a drastic extension because tens of thousands of workers will in future be covered under this legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say this to hon. members of the Opposition: If the Government should lay down in legislation that a working week should consist of 44 hours it is very very clear that the trade unions will start agitating and ask that that be extended to them as well. The select committee tried to strike a balance between the Factories Act and the Shops and Offices Act. Hon. members argue that lesser hours are already being worked in practice but they must remember that the hours laid down here are the maximum hours. If you reduce the maximum hours to 44 hours it may be that certain concerns will make propaganda of the fact that the Government has provided in legislation that not more than 44 hours may be worked a week in the case of certain workers and that that should also be extended to them.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) said there was evidence to the effect that the tendency was to reduce the number of working hours but there was no evidence to that effect. On the contrary we brought the employers under the impression that we were providing for 46 hours per week. In the select committee we did not ask the employers what their attitude would be if we reduced the hours to 44 per week. One of the reasons why the employers were satisfied with this Bill was because it provided for 46 hours whereas most of them already worked only 44 hours or less. The hon. member for Turffontein cannot get away from this point. That was one of the main points of misunderstanding that was removed. The employers were brought under the impression that they would not be legally obliged to pay overtime unless their employees worked more than 46 hours per week. That is why I say that to insist at this late stage that the working hours per week should be reduced can only have adverse repercussions in the country.

I think the best reply to the last speaker and the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) is contained in the evidence given before the Select Committee. Before I deal with that I want to ask the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) and the hon. the Minister to consider this point. Hon. members opposite say that we should not set an example by legislation that may be followed by trade unions. If that is their plea then I can see no difference between the legislative effect of this measure and the legislative effect of the determinations made by the Wage Board.

You know what the effect will be.

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) will agree that a Wage Board determination has the same effect as this legislation because a Wage Board determination is as much an enactment by the Government as this Bill is. I think we are agreed on that.

Let us look at the evidence submitted to us by the National Union of Distributive Workers. It appears on page 14—

In other words, in the very occupations this Bill deals with, i.e., the distributive workers, there is already a wage determination and that wage determination lays down 45 hours per week for employees in principal areas, employees who in terms of this Act can be asked to work 46 hours. Will this argument convince the hon. member for Krugersdorp: If a wage determination in respect of the same type of employee lays down 45 hours in all principal areas of the country why should this Bill lay down 46?

That is the maximum.

Admittedly. But the wage determination lays down a maximum of 45. That is in respect of all the principal areas of the country where most of your employees are. But now we come along with this Bill and say the hours should be 46.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Is he in favour of a 40-hour week?

No, not 40, but I want it reduced to 44. Had I been in favour of 40 hours my amendment would have been to reduce it to 40 but it does not ask that. My amendment asks that the hours be reduced to 44.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider this aspect. If the argument is that anything we do in this Bill will have repercussions on outside industry did the wage determination providing 45 hours have any repercussions? Has there been any unrest as a result of that?

Not unrest, but agitation.

Yes, but what happened? They could not convince their employers that they had a good case for any alteration. But here that is not the case. Here the employers and employees together with the Wage Board agreed that 45 hours were reasonable hours for the week. Even if the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept 44 on the arguments submitted by this side of the House he should at least bring it down to 45 because a wage board determination is already in operation limiting the hours to 45. I think I have the support of the hon. member for Krugersdorp in this regard because this is something that he can support.

I shall now return to the evidence given before the Select Committee. The question was put to the representative of the Trade Union—

It is clear therefore that the average hours worked per week is not 46 hours but less. We also know that a wage determination lays down 45 hours per week in respect of the same class of worker. We also know that a number of workers in the same industry only work 42½ hours.

Mr. Chairman, I think this side of the House has advanced sufficiently strong arguments for the hon. the Minister to accept the amendment. The arguments advanced by that side of the House in favour of a 46-hour week were given and disposed of before the Select Committee.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is now circumventing the argument of the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt). The Select Committee made it very clear to the employers that the hours would remain at 46 per week. As a matter of fact I have already said this but I want to repeat it, we as a select committee were in agreement that it would remain at that. It was on the last sitting day of the Select Committee that it appeared that the United Party wanted the hours to be reduced to 44. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) harps on the evidence of the trade unions. The only trade union which gave evidence was the National Union of Distributive Workers and that National Union of Distributive Workers does not even represent one-tenth of the workers in the industry—not even one fiftieth; I wonder whether they represent one-hundredth of them. They are not people who can talk on behalf of the industry.

But the hon. member for Umhlatuzana runs away from the argument advanced by the hon. member for Pretoria (West), namely, that you cannot allow this legislation, which refers to office workers, to be completely out of alignment with other industrial legislation. The fact of the matter is that the Factories Act provides for 46 hours; the Industrial Conciliation Act provides for 46 hours; the Wage Act provides for 46 hours. All that legislation is based on a 46-hour week. But each one of those Acts contains a clause which empowers the hon. the Minister to grant exemption. Where employers and employees agree mutually to work shorter hours the Minister can grant exemption. This legislation also provides for that. If a number of employees agree with their employers to work 45 or 44 hours the Minister is compelled under this Act to approve of it. In respect of a certain small number of employees, hon. members now want …

A small number?

Yes, a small number in comparison with those who fall under the Factories Act. There are many more factory workers than shop and office workers. I can assure the hon. member for Turffontein that he is pleading for a 44-hour week for a very small group whereas the working week of the other large number of workers remains at 46 hours.

Where does the hon. member get the idea from that this Bill is only to cover a small group of workers. I want to dispel from the Minister’s mind any effect the words of the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) may have had that the National Union of Distributive Workers do not represent the workers in distributive trade of South Africa. What nonsense, Sir. The hon. member was present when we took evidence from the secretary of that union. Let us get the record straight so that there can be no illusions about this matter. In reply to a question put by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) the chairman of that union replied that the union had a membership of over 12,000 in the commercial distributive trade and that this was the only trade union in this sphere which was registered throughout the whole of the Republic. Not only is it registered but—and this is the point—it is recognized by the Department of Labour as being the spokesman of distributive workers throughout the country. Their chairman said that it could also be regarded as the mouthpiece of the workers in shops and offices whether or not they were members of the union. This is the spokesman recognized by the Minister’s own Department of this type of worker. I even think the hon. member for Pretoria (West) as chairman of the Select Committee, paid the chairman of that union a compliment on the evidence he had given.

They still only represent 12,000 workers.

It represents the people who will be affected by this legislation. The hon. member must think twice before he makes an interjection like that in this House.

The Distributive Workers’ Union is only registered in a small area of South Africa.

How can the hon. member say they are only registered in small areas of the country. They have branches in all the major centres throughout the Republic. They are the only organization representative of the distributive workers throughout the Republic and they are recognized by the Minister’s Department. The evidence given by this organization was to the effect that they were in favour of a 44-hour week. There is no shadow of doubt about that and I believe that they expressed the wishes of the bulk of the people concerned in that particular class of work. The evidence was further that many of the workers in that industry were working less than 44 hours per week. So I hope the hon. the Minister will erase from his mind any possible affect the words of the hon. member for Malmesbury may have had on his mind.

May I add something else in order to counter the effect of the words of the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. van Staden) on the mind of the hon. the Minister. May I read the following to the House from page 6 of the Select Committee’s report—

and then they go on to deal with the question of leave. The point is this that the existing Wage Determinations Nos. 223 and 174 lay down 45 hours per week for distributive workers who total 225,000. This Bill deals with the same class of workers. The point I am trying to make is that we are creating an anomaly by laying down 46 hours when a Wage Board Determination, already in operation lays down 45 hours in respect of a considerable number of workers. I think that is a point that must be appreciated before we can evaluate the value of the amendment I have moved.

Before the hon. the Minister replies I just want to say a few words. Firstly I wish to move the amendment as printed in my name on page 526-

This amendment deals with the concession made by the Select Committee to the shipping industry. When ships are in port the men are often expected to work long hours. The Select Committee consequently decided to exclude certain work connected with the provisioning, loading or unloading of ships from the provisions of this Bill. But shipping companies and agents made representations that other work is performed such as the admission of ships to harbour, the preparation of documents, work in connection with the customs requirements, immigration, visas and other related work. It would appear, therefore, that if we did not extend this exemption further there may be serious delays at the ports. I am informed that the same difficulty will be experienced in connection with our overseas air service. That is the reason for my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt). I am not prepared, however, to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) to reduce the number of hours from 46 to 44. I have considered this matter very carefully and I have also read all the evidence before the Select Committee very carefully. I think I should be guided by the findings of the Select Committee, unless I am convinced that their findings were not correct. In considering the matter I take into consideration that it is common knowledge that in many instances a shorter week is normally worked, as is shown by the evidence placed before the Select Committee. But I do not think there is any danger of employees being exploited by employers by increasing their normal hours merely because the Bill now makes provision for a 46-hour week. If any employer or group of employers in an industry should resort to such action against the wishes of their employees, it would of course amount to an alteration in the conditions of their employment and they would be entitled to apply for the establishment of a conciliation board in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act. So I do not think there is any danger on that score.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) has laid great stress on the fact that there is a wage determination in respect of certain employees which lays down a 45-hour week. That is true. The Wage Board investigated the position in regard to these employees and that determination was laid down, but, Mr. Chairman, that determination only applies to a very small fraction of the employees coming under this Bill. The hon. member for Turffontein said that there were 12,000 employees represented by the distributive union.

That is what they claim.

Yes, but I find from the evidence that 12,000 is really a very small fraction of the employees covered by this Bill. I see for instance that when the Handelsinstituut gave evidence they said—

That was in reply to a question put by one of the members of the select committee. The witness said—

and their estimate was that they represented between 100,000 and 150,000 employees. So it is obvious that as far as the distributive union is concerned, they only represent a very small section of the employees covered by this Bill.

The Handelsinstituut does not want any protection.

I am dealing with figures. Then I find that in the evidence given by Mr. Altman, who is the secretary of the National Union of Distributive Workers, on page 13, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana was putting certain questions to him:

The next question was—

So it appears to me that there are many, many employees who are working 46 hours a week, apart from those who are covered by the Factories Act who work 46 hours.

The hon. member for Durban-Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) raised a point in regard to the representations by the Commercial Distributive Union and he quoted that in the evidence they gave they pressed for a 42-hour week. In this Bill we are concerned with an extension of the existing shop hours legislation to a variety of different offices not connected with the Commercial Distributive Union, and my view is that there is no certainty as to what impact this Bill will have on all these other different offices which are not covered by this Commercial Distributive Union. My decision in the matter is that for the reasons so clearly stated by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt), particularly that there will be a big demand for a reduction of hours from 46 to 42 if that is now put in the legislation and that we have the Factories Act that was passed only a few years ago where a 46-hour week was laid down, I am not satisfied that we should make any departure from the 46 hours, and therefore I am not prepared to accept the amendment.

I want to conclude this debate, but I think there are two points that the hon. Minister has made …

Order! The hon. member has addressed the Committee already on three occasions on this clause.

Question put: That the word “forty-six” in line 6, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—73: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coertze, L. I.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Haak, J. F. W.; Henning, J. M.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. L; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.: Muller, S. L.; Odell, H. G. O.; Otto, J. C.; Rail, J. J.; Rail, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; Verwoerd, H. F.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Noes—42: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Eaton, N. G.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Question accordingly affirmed and amendment proposed by Mr. Eaton dropped.

Amendment proposed by Mr. van der Walt put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

There has been discussion on a possible amendment to Clause 7 (1) (ii). That is the provision dealing with the production of a certificate by an employee if he is off duty for longer than three days. I understand that the Minister intends moving an amendment to this clause, and if that is so, I shall not pursue the matter any further. I shall give the hon. the Minister the opportunity of moving the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, during the second-reading debate the hon. member for Umhlatuzana raised certain difficulties about the production of a medical certificate. He pointed out that although it was permissive that the “employer may … require the employee to produce a certificate signed by a medical practitioner”, the expense of obtaining that certificate would probably be greater than the amount of wages involved. I have looked into this matter and propose to move this amendment—

I think the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has seen this amendment. I may say that I have taken this from the provisions of one of our latest industrial council agreements and I hope that the Committee will accept this amendment.

We on this side have had an opportunity of considering this amendment and I think it does, up to a fairly reasonable measure, meet the difficulties which I stated, as the Minister indicated, at the second reading. For that reason we are prepared to support this amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

I move the amendment as printed on the Order Paper—

In doing so, I want to state briefly the reason for this amendment. The position at the moment is that in the Bill provision is made for the payment of a confinement allowance and the conditions that are laid down before such payment can be made are conditions which the Minister can lay down from time to time. I have two of these conditions in mind. The one relates to the qualifying period of service before the benefit can be claimed and the other to the time limit for the submission of a claim. The problem that we are faced with is that these conditions that are referred to in this clause are not printed in the clause and neither are they included in the regulations. The result is that a person who wishes to claim the benefits referred to in this clause may find that inadvertently she failed to qualify because she did not have a sufficient period of employment with an employer and for that reason she could not obtain the benefits mentioned in this clause. I do not think that it was ever intended when we dealt with this matter in the select committee that there should be any secrecy about the conditions which the Minister was going to lay down before benefits could be paid out in terms of this clause. It was only afterwards that we discovered that because of the words “subject to such conditions as the Minister may from time to time determine” there would be nothing in the regulations to give an employee an opportunity of finding out what the conditions are. Because of that factor I have moved this amendment. My amendment seeks to delete the word “determine” and in its place use the word “prescribe” because I find that Clause 31 (h) provides that there can be regulations promulgated by the State President and all matters which by this Act are required to be prescribed. At one time I was of the opinion that if we were to have after the word “prescribed” the words “published in the Government Gazette”, it would meet the position. I find, however, on further examination, that Clause 27 of this Act lays down that an employer has to keep available a copy of the Act and a fixed notice. If we were to agree that these conditions should be published in the Gazette, we would not be achieving the very thing which I have in mind. The conditions which the Minister is to determine in respect of claimant for these benefits would not be available in the copy of the Act which the Minister is insisting should be made accessible to every employee. The Minister can readily see the difficulty here. There are certain conditions which must be fulfilled before a benefit can be claimed in respect of this clause. These conditions are not published in the Bill neither are they to be published by way of regulation. In other words, I do not know how the employees will know whether they qualify for these benefits or whether they have been disqualified because of something which was not known to them. For that reason I have moved an amendment which I hope the Minister will accept so that at all times employees who can benefit in terms of this clause will be able to go and examine the Act with the regulations and discover what it is that entitles them to claim the benefits in terms of this Act. I think that the point is clear. If we were to agree to publish the conditions in the Gazette, it is not necessary that the Gazette itself will be made available to employees in the same way as this Bill makes provision for the Act, together with the regulations, to be made available to each employee. With that explanation I hope the Minister will be prepared to accept the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated during the course of the second reading, I am prepared to accept the amendment. I think the hon. member has put forward a very good case in regard to why the word “determine” should be deleted and the word “prescribe” substituted.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 27,

During the second-reading debate the point was raised that it was desirable that the contents of this particular Act—the Shops and Offices Act—should be made readily available and understandable to employees and employers. The hon. the Minister said that he would give consideration to any possibility that might exist of issuing some form of leaflet explaining the provisions of this Bill and also drew attention to the fact that the existing Act makes provision for the words “summaries or extract of the Act” to be displayed. In terms of paragraph (b), it is necessary for a notice in the prescribed form to be displayed, and I want to ask the Minister whether it will be possible to have stated on that notice the fact that a copy of the Act is available for perusal by the employees, so that they will have drawn to their attention that a copy of the Act is provided for their perusal.

During the second reading I raised the point, apart from the publication in a prominent place on the premises of the contents of the Act, that there should be made available to employees in an easily understandable form the salient points in regard to the benefits they can derive from the Act. The Minister said that there were certain difficulties. I think he rather exaggerated it. Perhaps I did not make myself clear enough. What I had in mind was a simple form of document like that which the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner produces, just a very simple book. There are other types of such literature which have been produced by the Department. It is important in regard to a measure of this nature, because this is a new measure and it covers a very much wider field than ever before. It is important that the employee should be informed of his rights and privileges under this Bill. I hope the Minister and his Department will go into it further to see if it is not possible to produce some easily understood pamphlet giving the workers throughout the country this information.

In reply to the hon. member for Turffontein, I will go into the matter and discuss it with the Department to see whether it is feasible or practicable to do something on the lines he has suggested.

In regard to what was said by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield), he has not moved any amendment, but he has made the point that in this notice which is to be affixed in some conspicuous place on the premises, that notice should also contain a notification that a copy of the Act is available to any person who may request it. I will go into that matter and if I think it is necessary I will see that some suitable amendment is moved in the Other Place.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 30,

This clause gives the State President the power to make regulations. It seems to cut right across the powers which municipal councils have in regard to the area under their jurisdiction. I understand that this may be an old provision, but seeing that the Minister is amending the law I hope he will tell us whether he has in any way consulted the Municipal Association, and whether they have put up a case in regard to this clause.

The Select Committee did.

Then I cannot understand why this clause should still be here, particularly as I notice that sub-sec. (a) says that the State President may make regulations in regard to shops and offices. When a plan is introduced and submitted to the city council, the council sends it to the Fire Department and also to the Labour Department to see whether it complies with all the requirements. It seems to me that this cuts right across the powers of the municipalities. What worries me also is that in (3) different regulations may be made in respect of different classes of shops and offices and employers and employees. I am not worried about the employees and the employers, but there will be difficulty in regard to the proper control by the municipalities, and I think the Minister should make the position clear.

I see that the United Municipal Executive gave evidence before the select committee, and they actually submitted in evidence that Clause 31 should be amended to provide that no regulations promulgated by the State President should be of application in a local authority area where the local authority’s by-laws cover the same matter. I have tried to find out from this report of the select committee why that suggestion was not acceded to. The draft Bill still contains this sub-paragraph (a), which requires the State President to make regulations as to lighting, ventilation, etc. But hon. members will remember that the Bill which is now before us is in many respects the same as the existing legislation, and this provision is in the existing Act, which has been in force since 1939, and I presume that was the reason which actuated the Select Committee in not accepting this suggestion by the Municipal Association. That is the only explanation I can give of it.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses put and agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Clause 2 standing over.

On Clause 2,

I have given further consideration to the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein which I ruled out of order on the ground that it extended the scope of the Bill to a class of employees not contemplated by the Bill as read a second time. I now find that his amendment will also involve additional expenditure, as confinement allowances will have to be paid to those employees who qualify for such allowances and who will be brought under the provisions of this Bill by the amendment proposed by the hon. member. As the State President’s recommendation will have to be obtained for this additional expenditure, I reaffirm my earlier ruling.

I should like to direct the hon. the Minister’s attention to sub-sec. (6) and to remind him of the undertaking he gave when I raised this point at the second reading. The Minister kindly undertook that he would watch the position most carefully in regard to the application of the ceiling levels which are applied in regard to paragraph (n). In this sub-section the State President is given the power to change the level of wages in respect of the three areas. The Minister also said that he used the Factories Act as his standard by which to determine the income level for purposes of this Bill. I want to remind the Minister that it was only last month, on 13 March, that the Department promulgated new levels, and the figures quoted in this Bill promulgated on 13 August. On the select committee we accepted at the time that the level of R1,920 would still apply, and we agreed to accept the level laid down in the Factories Act. But since the end of our deliberations in the select committee these new levels, as far as the Factories Act is concerned, have been gazetted and applied. Therefore I hope that after this Bill becomes law the Minister, in keeping with his undertaking, will take immediate steps to promulgate these new levels to bring them into line with those of the Factories Act.

I just want to clarify the point raised by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) flowing from the amendment I have moved. It concerns those mineworkers called samplers and surveyors. They are excluded from this Bill because they fall within a wage category which falls outside the ambit of this Bill.

The position in which we find ourselves now is rather unfortunate, but I hope I will get the support of the Chairman of the Select Committee in regard to paragraph (n), which deals with the employees whose regular annual rate of remuneration, apart from allowances, is not less than R1,920 for Area A and R1,800 for Area B and R1,680 for Area C. At the time we considered this matter the Select Committee did not suck these figures out of the air. We decided at that stage that we should have uniformity in our legislation in regard to these figures, and for that reason we accepted the figures which were at that time operating in terms of the Factories Act. In fact, what the select committee decided to do was to accept the Factories Act figures, but now that they have been amended, and because of the ruling which you have given, Sir, the Minister is not in the position to give effect to what the select committee had in mind in accepting those figures. He can only do it now by allowing the Bill to go through and then to put forward an amendment by proclamation, or else it means going to the State President to get an extension of the provision covering this Bill in so far as expenditure is concerned. Those are the two avenues open to him. I do not know what the Minister proposes to do, but I think it will be advisable if he indicates that he will accept what the Select Committee had in mind, so that uniformity may be maintained between the Factories Act and this Act in regard to the figures. If we come to an understanding on that point I think it will help to clarify the unfortunate position which arose as the result of the Chairman not being able to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Turffontein. I think we will leave it to the Minister now to indicate what he is prepared to do.

I am prepared to go into this matter and to see how far this determination which I have in my hand, of 13 March 1964 is of application to the employees covered under this Bill. I have just looked through this determination very hurriedly, but it seems to me that it has reference to what we call continuous process workers, i.e. where they work three shifts a day. They will be covered under the determination. Those covered by the determination will earn not less than R2,110 in Area A, R1,980 in Area B, and R1,850 in Area C. But it seems to me that this only applies to this particular class of workers, but I give the hon. member the assurance that I know the basis which was used in the Select Committee was the figure determined in the Factories Act. I think it is obvious from the evidence led before the Select Committee that the Committee had in mind that particular stipulation in the Factories Act, and that is how they arrived at the figure of R1,920 in Area A. I am prepared to go into that matter to see how far the figures can be brought into conformity with the Factories Act.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Oldfield and Mr. van der Walt, put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

The hon. the Minister of Health controls certain very important aspects of health in this country and I want to say a few words about one of the most important, tuberculosis. Half the sum asked for in the Health Vote is allocated to the treatment and diagnosis of tuberculosis. That is a very large sum of money. Eighty-three per cent of the persons suffering from infectious fevers are suffering from tuberculosis. I would like to emphasize the importance of this figure because the 83 per cent means that 37.1 people in 100,000 get tuberculosis in our country. In poliomyelitis, which is considered a scourge, only .6 per 100,000 are affected, and as far as kwashiorkor, only .2 in 100,000. That shows how important it is for the Minister to pay as much attention as possible to this disease. What is perturbing to us on this side of the House, and I am sure to the whole country, is that there has been an over-all increase, in spite of the measures the Minister has taken and the amount of money spent in the past, of 6 per cent in the total number of cases. What is even more perturbing is that in the rural areas the figures show that there has been a 12 per cent increase. Going through the figures, and bearing in mind what was said in this House, a little while ago, the greatest increase is among children, from the newly-born to four years of age, where there is an increase of 20 per cent. Last year there were 67,000 cases reported, and 63,500 in the year before. It is very disturbing to find that the Minister, with the amount of money he has put aside for the treatment of tuberculosis, still finds this increase in the number of cases reported. I know it will be said by the Minister, and probably by others, that because of new methods of investigation more cases are being found, but that is not so, because the services rendered on the platteland are far from perfect. We have not enough X-ray machines there, nor enough manpower to work the machines if we did have the machines. The difficulty has also arisen that the lack of proper education of the Bantu, especially, has been such that you are unable to contact him to be examined properly. If these matters are added to the present way that the Minister has gone about finding cases, we will find a further increase in the numbers of people suffering from tuberculosis on the platteland. Besides these difficulties, there is the question of malnutrition and the question of providing sufficient food in the drought-stricken areas, plus what I think most important of all, the provision of sufficient medical personnel to deal with this very important aspect of our health problem. I do not know how the Minister is going to overcome the shortage of medical personnel. In towns such as Cape Town the concentration here is good, because we have one doctor to approximately 422 people. In the platteland area of the Free State there is one doctor to 6,000 of the population, but when we go to the Transkei we find that there is only one doctor to 60,000 of the population. So long as the population is going to depend entirely on these doctors, we will always have a shortage of manpower. At the moment we have approximately 8,000 doctors on the register, and in order to have a fair coverage—not a good coverage—we need another 8,000 doctors to serve the country. Difficulties are facing us every day. I cannot tell in the few minutes at my disposal what difficulties are facing us. But it is not only on this disease that we are facing troubles and difficulties. We are short of doctors throughout the country. I have been saying this for seven years. I warned the Minister when I came to this House that if he does not get something done, and get the Minister of Education to open up the gates of our universities to more people, we will be facing a crisis. All sorts of explanations have been given. Now we must ask the Minister of Immigration to see whether he cannot find more doctors for us. If he cannot do it, my suggestion to meet the problem is that we must go to the English universities and those in Holland and try to persuade third and fourth year students of those universities to come and complete their training in our country. There may be difficulties, but we will have to overcome them. In the same way that we ourselves at one time went overseas to finish our courses, so now those people from overseas must come and finish their courses here. Give them bursaries or other inducements to come here and let us have contracts with them so that for at least three years they will serve us. This might give us the chance to make up the backlog. If we do not do that, we will find that diseases, and this disease in particular will sweep our country. The best the Minister can do now among the White people, is to keep it in check. That is with the services he has plus the drugs being used and the vaccine that is being used to-day. But our solution is to have more people to use those drugs and to give the vaccine, especially to the children on the platteland. If we do not do that, we will be faced with a terrible scourge in this country. Besides all this, we have the abnormal conditions that arise from year to year, like the lack of food and the use of the wrong food and the wrong feeding habits. Here the Minister has to make sure that the platteland, Black, White, Coloured and Indian, are taught the importance of not only eating properly, but they have to be given sufficient food of the right type. Sir, this disease has no barriers; it will spread; it is spreading already throughout the platteland. On the other hand it would be unfair on my part to blame the Minister entirely for what has happened. [Time limit.]

I think we can all agree with the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) that the problem of tuberculosis is a very serious one. We can agree with him that it is a world-wide problem and that we should do everything in our power to see how we can overcome it. I also agree with him that we cannot lay the blame solely at the door of the hon. the Minister. We heard recently that plans were being evolved to extend the existing facilities at our various universities so that a greater number of medical men could be trained. That is not such an easy task; that is not something that simply happens within two or three months but steps are indeed being taken in that direction. I personally think that although it is not a popular idea it will nevertheless become necessary for us to consider whether in time of need a practical way out of the difficulty would not be to lay down a medical standard which is much lower than the one in operation at the moment. In this regard I have in mind the training of health aids who will perhaps not be required to take a seven-year course but who can render the necessary services to our non-Whites. I also want to mention another point in connection with this matter. While we know that it is difficult to persuade the non-Whites to undergo treatment I am convinced that it will become necessary to place a certain measure of compulsion on tuberculosis sufferers to report for treatment. I think that is probably one of our greatest problems. A person turns up for treatment once and then you do not see him again. I personally wonder whether the time has not arrived to make it compulsory for tuberculosis sufferers to receive treatment. That as far as tuberculosis is concerned.

Then I want to say a word in connection with something else. I wish to say something about a certain group of quacks. As far as I am concerned I should like to see that we do away with all quacks, if possible, in this country but I do realize that there may perhaps be a difference of opinion in connection with this matter. But where we deal with a group of persons in respect of whom there is no difference of opinion, cannot we start a cleaning up process from a certain angle and put a stop to the activities of a certain group of quacks? Our country is known as a country where there is still a very large percentage of blindness. We rightly spend thousands of pounds to combat blindness. We spend money on the one hand and on the other hand we allow quacks to do harm to the sight of our people. I am not talking about the qualified person, the trained ophthalmologist; I am talking about the ordinary hawker in spectacles, the person who has not had any training whatsoever, who knows nothing about the matter and who is particularly fond of doing to little towns on the platteland where he announces his arrival over loudspeakers and distributes handbills and who does everything in his power to mislead the people. It is shocking to see to what limits these people go. They send out advertisements in which they say: “Come to me and test your eyes yourself.” They sell the cheapest spectacles to the people at the highest prices possible. They tell the people that they can cure this or that diseases by means of spectacles, diseases which cannot be cured. They go so far as to sell a pair of spectacles to a person whose eyes are normal if he is stupid enough to buy it. It is shocking to see what quacks do through the medium of advertising, quacks who pretend to be experts or specialists. Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely impossible to test the eyes of a patient in a room in an hotel. (Laughter.) The hon. member laughs but that is the sort of thing that is happening. It is absolutely impossible to test a person’s eyes in a farm house in a distant part of the country. I am sure I am right when I say that no child’s eyes should be tested except by a trained, specialized ophthalmologist. It usually takes a person 11 years after matric before he can be regarded as an expert on his subject and then he is still controlled by law as far as his actions and his fees are concerned. That is quite right because the idea is to protect the public but we have this tragic position that while this man, who has devoted so many years of study to his subject, is controlled, the hawker in spectacles, who has not had any training whatsoever, is under no control and is free to exploit the public. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to put an end to these malpractices; or is it not possible to put a stop to these onslaughts on the health of our people.

May I avail myself of the half-hour privilege? Sir, the hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer) referred to three items. In the first place he discussed the question of forcing tuberculotics to go for treatment. I do not quite know how he thinks it can be done and who is going to force them and how they are going to be found. He referred also to the question of training doctors’ aids, below standard. Well, I know that that was suggested by the Snyman Commission which went into the question of the high cost of medical services, but so far the hon. the Minister, who must have had this in mind, has not brought forth any particular plan, so I do not propose to pursue this point. In regard to the last point to which the hon. member referred, nl, the question of testing of eyes and the giving of glasses, particularly for children, the hon. the Minister must know that a Bill was actually brought forward some years ago in this connection as part of the Supplementary Health Services Bill, which was not proceeded with. I agree with the hon. member for Odendaalsrus that this matter should receive attention as soon as possible, because it is absolutely scandalous to think that a person can come along with a lot of glasses, put them on the table and then say to people, “Take your choice”. There is no reason why the public should go to these unqualified people nowadays, because there are plenty of suitably qualified people, and it is time the public was protected against these quacks.

Sir, I want to refer particularly to the question of the shortage of nurses. I do not think it is necessary for me to prove that there is a shortage of nurses. Last Sunday in a Sunday paper it was stated that in Natal there are 171 vacancies in senior posts in the nursing services in the provinces; in the Cape there are 201—not necessarily senior posts—and in the Transvaal 20 per cent of the provincial posts are vacant. I do not think I need labour that point. There are actually 23,336 general nurses on the register, but this is not in fact a reflection of the number of people who are nursing, because these are merely people who pay 50c a year to keep their names on the register. There are many married women and women in other occupations and women of means who do not work and who do not like to give up entirely the profession to which they devoted so many years of training. This figure therefore merely reflects the number of nurses on the register. No one knows the actual numbers because, as I have said, many retain their name on the register but do not continue nursing.

Nursing, while it has technically, scientifically and professionally kept itself well-informed has failed to take note of the changing social world around it. This is partly due to the fact that the senior nurses, the older women, who to-day more or less control nursing live in a world which is more or less isolated from the ordinary social life of today. Times have changed for everyone except the nurses. In the Victorian days young persons did not go out without chaperones, nor did young ladies of so-called respectable families work in offices, stores or factories. None were lawyers, doctors, pharmicists or technologists. But nursing was considered genteel, and mother permitted her lily-white daughter to enter this profession because she lived in quarters and was subject to discipline. That outlook has changed. The status of nursing has fallen. There is too much competition from the other occupations, and the type of life that the nurse leads is unattractive.

Last year—and this is typical of previous years—1,301 student nurses (female, White) completed their training, 1,341, a larger number, retired. In other words, more left the profession of nursing than the number who continued. The reasons may vary from health to marriage, or failure to pass the examinations, but it is fair to presume that the majority who retired did so because they no longer wished to continue. For example in the mental service male student nurses change to the clerical department where the hours are shorter and the prospects and the pay—and above all the status—are better; where examinations are non-existent and where stress and strain and anxiety are unknown. In the case of Coloured nurses 156 qualified and 148 resigned. Of the Bantu 686 qualified and 544 resigned. In the case of mental nurse students, 84 of all races completed their training and 83 left. The total number of student nurses registered was 2,350 and 2,296 student nurses did not continue. In other words, about half the number who commenced training did not complete it. Half the young people who qualified physically and mentally to enter nursing, and who hope to do so, withdraw before the end of their training. Sir, no ordinary school or university could tolerate such results.

Now I want to refer to the treatment which nurses receive from the State. This subject is dealt with in a leading article in the Staatsamptenaar of April 1964 and I quote from a translation—

I would like to draw your attention to that date—

Sir, on 1 July 1956 other civil servants received rises, not merely consideration but actual increases. It was a few days after the publication of that article that the Provincial Council made a certain announcement about salaries. Over eight years have passed since other civil servants of similar standing received increases, and it was only a few days ago that these increases for nurses were announced.

The recent publication by the hon. the Minister of maximum fees for private nurses caused some nurses to cease to practice. The Minister has the power to fix fees but was he wise to exercise that power? Why should the wages of one important group of people be controlled and not the wages of all groups? Nurses realize that the nature of their work demands unusual hours, but there are other forms of employment where 24-hour service is necessary, for example workers in power stations. They work eight-hour shifts and when they have to work on holidays and over weekends, the time thus worked is made up to them. Why should nurses be victimized by maladministration and insult be added to injury by underpayment? The time has come to appreciate that nurses are entitled to a reasonable way of life; that, except in their dedication, they are not people apart. The eight-hour shifts must be instituted. It is universal in the U.S.A. It will only come, Sir, if the Minister undertakes the planning. It is no good looking to either the Nursing Council or the Nurses’ Association to institute this. The students and newly registered nurses are the ones to be questioned. In any investigation it is not sufficient to ask the boss or the foreman for his views; the opinions of the lowest paid workers must be canvassed. The apprentice does not continue in a trade which he finds distasteful.

This brings me to the question of whether it is desirable that the Nursing Association should have compulsory membership. This association recently celebrated its fiftieth anniversary. Up to 1944 membership was not compulsory. In other words, the association was able to exist for more than 30 years on voluntary membership. Is it necessary now? This compulsory membership is resented by the working nurse. She resented being compelled to be a member of the association, and I think this requires an investigation by the hon. the Minister.

I come now to the question of nursing agencies. These nursing agencies perform a needed public service but some method other than fixing maximum fees for nurses and tying the agency to those fees must be found. Nurses have a right to negotiate fees, and a free Nursing Association should represent them in such negotiations. Give the nurses a voluntary association to attend to their interests and the question of fees will be amicably negotiated. There is no reason to believe that the nurses will be unreasonable, but an association membership of which is enforced by law, is not a suitable body to negotiate. If the nurses’ fees are controlled down to the level which was suggested in the recent Government Gazette the private nursing sector will cease to exist. The vast majority of nurses are dedicated persons while they are actually nursing. They will do anything for a sick person and will shrink from no task, no matter how distasteful. They will tolerate the most difficult and trying patient; they will work long and ardous hours when needed, and at the end they will lay out a corpse with the same care that they have given to the living, and how many of their critics can and will undertake the same task for either the living or the dead? I raise this matter, Sir, because one of the items referred to in criticism of nurses’ fees was that when a man died one minute after midnight an extra fee was charged by an agency.

With a rising population a time must come when the sick will go unattended purely and simply because there will be no nurses. Collective bargaining saved the working man. The nurses cannot wait for collective bargaining; they have no trade union and they have no means of forming one.

Authorities will tell you that nurses do not work more than eight hours a day. In general this is true but because of the spreadover it takes them 12 hours to do eight hours work. Nursing is regarded as a two-shift a day and a seven-day a week profession. Until it is modernized into a three-shift a day and a 44-hour week it will steadily decline in popularity. Only the Minister and nobody else can deal with this problem. We should have no illusions about this. If the eight-hour day is not instituted the time will come when there will be no nurses. Basically I feel that the Nursing Association should be freed from its compulsory membership and that the association should, in its various branches, meet and negotiate reasonable fees.

I want to turn now to the question of the mental services of this country. The hon. the Minister introduced certain improvements, and these were welcomed, but they are a drop in the ocean. Furthermore, extra personnel was not provided to implement them. They exist largely on paper and, when brought into practice, have merely increased the burden on the already limited personnel.

The present conditions of the mental health services of the country is a disaster, and it is cruel and tragic that the public does not appreciate the true position. Speaking to the Nursing Council the Commissioner for Mental Hygiene said that there were roughly 105,000 hospital beds in the country and of these 25,000 were in the mental hospitals. Yet there are 23,336 general nurses and the total of mental nurses is 1,400—7 per cent of the nurses are available for the 25 per cent of the hospitalized patients. There are more than 9,000 medical practitioners in the country. Seventy five doctors, of whom only 33 have had special experience, are available for the care of 25,000 patients. 25 per cent of the patients are cared for by less than 1 per cent of the doctors, and those with special training represent less than ½ per cent of the doctors. Of 83 medical posts 16 are vacant, and 22 are temporarily filled.

In the past ten years there has never been a full complement of permanently employed nurses in the White sector. All posts have never at one time been filled, and at present of 436 posts 102 are permanently filled, and 334 temporarily filled. And there are still vacancies. The law says that all nurses in charge of institutions must be qualified, registered nurses, but the commissioner has recently written asking the Nursing Council to waive this law and permit unqualified persons to be in charge. Otherwise some of these institutions will have to be closed. My opinion is that neither the council nor the Minister has the power to permit this but the Minister’s Department is obviously asking the council to to condone a breach of the law and to do so because, as the Commissioner of Mental Hygiene says, some of these institutions which housed 5,077 mental defectives in 1962, will have to close down.

This is a shocking state of affairs and the hon. the Minister should give it his attention. Its existence is a reproach to a civilized people. I know that there are difficulties in obtaining nurses and doctors but the matter is of such pressing importance that the Government, with its large surplus of income, can make the service so attractive that necessary staff would be recruited at no matter what cost. There has been no increase in the numbers of the establishment, yet the number of admissions has doubled in the last five years. In 1963 there were 10,000 admissions to mental health hospitals. It is said in England that a patient in a mental hospital is lucky if he sees a doctor for 5½ minutes in a week. In this country he will be very lucky if he sees a doctor for 5½ minutes in a month. No section of the population of this country receives such treatment as that given to the mentally disturbed and mentally defective. They cannot speak for themselves, Sir, and their problems are not appreciated by the Administration of the Minister, while a devoted but terribly limited professional staff battle to care for them.

It is not only in regard to the staff of mental homes but in regard to accommodation that there is a serious shortcoming. In the report of the Commissioner for Mental Health for December 1962 he says there must be more accommodation for everybody.

Finally, Sir, some of these hospitals, like Port Alfred and Fort Napier are unfit for human habitation. There is not one modern-designed hospital in the hon. the Minister’s Department. People may say Stikland is a modern hospital. It may be a modern hospital in building but its design was out of date before a brick was laid. If the Minister cares to look it up he will see that this was referred to in a report by Dr. Vermooten, the then Commissioner of Mental Hygiene. After a tour of Europe he said that he knew the design of the Stikland hospital was out of date but that he hesitated to interfere because they had waited so long for it that he felt he would rather let it be built badly-designed and so it is.

There are two matters of importance which I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister under this Vote. The one is the provision of adequate educational facilities for the educated child, and the second is the appointment of a commission of experts to institute a thorough investigation into the question of more effective health services. Sir, at the first S.A. National Conference which was held in October last, the following resolution was unanimously adopted on the recommendation of Professor H. W. Snyman—

As I have said, this important resolution was unanimously adopted by that conference. It is not just a coincidence that it was accepted unanimously. This resolution crystallized after reference had been made to no less than 39 outstanding lectures delivered by professional people who convinced that conference of the necessity to adopt such a resolution. When we look at the submissions made to that conference in those 39 lectures we realize what motivated this resolution. The first point which was emphasized was the fact that there was a feeling of frustration in the minds of senior administrators of health services because of the fragmentation of health services in watertight compartments, with a resultant lack of co-ordination, lack of integration and wastage of professional manpower at the cost of the patient. In discussing these lectures the delegates strongly and repeatedly criticized the fact that the control of health services fell under the Central Government, the provinces and the municipalities, because such divided control is contrary to modern medical and psychiatric opinion and developmental trends. The firm conviction was expressed that all medical services should be integrated under a single control. Mr. Chairman, these are matters on which only experts are qualified to express an opinion but it is perfectly clear that it has become necessary to appoint such a commission of inquiry consisting of experts to investigate this matter.

The second important fact which was emphasized during those discussions was that there was an alarming and chronic shortage of trained psychiatric staff. Dr. Cheetam, the president of the council, pointed out that there were only 66 psychiatrists and three psychiatrical social workers in the whole country. Professor Lamont, the Commissioner for Mental Health, made a further analysis of this figure of 66; he pointed out that 44 of the 66 were in private practice; that 22 of the 66 were available to hospitals, and that 12 of these 22 were associated with provincial hospital services with only 300 beds at their disposal. Only ten of the 66 are in the employ of mental hospitals caring for 25,000 patients. The Transvaal mental hospitals with 6,800 patients employ only four full-time registered psychiatrists. Sir, what is the cause of this? What can be done to alleviate this situation? Is the answer that more attractive conditions of service should be offered? Should more training facilities be provided? It is difficult for us as laymen to suggest a solution, and that is why it has become essential to appoint a commission consisting of experts to go into this whole matter.

A third point which was discussed there and which shows that an inquiry is necessary is the question as to what is being done to ensure that proper accommodation is available. Large numbers of mental patients, for example, are still being detained in police cells, and we know how much harm such detention does to those individuals from the point of view of treating them. Another reason why the appointment of such a commission is essential is the difference in approach. As far as psychiatric treatment is concerned, the discussions at this conference clearly revealed that there were two schools of thought; the one believes in hospital-centric treatment. In this regard the Commissioner of Mental Health says—

Then there is the more modern school of thought which believes that psychiatric services should not be hospital-centric but community-centric. The secretary of the World Council for Mental Health was also present at that conference, and he explained in the course of his speech that the whole trend in the world to-day was in the direction of community-centric treatment. [Time limit.]

I want to add my voice to the appeal of my colleague, the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford), in asking the hon. the Minister really to get down to it and to help the nursing profession. When the Minister gazetted those restricted salaries in the nursing profession in the private sector he did great harm to that profession in this country. I think many of the women who were nursing at the time left the profession and have not returned. The nursing profession is already very short of personnel. We are always dealing with a shortage of nurses in all sectors of the nursing services. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to get at the people who are mainly responsible because the one refers you to the other. When you approach one section either in relation to the salary scales or the conditions of service of nurses you are told to approach some other section.

Mr. Chairman, I think the conditions of service leave much to be desired and have much to do with the shortage of personnel. The low salaries paid have also much to do with this shortage. We are living in a world of advancing salaries and shorter working hours. Just compare the hours of work enjoyed by the average women employed in business to-day and her salary scale with those of the nurse. I am not dealing at the moment with the probationer nurse; I shall touch on her position at a later stage if time permits me. A nurse only becomes qualified after a long period of arduous training and what do they get for it; A low salary and long hours of service. Firstly, you have the spread-over of hours. If you look at the spread-over of hours. Sir, I think you will find that for two-thirds of any year the average staff nurse does not work eight hours per day but nine hours or longer. And that does not include overtime. I am talking about the ordinary service with a spread-over of anything from 12 to 13 hours as the hon. member for Durban (Central) has pointed out. I know what I am speaking about, Sir, because I have practical experience of this. I have dealt with many complaints on hospital boards and I also happen to have a daughter who is a fully qualified nurse. When they get to the other part of their service during the year they have to do night duty. The ordinary night duty in the ordinary provincial hospital is from 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. But how often do they go off at 7 a.m.? They have to hand over and that takes a little time. The sister in charge of a ward does not go off any quicker than a staff nurse. If a nurse were to devote the time to study which she does devote and were to do the training that she does in her profession, to any other profession she would become a fully qualified professional woman and not only earn a very good salary but she will have all her week-ends off, all the public holidays off and probably enjoy a 44-hour week or even less.

Admittedly there has been a slight improvement in recent years but take the work a probationer nurse has to put in. I admit that today more time is devoted to theoretical work outside the hospital but a tremendous amount of theoretical work is done while they have to do long hours of practical nursing work. They are expected to do that work and to prepare for their examinations. I know of cases where probationers have been on duty for several weeks doing night duty and have then been asked to sit for an examination during a whole morning lasting anything up to three hours. Having gone through all that to become qualified they then face those same long hours of hard work; they are precluded from taking part in any sport like their sister who entered the business world, who has her week-ends free and no inroads made on her evenings or nights. Nor does the business girl run the risk of picking up a disease. That is a risk the nurse always runs. Although they work in general hospitals they are very frequently in contact with people suffering from various infectious or contagious diseases before they are actually diagnosed and isolated and sent to an isolation hospital. Those of us who have had anything to do with hospital life will know that that is the position.

I say it is the duty of this Minister to see that all the authorities concerned meet at a round table. They should lay down better conditions of service. No Wage Determination Board would approve of the hours for ordinary employees which the nurses have to work in one of the most exacting professions in the world. They are responsible for the handling of drugs which may mean life or death to the people under their care. If they do make mistakes in this regard they are subjected to extremely serious disciplinary measures. I say it is very essential that we do everything possible to improve their conditions of service, their salaries and, where possible, they should be able to join some pension scheme. To say that the Government cannot afford it is plain nonsense. The copper mines in Northern Rhodesia pay much higher salaries and offer much better living conditions than any of the provincial hospitals in the Republic of South Africa.

How do you know it?

Because I know South African nurses who are on the staffs of those hospitals. Not one hospital in Northern Rhodesia on the Copperbelt is short-staffed at the present moment. They advertise in our newspapers for staff and nowhere else and they get the staff because they pay them.

These defective psychiatric services to which I referred a few moments ago were emphasized at that important conference, as well as other serious shortcomings. In the first place, too many patients are being kept in hospitals. If they undergo regular treatment, they may have a chance to recover. The second important result is that quackery flourishes on a large scale. From the data furnished at that conference it appears that out of eight lay hypnotists who advertise their services in the daily newspapers two are psychotic. The psychiatrist of Tara who furnished this information knows those persons; two are semi-psychotic and four of them are deviates to such an extent that they themselves need psychiatric treatment. And these are the people who go on to this market and advertise their services in an effort to help these people.

Psychiatric services cost this country at least R4,000,000 every year in hospitalization, in the cost connected with private psychiatric practices and in the loss of optimum labour productivity. I feel therefore that this matter is sufficiently serious to warrant my asking the Minister to consider the question of appointing a commission of experts to investigate this important matter.

The second matter to which I want to refer briefly is the provision of adequate educational services for the uneducable child. I refer to the type of child whose I.Q. is between 30 and 50. We find that under the National Council for Mental Health there are ten daywork centres to which those children are sent. In the last term of last year there were altogether 335 children in those ten schools. That represents only a very small proportion of the children falling within this category, because every one of these small schools has a long waiting list of parents seeking admission for their children, but because of lack of accommodation the schools are unable to admit them. The children are described as uneducable, but although they are uneducable, it does not mean that they cannot be trained. There is nothing wrong with their muscle coordination, for example. Sir, everyone who pays a visit to one of these schools, such as the Lettie Fouche School in Bloemfontein and the Jannie Brink Centre at Kimberley, will be astonished to see what is being accomplished with those children; they will find that to some extent they are even educable and that there is always something that can be done for them. But there is a shortage of funds; the State contributes only 25c per school day in respect of each child. These schools are not certified schools; they are not recognized. The children at these schools who travel by bus or who use public transport have to pay the full fare; they are not entitled to concessions because the schools are not recognized. I think a great injustice is being done to these children. I have even heard people say: “What can you do with that child? Why not rather spend that money on children who are highly developed intellectually?” Are we entitled as a nation maintaining a Christian civilization code to push aside these children in this way? I feel that if there is any child who needs care and protection it is that type of child, because we know what can be done for that child. What we must do is to establish schools for them. The Minister should also consider whether these services should not be placed under the Department of Education, Arts and Science so that that Department can provide proper educational facilities for that type of child, not only schools where these children can develop manual dexterity but schools where they can be offered sheltered work by way of after-care. What is the use of helping that child up to a certain stage if he is then pushed out into the world? That child cannot compete in the open labour market. You cannot leave him to his own lot. There are such schools to which parents can send their children but then they have to pay R50 to R60. But what about the poor parents? What is to become of their children? There was an idea at one time to appoint an interdepartmental committee to go into this matter. I want to make a very serious plea to the hon. the Minister to give his attention to this matter. We know that’ there are people who are prepared to offer their services, and it is sad to think that the funds are not available. These people have to struggle to collect funds by way of rummage sales and cake sales so that these children, who are treated in such a stepmotherly fashion, can be cared for. I want to urge upon the Minister to give his attention to this matter.

I think enough has been said by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) and in the newspapers over the last few months to impress upon the hon. the Minister that there is really a need for a full-scale investigation into the whole of the nursing profession in South Africa. I believe matters have reached such a pitch now that nothing less than a complete investigation will help us to get the nursing profession on the right basis. I am not only referring to salary scales; that is only one aspect. There are other matters which should be raised. There is the whole question of the training of nurses, the conditions of their service, the use of existing personnel and, indeed, the method of conducting of examinations in the nursing profession.

The question of the salaries was touched upon by the hon. member for Durban (Central). I might say that an article has appeared to-day in which the Nursing Council, the official body of the nursing profession, professed itself to be quite dissatisfied with the increase in salaries which have now been granted after years of negotiation. It would appear that there has now been an increase, if this report is correct, of R10 per month over the last 12 years in the case of a staff nurse. So that a staff nurse now starts on a salary of R1,080 per year. This, of course, applies in the case of White nurses. The salaries of non-White nurses are very much less. This is a matter of principle with which I disagree. I do not agree with the principle that non-White nurses with the same training as White nurses should be discriminated against by virtue of the colour of their skin. I am equally against this principle in the case of non-White doctors who are paid a fraction of what White doctors are paid at our provincial hospitals. I think this is a disgrace, Sir. Non-White doctors undergo the same training; they carry the same responsibility and do the same duties as White doctors. It is not only the salaries which require overhaul but the whole question of the conditions of service of nurses. The hon. member for Durban (Central) has mentioned the question of the weekly hours worked by nurses. We have just passed a Bill in this House regulating the maximum number of hours which may be worked by other persons in far less responsible and arduous types of work than nurses. I think it is high time that the same principles were applied to the nursing profession. In America, as the hon. member for Durban (Central) has pointed out, the principle of a three-shift per day basis has been accepted and it is quite obvious that this should be adopted in South Africa as well so that nurses will work an eight-hour day, will be paid overtime and will also perhaps have the enjoyment of a half day off per week and on Sundays as well. These are conditions which are essential for the nursing profession if the nursing profession is to be kept at full strength. At the present moment there is a shortage of nurses. The profession is just about maintaining its numbers. In other words there are as many nurses being lost to the profession as there are new registrations each year. This is a deplorable situation in the case of a country with an increasing population and vastly increasing needs for hospital and nursing services. Obviously the short-fall is going to have an increasingly cumulative effect as a result of the fact that the profession is not gaining more people than it is losing each year.

I believe that married nurses are hopelessly under-employed in the nursing profession. This is due to the fact that full-time hours have to be worked. If the three-shift system were adopted, or if married nurses could be used on a part-time basis in our hospitals that in itself would relieve the shortage of nurses.

The question of the registration of nurses has also been raised. I want to say that for a nurse to have to pay 50c to keep her name on the register is one thing, but if she allows that to lapse she is not even issued with a warning notice, She is simply sent a peremptory statement to the effect that her name has been removed from the register. If she wants it restored to the register, she must not only pay the 50c but she must also pay a registration fee of R8 per qualification re-registration fee, which of course is an absurd way of trying to encourage nurses to stay in the nursing profession and to remain on the register. I hope that this is one regulation, at least, which the hon. the Minister will consider and will do something about.

All the information I have at my disposal also leads me to believe that the methods used in training nurses are hopelessly outmoded. Our nursing training is not even on a semi-modern basis. I am not referring to standards of efficiency per se but to the whole method of training. Many of the hours of training of young nurses are devoted to jobs which could quite easily be done by completely unqualified nursing aides, such as washing walls, scrubbing the wards and so on. It is quite unnecessary in this day and age to use trainees to do this type of job, especially when one is so short of staff. On the other hand, one finds that young nurses who have had no training are put in charge of difficult cases. Nursing training as a whole needs reorganization and needs investigation. I agree with the hon. member from Durban (Central) that the older type of nurse, who is engaged in tutoring, is isolated from ordinary life and I would say isolated from clinical nursing as well, because it is many years since many of these nurses have done any clinical work at all. They are therefore isolated from modern advances in the treatment of patients which in turn has a bad effect on the actual training of trainee nurses. If a young nurse does not measure up to their ideas of what an embryonic Florence Nightingale should be, the result is that the young nurse has a very difficult time indeed. The decline in the number of trainee nurses is often due to the unsympathetic type of training which these young nurses are given. I also understand that something like 30 per cent of young nurses fail their final examinations. This was certainly the case in the Cape Province recently. This seems to me to be an incredibly high percentage. If a girl has already undergone three years of training one would have thought that by that time girls who were not suited to the profession would have dropped out years before. But for a girl to complete three years of training and then to be failed in the final practical examination, which often only lasts for 20 minutes, seems to me to be an indication that something is seriously wrong with the type of examination which is set for these girls at the end of the three-year training period. I therefore believe that this is another matter which deserves investigation by a fully independent committee. It should not be a committee appointed by the Nursing Council. I believe that this should not be an investigation conducted from within the profession itself, but there should be an independent investigation by experts drawn perhaps from the medical profession and by other persons who have had experience in medical matters. I believe that unless this is done we are indeed approaching a crisis in the nursing profession and I believe that the hon. the Minister is going to find himself confronted with a very difficult situation indeed. This situation is not going to be alleviated by putting a ceiling on the earnings of private nurses, which I believe was a hasty and ill-advised step which the hon. the Minister took last year. This decision, as we all know, was subsequently withdrawn by the hon. the Minister but not before a great deal of damage had been done. I believe that approximately 300 private nurses actually left the profession and many of them are lost to the profession because they did not return when this ministerial edict was withdrawn, but found themselves more lucrative employment in other fields. I believe that the way in which to solve the grievances of nurses is to institute a thorough investigation of the training given to nurses, of the salaries paid to them, of the hours they work and the methods of examination. Nothing less than this, I believe, is going to assist this country in avoiding a crisis in the nursing profession.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Kimberley (South) has said in connection with mentally retarded persons. I make no apology for doing so because I believe that this is a matter which so intimately and materially affects our nation that it deserves our serious attention. It is generally admitted that mental deviates form a considerable and ever-increasing percentage of our population. Sir, this is a real problem in respect of which our health services and our training services still leave a great deal to be desired. As a matter of fact that is admitted in the following statement made in this connection by the Secretary of the National Council for Mental Health—

I believe that it is accepted that it is the joint responsibility of the parents, the State and the community to find a solution to this problem. I believe that it is the policy of the Department of Health to subscribe to part-time and day-work centres. I feel, however, that the Minister will agree immediately that far too little is being done by the State in this connection. Provision is being made in this Vote for R836,000 for mental health, apart from the sum of R9,000,000 which is provided for under the next Vote for the maintenance of mental hospitals and institutions for the feebleminded. This amount of R836,000, which represents a considerable improvement over last year’s figure of R361,000—for which one is grateful—also includes R20,000 which is being paid to the National Council for Mental Health for the establishment and maintenance of daywork centres for uneducable mentally retarded children. When we bear in mind that it has been worked out by the National Council for Mental Health that it costs them approximately R200 per annum to keep one uneducable child in such a centre for five and a half days per week, we must admit immediately that R20,000 is hopelessly insufficient for that purpose. I think the hon. the Minister will also agree with me that the provision for admissions to these institutions is altogether inadequate, not even to mention the important after-care treatment which ought to follow upon the training. As far as this matter is concerned we must take into account the human aspect which intimately affects thousands upon thousands of our population. The birth of a mentally retarded child is a heavy blow to its parents. Just think of the sorrow and worry it causes the parents, sorrow and worry which is also accompanied sometimes by a sense of shame. Think of their endless patience, their courage and their great perseverance in trying to give such a child some measure of independence; think of the isolation in which they sometimes live just for the sake of that child; think how worried they are when they ask themselves what is going to become of that child in the future. What becomes of these children once the parents are no longer there? Only a handful out of the thousands can be accommodated in the existing institutions. Only a handful out of the thousands are enabled to attend special classes. Year after year numerous applications for admission to these institutions or for permission to attend these special classes are rejected. The serious question is: What is to become of these children? Do we really appreciate the serious danger of this situation to our society? To mention one thing only, it is a generally accepted fact, a fact which has been proved, that these retarded children are subject to strong sexual urges. Do we realize that we run the risk that this problem will assume ever-increasing proportions and that this represents a threat to the whole of our national life? Has the time not come when educational work in connection with this whole matter should be tackled on an extended scale? Is it not possible for the Department of Health to assist in this task? Should we not teach the parents and the public that not all cases of mental retardation are due to hereditary causes? Should parents not be taught that they are wrong in having a sense of guilt; that a parent has no say in the matter as to whether a child is going to be born feeble-minded or not? Educational work should also be done to remove the stigma which attaches to institutions, schools and centres, as well as to mentally retarded children. These are abnormal deviations which should be regarded and accepted by us as normal. No family ought to regard it as a disgrace that there is a mentally retarded child in the family when they bear in mind the fact that a mentally retarded daughter was born to the same parents to whom a son was born who later became President of the United States. Is it not possible for us to get the co-operation of our churches, our schools, the Press and the radio to remove the prejudice which still exists to-day? Just imagine how much headway we will make if we can succeed in removing this prejudice. If the feeling of shame and guilt on the part of parents and families can be wiped out by the sympathy of an understanding public, think how much lighter their burden will be, particularly if proper and adequate provision is made for these children by means of greater State assistance. The hon. the Minister has informed me that the Department of Health is appointing an inter-departmental committee to institute a thorough investigation into this whole question of the care of mentally retarded children. Here I want to associate myself with the request of the hon. member for Kimberley (South) for a broader investigation and ask the Minister whether the time has not come to investigate this whole matter on a broader basis. In entrusting this task to the Department of Health and the Department of Social Welfare as well as to the provincial administrations and the Education Departments, are we not unduly fragmenting the services rendered to these people? Should we not view and tackle this problem of mentally retarded people as a national issue? Should there not be unity of action? These are all questions which occur to us and we put them to the Minister for his sympathetic consideration.

I would like to address the hon. the Minister on a matter which I think I can claim is a matter of burning national importance in more senses than one. I addressed a question to the hon. the Minister earlier this Session regarding the report which had just been issued by the Surgeon-General of the United States. In his reply the hon. the Minister acknowledged the connection between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. In answer to a further question, the hon. the Minister stated that he considered that sufficient publicity had been given to this report in the Press of South Africa. What concerned me very gravely was the statement made by the hon. the Minister in the Senate on the same subject, in which he declined to take any action in the matter, because he stated that there were 5,000 to 6,000 workers in cigarette factories and, because of that, he declined to take further action. I quote what he is recorded to have said in the Press.

Did the Minister actually say that?

Is that not a slanted report?

I would like the Minister to tell me what he did say, but that is what he is reported to have said. However, whatever the report may be, one must acknowledge that there are many workers in these factories. I want to put it to the Minister that, according to the figures he gave the previous year, there will now be approximately 500 people dying of lung cancer every year in South Africa. Let me quote the actual figures he gave: In 1950, 199 people died of lung cancer; in 1960, ten years later, 433 died. At that rate of progression we can assume that about 500 people will die of lung cancer every year in South Africa. That is approximately half of the total number of people who die from cancer in South Africa every year. While the figures in respect of other forms of cancer show a slight drop in the last few years, the figure in respect of lung cancer is going ahead by leaps and bounds.

Before going any further, I would like to quote just a few paragraphs from this report of the Surgeon-General just to confirm what the position is. I have here a volume of 400 pages, giving references to over 200 different authorities in the world. What I am now going to read out represents their findings after careful investigation with all this mass of detail to confirm their findings. On page 196 they say—

Then on page 204—

Page 233—

Page 32—

I am mentioning this because they do not refer only to lung cancer. They deal with a large number of other diseases as well. Then on page 31 they say—

I want to emphasize that; Cigarette smoking is much more important than occupational exposures in the causation of lung cancer in the general population. The last paragraph which I have time to quote is on page 33—

That quotation appears in the report in heavy print, and I want to underline it. Then I have here a report headed “S.A. Cancer Association moves to curb smoking”. This report relates to the congress of the S.A. Cancer Association held just recently in Cape Town. The report says—

Later on they go on to say—

Then I just want to refer to the statement by the Royal College of Physicians the previous year, a decision which these other reports fully confirm, and in which the British Government is urged to take remedial action. That is the point that I particularly want to refer to.

All three official reports urge that remedial action should be taken. The British Government took remedial action by voting £4,000, which was used in publicity, whereas the cigarette manufacturers in the same year voted £38.000,000! It seems to me that it is not reasonable to expect the taxpayers of South Africa to enter into competition with tobacco companies in advertising, the Government advertising to urge people to give up smoking for the sake of their health while tobacco companies advertise and advise the public to go on smoking.

I want to submit to the hon. the Minister that arsenic, as he knows, is recognized as a poison. Any chemist who sells arsenic without putting the label “poison” on the bottle and who dots so because he adopts the attitude that everybody knows that arsenic is poison and that therefore he need not label it, is in this position that if through his neglect somebody takes that poison and dies, I imagine that he would be charged with culpable homicide. The hon. the Minister has now recognized that lung cancer, which is rapidly increasing in South Africa, is largely due to cigarette smoking, but he maintains that it is not necessary to advertise that fact; that it has been sufficiently advertised. Sir, I would like the hon. the Minister to explain to me what the difference is between a person in his position, who is responsible for the health of the country and who fails to tell the public of the dangers of cigarette smoking and, on the other hand, a person like a chemist who sells arsenic without putting a label on it to show that it is poison and who would be charged with culpable homicide if somebody died as a result of his failure to do so.

Sir, I have said that I do not think the taxpayer should go into competition with the tobacco companies in advertising the harmful effects of cigarette smoking. I maintain that the only satisfactory way in which to keep the public fully informed is to lay down that every packet of cigarettes must bear the words “Smoking is hazardous to health”, in just the same way as we require the “poison” label to be put on every bottle of arsenic. I do not think the hon. the Minister need be worried about the tobacco factories. He can take consolation from the words of Shakespeare where he said in one of his plays. “Lord, what fools these mortals be”. I think on those grounds the Minister need not fear for the cigarette factories. I just want to urge upon him to do his duty towards the public, to those 500 people who are dying every year from a disease which is preventable.

I should like to take this question of the care of mentally backward children, particularly those who are usually regarded as uneducable, a little further. As you know, Sir, all children with an intelligence quotient below 80 are regarded as retarded. For the sake of convenience we can divide them into three groups. Those with an I.Q. between 50 and 80 are regarded as educable and they are cared for by the Provincial Administrations. Let me say here that the Provincial Administrations have made very great progress in making provision for a thorough, adequate education for these children. Then I come to the other two groups. The one group consists of those with an I.Q. of about 20; they are cared for in State institutions for the feeble-minded. They are definitely uneducable and they are cared for in institutions such as Alexandra and Westlake, and I understand that there are a few such institutions in the Transvaal and in Natal. I really want to talk about the third group, that is to say, the children with an I.Q. between 20-plus and plus-minus 50. They are not intelligent enough to be cared for by the Provincial Administrations and they are not quite sufficiently retarded to be cared for in our institutions for the feeble-minded. We do not know how many such children there are because we have never made a survey.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.