Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind you that yesterday when the House rose, I was dealing with the tragic deaths of Conrad Wilson and Pieter Beukes at the new sewage outfall pipe off the Umlaas canal, Durban. I would like to refresh your memory on the points made by me. I had said that I hoped this would be the last tragic event in connection with this unhappy undertaking by the Durban City Council, which was scheduled for completion in 1964, which was embarked upon against the original recommendation of the City Engineer at that time, and which has now claimed the lives of five people and landed one person in hospital, an undertaking which led to the appointment of the James Commission and has become a public scandal. I went on to say that to me it is obvious that the courage of these men is being exploited to carry out a hazardous task without sufficient control or knowledge of the effects upon them. Sir, I want to take this point a little further and I want to bring to the hon. the Minister’s notice the case of Pieter Beukes. Pieter Beukes went down to a depth of 200 ft. with an aqualung and he went down to equal an underwater record. That record was to remove three diffusor caps at one dive. Sir, this was apparently quite a great undertaking; it has only been achieved once before. What I want to know is this: Who decided that he could undertake this hazardous venture? Who decided that he was in a fit enough condition to do it? Who decided that it was safe for him to do so? I believe that the only person who made those decisions was Peter Beukes. I believe that this is very wrong indeed. Surely there should be some further control over the efforts of these men at these great depths in the sea, diving with aqualungs. The hon. member for Durban (Central) will raise the question as to whether it is safe to use them at this depth at all. I feel that he will deal with the matter much more comprehensively than I am in a position to do. I should also like to know from this hon. Minister, because I think it would be interesting to know, what bonuses were being offered for these records to be broken or for extra amounts of work to be done under these conditions. Do his inspectors use the knowledge that must have been accumulated by the diving section of the South African Navy? I believe from the knowledge and information I have that they are perhaps the only people in the country who have knowledge of what can be undertaken at these depths and what these divers can stand. I should like to know from this hon. Minister if they know what happens to these men at these great depths. Do they experience an underwater claustrophobia? What is it that happens to them? We have been told in each case that these men are experienced divers and men with plenty of courage and they are almost invariably found, if they are found at all, with their breathing apparatus removed.

The hon. the Minister will remember that in the case of the first one, namely Jack Anderson, last year, he has never been found at all but his aqualung and his flippers were found floating on the water. Do they tear these things off? What is it that overcomes them in the water? Nobody seems to know but it continues to happen. I want to know from this hon. Minister what efforts his Department have made to find out exactly what it is that happens and under what circumstances it is safe for these men to do these things. I should like to ask this hon. Minister if he would not be prepared to set up a committee or a commission. I believe that in this regard the C.S.I.R. should do the field work and actually conduct the experiments. I believe that the facts and the knowledge they gain could perhaps be correlated best and interpreted by the South African Institute for Medical Research. I think that if he does this we will have some knowledge on which to base the amount of work that a man can do at these depths, the time he can stay under and the amount of exertion he can stand. I want to ask the hon. the Minister something else as well. I want to ask him about the case of Jack Anderson. Jack Anderson, as the hon. Minister will remember, was the first diver lost on this project. He was lost in April, 1966. His body was never found but, as I have already said, his aqualung and one flipper were found. Was there any inquiry conducted by his Department into this particular accident? If so, I should like to know what the findings of that inquiry were. If no inquiry has been held, I should like to know what investigations have taken place in regard to the loss of Jack Anderson. This is over a year ago and the hon. the Minister should have this information. That is why I have asked about this particular case.

I wonder why a contractor could have been allowed to carry on with such an obviously hazardous undertaking under conditions which have now cost five lives. Let me give the hon. the Minister the history of the matter so that there can be no mistake. On 21st October, 1965, Richard Nelson was drowned trying to save a Native who was washed off a pier. Both he and the Native were drowned. Six months later, on 26th April, 1966, Mr. Jack Anderson, 24, who is the man I am discussing now, a diver from Cape Town, was lost on the same job. A man called Eduardo Gonzales Periquet is still in hospital suffering from the effects of diving at this pipeline. On the 11th of this month Piet Beukes was lost and on the 13th of this month Conrad Wilson was lost. You now have the position of five lives lost and one man in hospital. Three of the dead divers actually performing duties at the end of this pipeline removing these diffusor caps and the man who is in hospital was also employed in this work. I think that this warrants an inquiry at top level and immediately. I want to ask this hon. Minister to ensure that work is not resumed on this project until he is absolutely satisfied that it is safe for these men to do so. I think that the hon. the Minister owes us and South Africa and the dependants of these people a full and satisfactory answer to the questions I have asked him here to-day.

Mr. Chairman, if I had the time available, I would have replied in full to the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down. But first I want to discuss the speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville yesterday afternoon. I should like to make observations on two of the major points on which he attacked the Minister and the Government in particular yesterday. The hon. member must forgive me if I say that as he was speaking I could not help thinking immediately that Hoggenheimer had cracked his whip very hard in the past month, and that he was compelled to respond to that whipcrack. The hon. member for Yeoville almost overreached himself to demonstrate the so-called manpower shortage. He appears to be of the opinion that the Government is not doing enough. In no respect did he point out where the Government could do more than it has in fact done. He appears to think that the Government and the Minister of Labour should move heaven and earth in order to solve the so-called manpower shortage in this country. But what the hon. member in my view omitted mentioning, although he spoke for half an hour, was the cause of the manpower shortage in South Africa. It is of no use to say in parrot fashion that there is such a thing. Surely it is his duty, as a member of the Opposition, to point out the cause of that manpower shortage in South Africa. He is afraid of replying to that question, because the obvious reply, and there is only one reply, is that the industries in South Africa have developed so rapidly that it has almost brought about, and I want to use this word, disruption in the ranks of the people and in the manpower ranks. It has virtually brought about a disruption. It has been so rapid that in many respects it has even had a disruptive effect in Government concerns. In other words, the climate which was created there as a result of the Government’s policy is such that it could be found nowhere else in the world, and that despite the fact that the hon. gentleman and his colleagues persisted in saying that the Government’s policy was hampering industries—“to hamper their industrial development”. When did the hon. member speak honestly and tell the truth? Yesterday—or the days when he said that the Government’s policy was hampering industrial development? Have they been wrong all these years? Would he now admit that they were wrong? Would he now admit that the Government created an almost too favourable climate? Why does he not point that out? Then, of course, he would have to reach the final conclusion, and that is that if one does not want industry to exert a detrimental influence on the economy of South Africa in future, while capital has to be restricted to restrain the industries, then industries should also appreciate that if this is necessary in the case of capital it is equally necessary in the case of labour. In our time labour is almost more essential than capital. It is more essential and there is a greater demand for it. Then hon. members should come to the one sound conclusion. This is that the time has come for this Government to take steps to see to it that Hoggenheimer does not disrupt the rest of South Africa, as has taken place. [Interjections.] Then he should say so. He is not prepared to say so. Instead of responding to that truly South African call, he has responded to the whipcracks of Hoggenheimer. Would he blame the Government unjustly? Would he have the Government take steps— he did not say what steps—to eliminate the manpower shortage? Has the Government not done everything that could be done to augment the manpower? The hon. member cannot see that. The hon. member was obsessed with the situation which developed. The hon. member is afraid of referring to the too rapid industrial development in South Africa. Then he blames the Government for this one undesirable feature of a disrupted economy. He blames the Government for that. If the Government is to be blamed for anything, it is that it was too good and that it was too progressive and that it was too far-seeing. It should have taken steps long ago to see to it that the Hoggenheimer complex in South Africa did not disrupt us completely.

Another aspect raised by the hon. member was the question of imbalance in the wages of the border industries and the centralized industrial areas. There the hon. member performed his duty scrupulously. He said that something had happened. He said that something existed. But he did not give one example here which he could substantiate. What was the result? What took place as a result of his alleged complaints? I am now asking the hon. member. What happened then? Did industries then go bankrupt? Did industries in Johannesburg or in Pretoria or in Cape Town go out of business? Who are they? The hon. member makes a habit of this. He has the habit of saying all kinds of things here without giving the slightest proof of why he says that. What right have hon. members of the Opposition to get up and to mention an alleged complaint without pointing out a real complaint by the concern involved? Did he do that? No, he did not. The hon. member merely said that there was imbalance between the wage structures in the border industries and in the centralized areas. He did not point out one case and say: This is the detrimental result of that. In other words, despite his complaints, I now say that it is still the position at present that those industries are flourishing to such an extent, despite the imbalance in the wage structure of which he speaks, that there is perhaps not one of them which even wants us to touch them. They want us to leave them the way they are. They are quite content. Did he prove to us that there is one of those industries which alleged that they were suffering under the imbalance in the wage structure? Did he prove that they had complaints or that they went under, or that they could not make the grade? No, Sir. I think the time has come to ask the Opposition to be consistent, and to make an attempt to reconcile their allegations. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister and also to the Department of Labour for the labour peace that we have maintained in this country and for the contentment prevailing among our workers in South Africa. There are many countries in the world which envy us that labour peace and contentment in our country. There are people who are jealous of that and who regret that it exists. The Government has succeeded admirably in stabilizing the industrial peace in our country. There is contentment among the workers in our country. They are confident and they know what the Government has done for them. If they were not contented, we would have been threatened by strikes. You yourself know that there is nothing of the kind. On that side of the House there is talk of the cost of living and of the miserable salaries. As regards salary increases, I hope that these will not be necessary. I trust and I believe that with the measures the Government has taken we shall be able to put paid to inflation and that we shall be able to stop the rise in the cost of living and that it will therefore not be necessary to have drastic wage increases. We know and the workers know that if it is necessary, it is an adjustment for only a few months. Then we will have more problems than before the increases.

In recent times the demand for labour has increased tremendously in this country, and although the United Party claims that we are experiencing such a manpower shortage, the supply has fortunately always been able to meet the demand. I shall just give one example of this. In the past 20 years our workers in the industrial sphere have increased threefold. At present we have approximately 1,000,000 non-Whites employed in industry. The wages of those non-Whites increased by approximately 250 per cent in the past 20 years. The problem of a shortage of skilled labour—or should I rather say “white” labour—is a problem we have always been faced with. Personally I think we have succeeded to a considerable extent in meeting the position. I am convinced that the position will improve. My reasons for these assumptions are the following: According to the Bureau of Statistics the white population increased by 1.79 per cent in the period 1936 to 1960, whereas in the period 1962 to 1966 it increased by 2.37 per cent. We know, of course, that this was the result of the high immigration figure. If we take a conservative figure of 20,000 immigrants a year for the next few years, our gain will be 2.32 per cent. The year 1964-’65 was one of the years with the highest growth-rate. Then our white employment increased by 3.6 per cent. We can meet that demand. It has happened. If we now take it that we will have a growth rate of 4.9 per cent, we shall be able to meet that labour demand. Our gain of 2.32 per cent will justify that. If we can maintain that, the demand will not exceed the supply. I am convinced that in the next few years our economic growth will not exceed 5 per cent. Moreover, I am satisfied that with the arrangement we have at present and the immigrants we have gained in recent times, the growth rate of our white population will exceed 2.3 per cent in future, rather than to be less than that figure. Consequently I do not see the problem as regards our white labour that the United Party pretends to see.

Another factor which we should not lose sight of and which is also playing a role, is the role of the South African woman in the economic activities of our country. The South African woman is taking an increasing part in the activities in the economic sphere of the white population. I shall now demonstrate how it is increasing. In 1936 the woman’s share was 18 per cent. In 1960 it had increased to 26 per cent. It is estimated that at the moment it is approximately 30 per cent. We know that it is still expanding on that level. If we take into consideration that the corresponding figure in America has reached 40 per cent, then it can still increase tremendously in our country. Another point on which I do not want to elaborate now—hon. members discussed it yesterday—is the fact that the Government, and we believe the private sector, is engaged more and more in increasing the productivity of our people. We can do that as well. We have done so in the past. It will also improve our position.

The United Party is always propagating the idea that more and more Bantu labour should be admitted to the white areas. Yesterday the hon. member for Yeoville waxed almost lyrical about that. The United Party is almost cheerful if it just appears to them as though the Government is not going to succeed in reducing the Bantu labour, in other words, in decreasing the Bantu themselves, in the white economy. They appear to rejoice in that. They rejoice if greater and greater numbers of Blacks continue entering the white areas. They emphasize the indispensability of the Bantu labour in the white areas. They rejoice in the prospect of the mere possibility that the older industrial areas may become blacker and blacker.

Now you are talking rubbish.

No. that is true. You may say I am talking rubbish, but that is your policy, that is what you try to insinuate time and again. That is what the hon. member for Yeoville pleaded for yesterday, namely that the Bantu should be given a place in our white areas. The United Party advocates the admission of Bantu labour masses to the white labour sphere. There is no reason for the United Party to rejoice if it should think that the Government may perhaps not succeed in keeping the Bantu in their areas and in reserving the work in the white areas for the Whites, and thereby prevent the blackening of our white areas, it is not the Government which can do that on its own. It is a directive from the people of South Africa which the Government is trying to carry out. If the Government did not succeed in that, the people would be dissatisfied with the Government. Would the United Party think that the people of South Africa, who directed this Government to keep South Africa white, would undergo a change of heart and would then accept the United Party? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I cannot continue at the moment the very interesting discussion which the hon. members for Krugersdorp and Mayfair have touched upon. I should like to, because to my mind that is the main theme that should be present in our discussions on the Minister of Labour’s Vote on this occasion. However, I rise to support certain representations that have been made to the Minister by the hon. member for Umlazi concerning the unfortunate deaths on the work that is being done on the Durban pipeline at the moment. There are certain issues which I want to raise with the hon. the Minister.

One is this. I am informed that these young men who have been “enticed”—and I use the word “enticed” deliberately—to dive to depths of 200 feet with aqualungs, do so because they have been offered wages of up to R800 per month because of the extreme danger of this occupation. Normally, from my little experience which is confined to reading about this subject, when people dive to considerable depths they dive in a diving suit with a boat and several technicians on the boat in attendance, connected to the boat by a lifeline, with machinery and proper technical engineering supervision of the supply of oxygen to them. They are fully equipped, unless they go down in an even more efficient diving bell, which is a later development. I have never heard in all my little experience—and I should like the Minister to tell me whether there have been precedents—where people have been called upon to work at depths of 200 feet with only aqualungs to support life at that depth. That is unprecedented, and the mere fact that these unfortunate, these courageous, adventurous, excellent young men have been enticed to go down to do these dangerous tasks at salaries of R800 a month, should have been a caution to the Department that this is an extremely dangerous and unnatural occupation. I also want to know from the Minister whether it is true that some of these young men, including one of them who has given his life, have had no real experience of diving at that depth at all. Is it true that one of them was expected to dive to a depth of 200 feet when the deepest he had been down before was 60 feet? I want to know that from the Minister. I also want to know from the Minister what information their employers obtained that these young men were experienced and qualified to go down to these extreme depths.

Then I want to ask the Minister a personal question. He will forgive me because this is a most serious matter. I have to direct this to him on a personal basis. I want to know why the Minister did not react to the letter he received from the South African Underwater Union (S.A.U.U.) which was posted to him on 11th April of this year? On 11th April the S.A.U.U. posted this letter. This union is a qualified body which has the right and the authority to write to the hon. the Minister because they are the only national skindiving body recognized as controlling all this type of activity in the Republic, and recognized by the World Underwater Union, of which they are a member body. They have as members the top 1,500 skindivers in the Republic, and included are 99 per cent of the nation’s scuba divers. They wrote to the Minister on 11th April. It is important that I should read this letter to the House, a copy of which is in my possession, with the full authority of the people concerned. The letter is addressed not to the Department of Labour but to the Minister himself. The heading of the letter is—

—which is Collins Submarine Pipelines (Africa) Limited—

—I repeat: They arise from “inadequate training and safety precautions”—

I think that the hon. member for Umlazi has given us those particulars. The letter continues—

Did the Minister receive this letter? It was written on 11th April and last night it was not even acknowledged, according to this body. They wrote to the Minister because a man had died and another man had been permanently injured. They drew his attention to the serious nature of the issue and they asked for his views earnestly, and on 15th May, a month and four days later, they had not even received the courtesy of a reply. I am sorry the hon. the Prime Minister has left. I think the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister and of the nation should be drawn to this type of slackness and laxity. We have had previous examples. Not long ago a Judge found that a certain letter asking for the deportation of a dangerous man was not dealt with for a long period, and a Prime Minister of South Africa died as the result, through inefficiency and a lackadaisical attitude in dealing with earnest correspondence. Here is another example. I think the hon. the Minister owes an explanation, not only to this House but to the nation and to the relatives of the two boys who have died since then, as to why this letter was not replied to. This letter was not addressed to the Secretary of the Department, or to the Private Secretary of the Minister, but to the Minister himself. We await his reply with very keen interest. In this letter this union suggested a large number of urgent precautions that should be taken, and they sent the hon. the Minister a copy of their suggestions. Last night, I am told, there was a meeting between representatives of this divers’ union and the employers concerned. I am told that it was a stormy meeting. Certain things apparently contained in these suggestions were agreed to, but we are also told that very important recommendations were not accepted, for example that there should always be contact with the person 200 feet under the water. That is deep, Sir. A person who comes up from 200 feet without proper control suffers from the “bends”; he can suffer permanent injury. One of the suggestions here, which to me as an amateur seems a very sensible suggestion, was that there should be permanent contact between the man 200 feet under the water and somebody on the surface by means of a life-line. We understand that that was rejected by the employers. But surely the union members are the type of people who practise this occupation, or this type of sport, and they should have been notified about what was accepted and what was not accepted, so that they could make further representations. But their letter was not even acknowledged. I do feel that the hon. the Minister, more than most members of the Cabinet, owes us an explanation in regard to this matter. I do not want to take this matter any further. I will sit down now and I invite the hon. the Minister to get up at once and tell us what went wrong. Why did he not deal with this letter and acknowledge it? Why were two more fine young men allowed to die, and still the letter remained unanswered? I will sit down at once and wait for a reply.

I believe that this side of the House is also in sympathy with those people who lost their lives in the course of their work, and we also have sympathy with their next-of-kin, but the hon. member for Yeoville must forgive me if I accuse him to-day of trying to make political gain from these unfortunate events. [Interjection.] That is certainly what he tried to do here, and what is more, he tried to run away from his statements of yesterday afternoon, and as the policy-maker of his party he will not be allowed to get away with that.

Yesterday the hon. member for Yeoville pleaded here for increased employment of Bantu labour in our industrial complexes. He has now had an opportunity to reply to the previous speakers on the Government side who dealt with those arguments of his, but he did not do so. He ran away and now he tries to make political gain from a most unfortunate event. But as the policy-maker of his party the hon. member should tell us whether it is the policy of the United Party to replace White labour by non-White labour in our industries. [Interjections.] He said that by implication, and the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) also pleaded for that the other day. I represent a constituency which consists of the White workers of South Africa, and I am proud of them, and we are proud of all our White workers because they are the preservers of White civilization here at the southern tip of Africa. If the United Party think that with the assistance of pressure exerted on the Government by strong capital they will succeed in making our White civilization subservient to economic prosperity, to fill the pockets of the capitalists, they are making a mistake. [Interjection.] The National Party Government will not be forced to abandon its policy, and it will see to it that the White civilization is preserved here by the White worker, who has always been prepared to contribute his share and to put his shoulder to the wheel in dark times, and not to become the political shuffle of the United Party, who are the henchmen of big capital in South Africa. [Interjection.] The hon. member for Houghton should rather keep quiet, because she has never had a good word for the White man. I think she is very sorry that she does not also have a black skin. I want the hon. member for Yeoville to tell us what his party’s policy is in this regard, whether they want to flood the labour market with black labour to alleviate the so-called labour shortage. He should give us a reply to that, and I want him to do so to-day. As long as the United Party adopts that attitude, the Whites of South Africa will reject it, and it will move further and further away from those Government benches. They will never have the slightest chance of getting into power. But that is enough as far as they are concerned, and I do not think it is necessary to waste any further time on the hon. member for Yeoville, because he is obviously a mere political opportunist. But in view of the stories we hear all the time about the shortage of trained manpower, I should like to suggest for the Minister’s consideration that sincere consideration be given to further improvements as far as the training of apprentices is concerned. We know that the National Party has done a tremendous deal to tighten up and improve the legislation in terms of which control is exercised over the training of apprentices, but I think that there is still room for improvement. In the report on the training of adult artisans at Westlake I saw a paragraph which I find most interesting. I should like to read this and then make a few observations with reference to it. Here it is stated that there is a tremendous demand for the people who are trained here. We are grateful that the National Party Government has taken the step of granting an opportunity to these unfortunate people, who could not get training during their youth, to be trained as artisans. It is said here—

In the first place I want to ask whether the training period of apprentices cannot be shortened drastically and, concomitant with that, whether the training cannot be much more intensive, and concomitant with this, whether the age of admission to apprenticeship cannot be raised. I want to state that in the light of this paragraph in the report it is clear to us that the apprentice, when he takes up his craft, must be older and more mature; it should be added that we cannot actually allow him to stay at school longer before he takes up apprenticeship. Then that training must be much more intensive to stimulate his interest in his particular subject to a larger extent. Mr. Chairman, it so happens that I was also employed in industry, and I was also concerned with the training of apprentices. I myself was trained as an apprentice and there I saw how an apprentice’s interest wanes because his training takes place over a period of years. This paragraph provides me with proof of the fact that when training is intensive, it stimulates the apprentice’s interest and enables him to become better qualified and at the same time to develop a greater pride in the profession he practises. In my view this, after all. is the secret of being successful in one’s work; one has to be proud of the profession one practises; one must be able to show one’s pride in one’s country, one’s people and oneself in the job one does, and in order to achieve this I believe that the training should be such that the interest of the apprentice is stimulated. I am also convinced that if we take these measures we shall attract apprentices in much larger numbers. In the report of the Department of Labour I see that in 1965-’66 there was an increase of plus-minus 30 per cent in the number of youths who took up apprenticeship. We are glad to hear this, but I am convinced that the youth of South Africa are still not aware of the future that awaits them in the industrial sphere if they become artisans. They should not merely prepare themselves for the lower levels of industry, as ordinary workers … [Time expired.]

The cornerstone on which a country builds its strength is most certainly the productivity of its labour, and the productivity of labour is founded on two pillars. The first is security and the second contentment, and these we are experiencing in this country at present, under the alert eyes of the National Party Government, the hon. the Minister of Labour, the Secretary for Labour and his officials. I should like to refer to item H, on which provision is made for R794,000. In the first place I should like to say something about wage subsidies which are paid in respect of persons who on account of advanced age or other defects cannot compete on the open labour market. It is particularly these people who are employed in sheltered employment factories. In the first place, we see in the annual report for 1965 that in one year 3,011 handicapped persons were placed in the open labour market and 552 in sheltered employment. Then 5,049 handicapped persons received vocational guidance and 1,541 were given psychological tests. As far as sheltered employment is concerned, there are 13 factories in the Republic of South Africa where provision is made for 2,000 handicapped persons. Some of these buildings are rented buildings which do not meet the requirements as one should like to see in the case of handicapped persons. I want to ask very cordially whether it is not possible for the hon. the Minister to investigate this matter, in cooperation with the Public Works Department, with a view to providing better factories for these handicapped workers, from the point of view of situation, design, the high rental which is paid, etc. I find that a high rental is also paid for the sheltered employment factory in my constituency. In terms of the present-day value of money the rental is perhaps not so high, but perhaps it would be better to invest that money in buildings instead of paying rents.

Secondly, I should like to say something about people who work on the open labour market. There are many opportunities for these people. In fact, the opportunities are unlimited. Good wages are paid in spite of the fact that the Opposition would suggest here that the workers receive low wages. The hon. the Minister has proved that the workers in South Africa are receiving higher wages at present and that wages have increased by a larger percentage than the cost of living. I also just want to mention that these people can bargain for higher wages. Other services which are provided by the Department of Labour are psychological tests, vocational guidance, the training of apprentices and trainees, etc. But there is one aspect of labour on which I should like to say something, and this relates to sub-head G, “Unemployment Expenditure, R2,828,000”. It is with gratitude that we notice how the Fund recovered during 1965, in spite of large amounts which were paid out. This Fund is subject to depletion. It is not impossible that the Fund may be depleted. I want to give an example of that, namely a worker who comes under group 12 with a maximum income of R3,120 a year. His weekly contribution is 12c. The amount paid in by the contributor, calculated on a period of 156 weeks, will total R18.72. Here it should be borne in mind that for each six weeks’ contribution one week’s benefits are paid out, which will come to R14 a week. This equals R60 a month. The amount received in benefits over this period of unemployment would be R364 and the number of years it would take a contributor to contribute an equal amount is 58 years. We must appreciate this fact. This Fund was established with a view to the risk of termination of employment, protracted illness, pregnancy, and benefits to the dependants of deceased persons. To me there is a deficiency in the Fund in the sense that as far as protracted illness and the benefits to dependants of a deceased contributor are concerned, I feel that these should actually come under another category. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to increase the contributions and consequently to be able to increase the benefits in respect of protracted illness and the dependants of contributors. Perhaps this may be done by means of the existing Fund, for the possibility may perhaps be considered of establishing an additional Fund to provide more specifically for protracted illness or permanent illness and for the dependants of a deceased breadwinner. Perhaps it would be a good thing if the Unemployment Insurance Board carried out a thorough inquiry into this matter and advised the hon. the Minister accordingly. Many of our workers are unemployed on account of illness for a period of three months, for example, and then they are no longer entitled to payment by their employers. Then these people are actually without a source of income, while a man who earns R300 a month is entitled to only approximately R60 a month from the Fund. This is not sufficient for these people to meet their needs. This may also result in frustration, and a person’s chances of recovery will be so much smaller if he has this additional worry. A breadwinner with an income of R200 a month is worth R30,000 to his family, calculated on a basis of investment of 8 per cent. This should always be taken into consideration when this problem is dealt with, the problem of protracted illness or permanent illness or the death of a breadwinner. If this could possibly be established, it would also relieve the burden of the State because so many people have to make use of this under the circumstances mentioned above. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I trust that the hon. member for Hercules will forgive me if I do not follow his trend of thought. I wish to return to the matter raised by the hon. member for Umlazi and the hon. member for Yeoville. I speak as a father of sons who might have been one of the victims of this unfortunate accident. I also speak as a South African who is proud of the young men who show the courage, daring and initiative to engage in these adventurous feats and pastimes which are not without danger. Some may be pastimes now, but they could be of great value to South Africa in peace or in war. We cannot afford to lose such valuable material. I speak too as a member of this legislative body, the body which has the power to prevent or take measures to stop a recurrence and I trust that the hon. the Minister under whose purview this particular aspect falls will use his powers urgently to do this.

There are two aspects which I should like to raise. The first concerns the contractors. Theirs is a contract which was founded in corruption and which has already been the subject of a judicial commission. One is entitled to ask whether these young men who were enticed into activities beyond normal standards of risk were used for reasons of dividends to directors. Was that the basis on which they were offered fantastic salaries and enticed to do things which perhaps their own better judgment would have told them not to do?

Secondly I raise the matter because I have been approached urgently by the South African Underwater Union to whom the hon. member for Yeoville has already referred. Their representations which were only handed to me before lunch to-day make certain suggestions and I feel that they should be placed before the Minister for his consideration. They are deeply disturbed about this. They are a body which the hon. member has pointed out represents the skin divers in South Africa, a responsible body. They said to me:

In explanation I should like to say that S.C.U.B.A. stands for Self-contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus. They refer in the second paragraph to the submission of a list. In order to get this quite clear for the record I am told that this list was only prepared last night so that it may not yet be in the hands of the Minister. If the hon. the Minister wishes to take any urgent steps, I have a copy here and I should be pleased to place it at his disposal. They men ion that they are disturbed because they have not had a reply but that has been adequately dealt with by my colleague. They also mention that they wish to commend the actions of Mr. Leff. the chief inspector of machinery in Durban, “for his prompt action in stopping the work on the Collins submarine pipeline” and for insisting that certain temporary precautions should be enforced to enable the work on the pipeline to proceed. I believe that the Minister has to take a decision in this matter, whether it is wise under these circumstances even to accept that temporary precautions will be adequate. They go on and say:

They offer their assistance and they say that they are prepared to give any assistance within their means but they say that the department should make use of the South African Navy diving school and that they should be asked to add their comments and additional recommendations to the recommendations which this voluntary body submits. They also offer the assistance of their Vice President who is available for further liaison in Cape Town. I had the pleasure of meeting him for a brief moment before the House commenced this afternoon and he reiterated that he would be prepared to liaise and give whatever assistance he could. Some of their suggestions would indicate that the temporary measures adopted by the chief machinery inspector in Durban have already been put into effect. Surely they must now enjoy the force of proper legislation. They say:

They say too that it is now being practised that no diver will enter the water without at least two stand-by divers, fully prepared to enter the water immediately in case of emergency. They suggest a routine check which should be instituted for every diver before he immerses. They say—

If what we have been told is correct, the victims of these tragic accidents did not have lifelines. They did not have the normal means at their disposal to save their lives under difficult circumstances. Then they go on and refer to the case of newly appointed divers. I want to deal with this question of newly appointed divers, because I understand from informal talks with one of the divers of this particular firm that no formal training was necessary. “Experience as a crayfisherman in the Western Province was deemed sufficient.” When lives are at stake, is that sufficient experience to send a man 200 feet down into the depths where he cannot see and where he has no contact under these circumstances? This is a serious matter. I am sure that the Minister will regard it as such. The one particular victim of this unfortunate incident was a man with vast experience. He had been diving for five years in Kariba, and apparently had survived hazards there, only to meet his death under circumstances which are tragic and which require a full investigation. I believe that it is time that the Minister told us that he will do everything in his power to ensure that there will be no recurrence of circumstances such as these.

Mr. Chairman, in the very first place I want to deal with these tragic diving accidents in regard to which I should like to express my condolences and at the same time most certainly those of the Government and the country. We deeply regret that these accidents took place. Since this matter was raised under my Vote it is necessary for me to give the true and legal position in this connection. In the first place the position is that diving operations as such do not fall under the purview of the Factories Act, nor does the question of their conditions of service nor the other stipulations to which reference was made. What does fall under the purview of the Factories Act is the question of the equipment used by them, for example, the air-cylinders.

And their safety?

No, that does not fall under the purview of the Factories Act. I shall shortly come to the letter to which the hon. member referred. Hon. members are aware of the investigation which is to be instituted. It will be carried out in Durban on Friday. The Department’s Inspector of Machinery will be assisted there by the Surgeon-Commander of the South African Navy.

Who has appointed them?

The Chief Inspector of Factories has done so in respect of matters that fall under him. From that report we shall be able to get more clarity in connection with action to be taken. This links up with the letter to which the hon. member for Yeoville referred. When I received the letter, I discussed the matter with the Secretary to the Department in order to ascertain to what extent we had jurisdiction to take action in this connection. The opinion was that we did not have jurisdiction in this field. But because this is a matter which is close to one’s heart, I asked the Secretary to take this matter up with the Chief Inspector of Factories and to obtain from him a full report on this matter. I am very sorry that no acknowledgment of the receipt of this letter was received. That is not in accordance with our practice. In our office the practice is to acknowledge receipt of letters. There are sufficient members on the opposite side of this House who are able to testify that that is the way in which my office replies to them. To me it is really something exceptional that no acknowledgment of this letter was received. However, we leave it at that. As regards the real matter about which these people approached us, it is so that we do not have legal authority to assist them in that connection. I do, however, expect that recommendations will result from this investigation to be held on Friday, and we shall then be able to go into such recommendations. I want to give hon. members the assurance, without binding myself in advance, that if such recommendations fall within the framework of our Factories Act at all or if it will be possible to implement them through the machinery of the Factories Act, I will obviously give priority to them with a view to taking any possible legislative or administrative action. Consequently I want to assure you, Sir, that we regard this as a serious matter. One realizes that human lives are at stake here. We want to do everything to prevent the loss of such lives. We shall definitely take all powers which we, as the State, can take in this connection. Hon. members need have no doubt about that. Before I receive the report of Friday’s investigation, however. I can say nothing further at this stage.

Does this matter not fall under anybody?

Strangely enough, it is only the question of the cylinders which, strictly speaking, falls under us in terms of the interpretation of the Factories Act. Friday’s investigation may perhaps reveal other aspects. However, one realizes that control must be exercised over a situation such as this. One cannot allow any situation which affects and destroys human lives in this manner simply to continue unchecked. Hon. members may rest assured that I will not hesitate to accept even extra obligations that may be entailed for us, if in the light of the report we are satisfied that we should do so.

What about the case of Anderson, the first one?

That, too, falls within the purview of the interpretation I have just given.

The main critic of the United Party, the hon. member for Yeoville, raised a few other matters in his first speech to which I want to reply now. He asked, in the first place, how 3i million Whites were to serve a population of 16 million. If one should ever want to speak of a slogan, this is one. What about the thousands of non-Whites who are trained to serve their own people and to serve the population as a whole? Do they not exist within the framework of the views of the hon. member for Yeoville? From time to time we furnish particulars of the numbers of non-Whites belonging to the various groups who have been trained to serve their people in professional, semi-professional, skilled and semi-skilled capacities. They are people who assist in serving these 16 million people in a skilled capacity. To say that 3½ million Whites have to serve the 16 million people in this country on their own is surely a foolish deduction to make. That is not the case. According to this statement by the hon. member it will now only be possible for a non-White to have his hair cut if it is cut by a White, because, according to that statement, there are no non-Whites to cut their own people’s hair. One does not mind if Government policy is criticized, but then such criticism should at least be better founded.

The same applies to the criticism which was once again levelled at border industries. Once again we had to hear that the border industries constituted a threat to the white worker’s bargaining power, that they constituted a threat to his employment opportunities, that they would circumvent his industrial council agreements, etc. Let me say immediately that these are not new arguments:

I have been hearing them for nearly as long as I have been in this House. We have been hearing these arguments since we have started with border industries, and I am afraid that we shall continue to hear arguments of that kind in this House from the United Party. In this House we shall continue to hear these arguments to which I am now referring as long as the United Party’s view with regard to the future of the Whites in South Africa remains what it has been up to now. As long as the United Party’s view of the pattern in South Africa actually amounts to that Party seeing South Africa as one. large, black country, we shall continue to hear this kind of sophistry in this House.

You see it as eight black countries.

That is how long we shall have this type of sophistry. We no longer get a total frontal attack on border industries. No, they are being recognized as decentralization such as one has in European countries. Consequently we no longer have such a frontal attack on the concept, but at present they resort to minor aspects of this type, such as differentiated wages, and they seize upon that as one of the bogies with which to make the white workers afraid of the Government’s policy.

The hon. member for Yeoville advanced certain arguments and had a great deal to say about how dangerous differentiated wages were for the white worker in the metropolitan areas. He pointed out how dangerous they were for the existing industries in white areas. After having listened to that, one asks oneself whether the hon. member for Yeoville has ever taken the trouble to visit one of those border factories and to ask that factory owner about the quality of the labour? Has the hon. member visited any such factory? Has the hon. member paid a visit to one of them?

Yes, I have been to Rosslyn.

Has the hon. member taken the trouble to ask the factory owner at Rosslyn about the quality of his labour?

No, but I have reports on what they have said and there is a difference of opinion.

If people like the hon. member, who went to the trouble yesterday to raise even the question of machine workers in Hammarsdale who allegedly received wages lower than those of the Japanese, and if we leave the question whether or not that is so …

I spoke of sewing-machine factory workers. Why do you not say what I said?

But those people at Hammarsdale in Natal are sewing-machine workers. What is wrong with my statement? I am speaking of those sewing-machine workers at Hammarsdale. According to the hon. member they allegedly receive wages which are lower than those paid in Japan. I do not know whether that is in fact the case. But just suppose the hon. member is correct. Surely that is attributable to the lower productivity of those workers? If the hon. member, or any hon. member opposite, visits some of these factories—and they should make work of that, because I visit them from time to time whether they are in King William’s Town or at Rosslyn or at any other place—then he must ask them, as I ask them, “What is the nature of the labour which you have here? To what extent do you find the labourers reliable? To what extent does one find them at their posts?” Without any exception one hears the complaint from industrialists in the border industries that the productivity of their labour is low. They maintain that the reason for that is that their workers are the type of person who comes and goes. Indeed, some of those industrialists are so discouraged at times that they tell one that their labour turnover is so large that the number of workers they take in is virtually equal to the number of workers who leave. Those people have not yet built up an established industrial labour force such as we have in these areas. They are dealing with people whose level of productivity is low. Therefore, when wages have to be determined, surely it is an essential requirement in wage regulations that the productivity of the people be taken into account? Since the Wage Board has quite a great deal to do in connection with the determination of wages in the outside areas, areas which are not organized, it naturally takes this low productivity into account. But not only that. It always takes into account to what extent such a factory may compete with existing factories in the metropolitan areas. In recommending wages for approval a consideration is that wages ought to be such that an attempt may be made along those lines to offset locality disadvantages. After all, the establishment of industries at Rosslyn or at King William’s Town or at East London is not without disadvantages. We all know that. These disadvantages are not merely distances and the fact that power is not near. They include the type of labour which is to be found there, labour which still has to become skilled so that it will be reliable and will be at its post. Since these things are taken into account, hon. members need have no fear of a situation arising where labour of that kind will be employed at wages which will necessarily be a threat to existing industries in our metropolitan areas. I want to tell the hon. member that he need have no sleepless nights about the existing factories and the existing white employment opportunities in these metropolitan areas. He need have no concern and no sleepless nights about that, because this Government will see to it that our white employment opportunities will not be undermined by developments there. But just as the hon. member need lose no sleep about that, so he need not expect the Government to pay any attention to his scaremongering in regard to border industries. We will not do so.

I, in my capacity as Minister of Labour, with my Department and the statutory bodies which deal with wage determining measures, will continue to make our contribution in that sphere. We shall do so by means of exemptions which may be granted in respect of industrial agreements, or where the Wage Board has to determine equalizing wages for these industries. We shall continue to lend a hand in advancing this border industry development, because it is of importance to the white worker in the metropolitan areas. Our white workers realize that at present. That is why they no longer pay any attention to the kind of propaganda made by the hon. member for Yeoville. The days when he was able to make such a fuss concerning the garment workers in Germiston have long since passed. That kind of propaganda is no longer making any impression whatsoever on the workers, because our workers, whether they are from Germiston or Alberton or from wherever, realize to-day that this border area development has two major, basic objects. The first is to prevent our white cities from becoming completely black. They realize that. The second is that they know that the policy will be implemented in such a way that it will continue to protect white employment opportunities. Consequently the hon. member may rest assured that in spite of the fuss which has been made and the scaremongering that is in progress, the Government is continuing with its policy of border development and this policy will be furthered in the interests of all by means of fair and sound wage determination measures. That will happen not only in the interests of Bantu development but also in the interests of the white workers’ employment opportunities in this country.

I now come to the hon. member for Lang-laagte, who raised the question of vocational training. As far as vocational training is concerned, I want to say that that is not such a perfect system that it is not open to criticism. On the contrary, we are constantly receiving suggestions in regard to the streamlining of the apprenticeship system, and if there are any suggestions in this regard, the Apprenticeship Board will be pleased to receive them for further consideration. But first of all we must know to what address we want to deliver those suggestions. In connection with vocational training as a whole, the proper address is that of the National Apprenticeship Board, a body which is held in high esteem by everyone in this country, a Board which consists of trade union representatives and of employers, people who have rendered the best of service in the interests of apprentices throughout the years, people who assisted in the drafting of the Apprenticeship Act which we piloted through Parliament some years ago and one which is amongst the best in the world. People who have investigated apprenticeship measures in other parts of the world have come to the conclusion that our Act is of the best in the world. But that does not mean that we want to remain stationary at this point. The contrary is true. But if there are suggestions in connection with, firstly, shortening the period of apprenticeship, the first address is not that of the National Apprenticeship Board, nor my address, but that of the apprenticeship committee for the industry concerned. The matter should be broached with that committee, so that those people may first consider the matter. Let those people who have first-hand knowledge of a trade’s needs and requirements make a recommendation whether that period may be shortened and in that way it may come before the National Apprenticeship Board and that Board will treat those suggestions with the same degree of sympathy as it has done in the past. However, if one wants to consider the necessity of further streamlining the Apprenticeship Act, one should at least do so against the background of the improvements which have come about since the coming into operation of the present Act. This new Apprenticeship Act, with all its advantages of new systems, log books, better class attendance and better inspections which are carried out, has effected a remarkable improvement in the sphere of vocational training within a very short period. The results of these improvements in the apprenticeship system can be measured on the basis of the fact that the number of apprentices enrolled annually in the different industries has increased from 7,279 in 1964 to 11,285 in 1966, an annual increase of more than 2,000. The total number of enrolled apprentices stood at 31,163 at the end of 1966 as against 24,331 at the end of 1964. However, this is not the only basis on which we can measure the improvements. We can also do so on the basis of the clearly perceptible average improvement in the level of education of the apprentices. We find that the numbers who have passed standard eight and standard ten are much higher at present than a few years ago. We notice that the introduction of the block release system, or attendance at technical colleges in groups, is very successful and that it contributes to apprentices at present receiving a better training, something which is reflected by the high percentage of apprentices who pass in the qualifying trade tests. This new Apprenticeship Act has already yielded many good results for which we may be thankful. We are not deaf to further suggestions, but I just want to draw attention to the fact that this Apprenticeship Act, which is really only beginning to show its value now, ought at least to be given a proper chance before one once more orders a country-wide investigation into its entire operation.

The hon. member for Hercules raised a matter concerning sheltered employment factories. I am particularly pleased about his interest in that matter, because it is something which has always stimulated my own interest. In those factories our handicapped persons are really engaged in performing their daily task with self-respect, a task which is not without its economic value to our country. However, these factories are of course being maintained by means of 100 per cent contributions by the State and from a financial point of view it is of course not possible to demolish old buildings and to erect new buildings all the time. That would entail enormous expenditure. You can see from the Estimates what tremendous amounts are given to these sheltered employment factories. That labour remains subsidized labour. We do ensure by means of departmental supervision that the safety and other measures are properly observed in those factories. I am glad to say that since the Department has taken over the control of these factories, their margins of profit have been increased considerably. Factories which have been suffering losses for many years, have been converted into profitable business, but sheltered employment as a whole involves high expenditure for the State. In any event, we shall constantly see to improvements which may be effected, but we cannot simply replace all existing buildings all at once.

Firstly I want to tell the hon. member for Langlaagte that if he says this side of the House will allow the white man’s position in labour to be undermined by the black man or the non-White, and if the hon. the Minister agrees with him, as he apparently has done by implication, then I want to say that that is as far from the truth as it is possible to get. We deny it categorically, and it is no good the Government trying to hang a label such as that on this side of the House. If any statement made in this Parliament by anybody pointed the way for undermining the white man’s position, then surely it was the statement made by the hon. the Minister in the Other Place, according to the Senate Hansard, Vol. 4, of 1967, in Column 839, where the Minister of Labour said that there would be no limit to the skills which Africans can acquire and use in the border industries, even to managerial level. He did not say that they were going to use those skills in the Bantu homelands; he said they would use them in the border industries. That is the point we on this side of the House take note of. But I leave it at that, and I want to come back to the statement the hon. the Minister made in relation to the Apprenticeship Act.

The hon. the Minister said that we must at this stage, at any rate, allow the Apprenticeship Act to have a chance to work. I want to tell him that if we are going to continue to talk about productivity and if we are going to impress upon industry and the trades that South Africa must go all out to increase productivity, then surely we can only start the trend of movement towards this ultimate goal by going right to the base of the labour structure, and surely that base is the apprentice. The apprentice of to-day is the key-man of the future labour structure, and I would say to him that if he wants to improve the quality of our products and of our work, and if he wants to increase the productivity, he can only do that by investigating now what better use we can make of the apprentice. I think the time has come, even so soon after the passing of the new Act, to review this Act now. I would like to see it reviewed almost immediately because changes are taking place in industry and in the trades at such a rapid rate that we will be left behind unless we do something to improve the present position of the apprentice.

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Langlaagte when he says that an investigation should be undertaken into the length of time that an apprentice has to serve before he becomes a skilled artisan. I do not say that that can be done in every trade but I do say that we should investigate the position and see in which trades the period of apprenticeship can be shortened. Responsible opinion at the moment is in favour of shortening the training period. We heard recently what was said by Mr. Murray, President of Tucsa. Mr. Murray is also the organizing secretary of the Boilermakers’ Union. These people speak with authority. Mr. Murray suggested that there should be a more intensive and shorter period of training for apprentices. Sir, we can only do that by a careful study of the present position to see how we are going to meet future demands. I do not say that this task should be thrown upon the shoulders of the hon. the Minister, but what I do say is that the Minister and leaders of trade unions and employers of labour and industrialists, should get together and see whether they cannot formulate a plan to meet the present emergency. We have a double emergency at the present time. Firstly, there is the shortage of labour. It is not an apparent shortage, as the hon. member for Krugersdorp has suggested, but an actual shortage. The figure runs into thousands when it comes to apprentices. Let us fry to introduce a more intensive course of training for the apprentice and at the same time let us try to make the conditions under which he has to study as attractive as possible. Mr. Murray says that we should go out of our way to try to get more technicians. He is perfectly right, Sir. I feel that an apprentice, as he is trained at the moment, has to specialize too much in one particular job. Too much emphasis is being placed on one particular type of work. I feel that diversification should be introduced into the studies and the training of an apprentice so that he would also be qualified to do other types of work. Although he is skilled or very skilled in one particular type of work, there is no reason why he should not be taught a sound knowledge of other allied work. For instance, why should a bricklayer spend five years learning to lay bricks? To me it is ridiculous. Surely a bricklayer should be trained to be a builder. He should know something about carpentry; he should know how to plaster; he should know a little bit about plumbing and a little bit about electricity; he should be able to read plans properly, not only where the walls are to be erected. We have spent too much time in the past emphasizing the importance of one particular type of work instead of teaching the apprentice a knowledge of other allied trades. I think we could quite easily do that. I fail to see why it should take an apprentice five years to learn to be a moulder or a welder. Surely during that time he can learn to do other things as well? Surely a man who is a fitter and turner should be trained in such a way that he can become a machine-maker and not only a machine-minder. That is the sort of thing that we should start doing. Because of the way we are teaching and instructing at the present time, we are turning out too many bricklayers and too few builders. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Rosettenville will pardon me if I do not follow him in his argument. Sir, at an earlier stage of this debate there was mention of increased productivity. I just want to make one observation in that regard, and that is that increased productivity is dependent to a large extent on good management, good management in the business undertaking and also good management on the level of the country’s Government. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the fact that on his level the management is very good. This is borne out by the fact that there is full employment together with absolute labour peace. Thousands of immigrants are absorbed in our economy every year without disruption of any kind, and the fact that this is done without any disruption whatsoever is attributable to good management on the part of the Department headed by the hon. the Minister, because they have seen to it that there is legislation to make this labour peace possible.

There is one minor matter that I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, and this relates to the private employment bureaux. There are several private labour bureaux in the larger centres and I just want to mention some names as examples, without casting any reflection on them. There is. for example, the Executive Services, Johannesburg Employment Bureau, Handy Employment Bureau, and one could continue to mention quite a number of them. These bureaux place workseekers in employment. They advertise occupations in the local newspapers against certain wages, and what struck me was the fact that the wages advertised by them were always slightly higher than the wages justified by such occupations. I have a suspicion that the labour bureaux do this with the object of drawing many applicants to apply to them for these occupations. When the work-seeker applies to them, the first thing they do is to collect 50c from him for registration, and this is frequently the last time the work-seeker concerned hears from them. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the time has not come to give attention to this matter. When I see how the advertisements placed by the bureaux in the newspapers gradually become more and more prominent, it appears to me as though it has become a quite profitable industry to exploit the labour shortage prevailing in certain spheres. Hon. members are aware of the fact that if a work-seeker is in fact placed, the employer has to pay an amount of R3 to the bureau and the person who is fortunate enough to get the work is compelled to surrender 5 per cent of the first month’s wages in payment to the bureau. I want to make a statement here that such bureaux are actually unnecessary. I say this because I am acquainted with the work done by the Employment Department under the Department of Labour, with whom persons can also be registered as work-seekers or unemployed. The service which is rendered is such that it is unnecessary to approach a private concern which is actually only set on making money and not so much on seeing to it that work-seekers are placed in employment.

The Government is frequently accused of neglecting or disregarding the interests of the man in the street, but if we are to apply a criterion to determine whether this is really the case, then that criterion is the activities of the Department of Labour. The labour peace and the labour contentment prevailing in this country are clear proof that that allegation by the Opposition is not true. If the man in the street becomes dissatisfied, we must expect the Department of Labour to come into contact with the man in the street, because then one touches the worker in the labour community. The high employment figure and the low unemployment figure obtaining at present result from the sound economic position experienced by the country at present. The criterion is how the Department of Labour handles the labour legislation during these times. Now that there is abundant work and the country is economically strong, the criterion is whether the Department of Labour handles the existing labour legislation in such a way that the prevailing situation cannot be abused. I want to mention one example.

If we study the statistics and consider the small number of strikes that occurred in the past five years, or if we consider the small number of stoppages of work which occurred, then it is quite clear to us—considering how many millions of people are economically active in this country—that we should be grateful for the work done by the Department of Labour and the way in which it handles its affairs. If the man in the street had not been satisfied, we would not have had this small number of stoppages of work and strikes in our country. Here we are concerned with the implementation of the Wage Act, the Industrial Conciliation Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act and other incidental Acts. In the past the hon. member for Yeoville took the opportunity to say on this Vote that this was legislation which had been adopted in former times by his Government. But what happened to that legislation? The people turned their backs on the Government of that time. It is because the Government of the time did not properly implement that important legislation which they themselves adopted—under pressure from the National Party of the time— but the worker and the man in the street turned their backs on the Government in 1948. Since then we have seen that at every election the people turned their backs more and more on that party. The best example we have of the sound implementation of the existing legislation is probably the way in which the hon. the Minister and his Department dealt with the problems of the mine-workers in recent times.

The Department of Labour deals with two main groups in the labour community. In the first place there are the people who are independent and productive in their labour because they make full use of all the opportunities and facilities existing there and because they have the necessary mental and physical powers to do so. On the other hand there is the group of people who for quite a variety of reasons are unable to be fully productive without special assistance. The attitude of the Department is that these people should be helped to recover to such an extent that they can play a normal part in the labour community. For that reason we find that roughly half of the amount requisitioned on this Vote is to be utilized for direct services such as sheltered employment, wage subsidies, subsidies for certain services, the professional services of the Department, etc. It is particularly in respect of the last-mentioned group that I want to ask the attention of the hon. the Minister. To me this relates to a group of people whose services are subsidized by the Department because they are unable to be fully productive. I should have liked the Department’s approach to be that the concerns which employ these people should not be subsidized because those people should still like to work, but that the approach should be that more funds be made available in order that more of these people may be encouraged to take up productive employment as long as they are still able to do so. If we consider the matter in the context of our manpower shortage in general, they must be inspired, by means of publicity on the part of the Department, to avail themselves of the opportunities which exist.

I want to raise another matter, namely this valuable publication of the Department of Labour, Rehabilitasie in Suid-Afrika. This is a publication of an exceptionally high quality, and its contents are highly appreciated. There is something very interesting in the history of this publication. It came into being as a result of the activities of the Rehabilitation Board, which disappeared because, as this publication itself puts it, it did not suit its function fully. Then an inter-departmental committee on rehabilitation services came into being. If we look at the activities of this publication we see that in the past ten years a very wide range of subjects received attention. The word “rehabilitation” used by this publication in its name and also in the articles published by it, is closely related to the concept of “welfare”. Actually we can distinguish between these two concepts, but we cannot separate them completely. If I look at the contents of this publication I see that there are articles on children’s homes of the church and children’s homes subsidized by the Department of Social Welfare; on the alcoholic; the aged; the blind; the deaf and on the social work and charitable services of the D.R. Church; on mental health; on aspects of the work of the Department of Education. Arts and Science, etc. What is written here is highly appreciated.

However, the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions has a similar publication. Now we understand that attempts have been made to unite the control of these two publications in order that these two Departments, the work of which is so closely connected, may both make use of it. It was then found that each had its own particular field. In these times in which we have to cut down on expenditure, and in view of the fact that professionalism is coming more and more to the fore in the work of the State, I want to express the cordial warning that there is a possibility that the professional points of view stated in this publication and the professional points of view in the publication of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions can easily come into conflict, as I have noticed myself. The number of professional persons in this field is extremely limited. I can hardly see how the Department of Social Welfare can publish a similar publication if it has to rely on the same professional people to write its publication. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister, if there have already been negotiations on departmental level and if it was found that there was no way of combining these two publications, to give his attention to it and to ask whether the maximum has really been done. In my judgment, reading these articles—and I myself have participated in writing some of them—there is in fact a good deal to be said for combining these two publications.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Krugersdorp indicated in his speech that the white workers of this country could carry on the work and that the shortage in the technical branches of our economy and the shortage of artisans, is due to the fact that our economy has advanced so quickly that it is not possible to keep up with it. I should like to warn the hon. member for Krugersdorp that his attitude that the Whites of this country can go it alone is quite wrong. The hon. the Minister himself, when he replied to the hon. member for Yeoville. said that the Coloured man is in fact playing his part and that it is necessary for the Coloured man to be trained, and that he would be trained. I am going to show the hon. member for Krugersdorp that it is in fact the policy of the Government to help the Coloured boy to be trained and to be apprenticed in respect of the various aspects of the requirements of this country. Whether the hon. member likes it or not, the Coloured man will and must of necessity play his part in the economy of our country.

I never said anything like that.

The hon. member said that the shortage was due to the economy which had expanded so rapidly. He rather pooh-poohed the speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville. He cannot deny that. That is correct. The hon. member for Mayfair spoke about immigration. I want to say to hon. members that they must not think that immigration is the answer to the artisan shortage in this country. In fact, I think it is unfair to the Coloureds. The hon. member for Mayfair admitted that it was not immigration in its proper sense but that it was in fact imported labour. I should like to say that we as Coloured representatives acknowledge very happily the interest which the hon. the Minister is taking in the technical education of the Coloured people. I think the hon. the Minister actually used the same words which appear in the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister which he gave before the Coloured Council. I read from page 10. It states here:

I should like to say that this is a wonderful step which the Government has taken in regard to the education of the Coloured people in the technical sphere. I read further from the speech:

I hope the hon. member for Krugersdorp will now listen.

What is wrong with that?

I accept this. I say that I am very happy to hear it. I am taking part in this debate to tell the hon. the Minister that we look forward to the expansion of education in this field. But I do not quite understand what is meant by “apprenticeship training”, as referred to by the hon. the Prime Minister. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to give us more details in this regard. Following upon this I should like to say that it is generally accepted by the Coloureds that they are receiving theoretical training, but not sufficient practical training. I understand that in terms of the labour laws of our country, before a man can enter into any trade or calling, he must serve his apprenticeship. It is in this connection that I should like to speak to the hon. the Minister. I know that the Minister in his dual capacity of Minister of Labour and Minister of Coloured Affairs is doing his utmost to get the Coloured youngsters apprenticed.

I should like to make an appeal to the white workers of South Africa: Do not stop the Coloured youth from being apprenticed. My information is that the employers of South Africa will be only too happy to apprentice Coloured youths if there is no objection from the white workers. I think that the time has come for us to call upon the white workers of South Africa not to stand in the way of the Minister and the Department of Labour and the Department of Coloured Affairs in training Coloured youths in the practical side of technical education. If for no other reason, this must be done, in the words of the hon. the Prime Minister, “to serve their own people and therefore serve South Africa”. It is with great regret that we have learnt that the Coloured people of this country in every attempt—or not every attempt, but in the majority of cases—to be apprenticed in certain trades or callings, are just not able to break through. The time has come when we must try to do something; otherwise the hope expressed by the hon. the Minister of Labour and the hon. the Prime Minister will not be realized. They expressed the hope that there would be sufficient Coloured artisans—men trained in technical spheres to serve their own people and to serve South Africa. Unless we can get the white worker of South Africa to drop this prejudice which he has against the apprenticeship of Coloured people, they will never be able to succeed in having large numbers of Coloured people trained to serve their own people. I should like the hon. the Minister to do whatever he can in this regard. I know that the Minister is keen on this. According to my information, he accepts the line that I am taking. I hope that the appeal which I have made on behalf of the Coloured people will not fall on deaf ears.

The plea made by the hon. member for Boland in the interests of the Coloureds is actually superfluous. He knows and everybody knows that it is in fact the policy of this Government to train the Coloured as quickly as possible to serve his own people. Last night the hon. member for Yeoville outlined very clearly and in unequivocal terms what policy his Party would pursue in respect of the white worker if they came into power. The hon. member said that as he saw it South Africa consisted of one nation with 16 million people, white, black and Coloured. Together they all form an integrated South African nation. Because the white section, which forms a minority group, cannot supply the leaders for that group, the hon. member wants to train Bantu for skilled labour. Despite the denial of the hon. member for Rosettenville, it is very clear that in the process the hon. member for Yeoville wants to abolish the colour bar in industry as well as job reservation and all forms of discrimination in respect of the Bantu in industry.

He never said that.

Yes, I admit that he did not say that, but that was the whole spirit and the tenor of his speech. We did not misunderstand him. Nobody would misunderstand him. Nor will the worker outside misunderstand him. The White worker outside will know that under a United Party regime he will receive no protection in respect of competition with the non-White. He will know that. The hon. member tried here to hold out the spectre that this Government is in tremendous quandary. According to the United Party the Government is in a powerless position as a result of its apartheid policy, its policy to protect our leader position, and as a result of job reservation. But the hon. member, who has been in this House so long, is labouring under a complete misconception. Surely the hon. member knows that in the first place this Government does not see the entire South African population, all 16 million people, as one population group. This Government’s contention is that we have different population groups here, and it has always been the policy of the Government that every population group should ultimately have its own leaders and that from every population group people should be trained to provide leaders, also in the technical and technological fields. That is why attempts are being made every day to train Coloureds and Bantu in order that in course of time they will no longer compete with the white in the white area in the labour field, but will be able to take up their positions as leaders in their homelands and serve among their own people.

Hon. members on the opposite side seem to forget that this Government is not primarily concerned about industrial prosperity and expansion, although these are very important, of course. The task of this Government is primarily the establishment, the stabilization and the preservation of the White civilization in Southern Africa. That is the Government’s primary task. If a choice has to be made between industrial prosperity and the stabilization and preservation of the White civilization, this Government would choose the latter alternative and stabilize and safeguard the interests of the last-mentioned group first. That is the essential difference between this side of the House and that side of the House. That side of the House sit there as the patrons of industry and of the large capatalists. This side of the House, on the other hand, endeavours primarily to ensure that a White civilization will be established and protected here.

In recent times we heard a great deal in this House and outside to the effect that it is the United Party which is the patron of the worker, that they are so concerned about the plight of the worker, and that the Government is the big, ugly old wolf which ignores the interests of the worker altogether. I now want to tell hon. members on the opposite side that they may as well take off this angel’s garment in which they try to clothe themselves, namely that they are actually the patrons of the worker. The image they are trying to cover up is too horribly ugly for them to assume that garment. The worker sees through that garment and the worker knows what the true position is. One cannot erase one’s past; it follows one like one’s shadow. Surely all of us know what conditions prevailed when that side was in government. Can we forget, can the worker forget, that immediately after the war that party saw fit to lend millions of rand to Britain while chaos, unemployment and misery prevailed in this country? Our people lacked proper housing. Black and White lived together under chaotic conditions in our industrial cities. They will never forget that. The true friend of the worker is the National Party. It has been that through the years, and it will always remain that. Nobody would deny that at present our people are experiencing difficulties as a result of inflation. But surely the worker knows that he is not the only one to suffer; he knows that it is a world-wide phenomenon, that other income groups, also the higher income groups, are experiencing hard times. The worker also knows that this Government is sympathetic to him; he knows that this Government knows where the rub is. This Government is in close touch with the national development. He also knows that the Government has the interests of the worker at heart and that it tries every day to protect his interests and to improve his position.

This Government has built up a fine record in respect of our workers in the course of the past 19 years. It is a record which cannot be compared with that of any previous Government. I do not want to bore the House with this interesting list of legislation passed in the past 19 years to establish and stabilize the position of the worker. However, I cannot refrain from quoting one or two examples. In respect of housing for both Whites and non-Whites the gigantic amount of R522 million has been spent in the past 19 years. There has also been the determination of minimum wage scales. We also had the proper establishment of trade unions. Arrangements were made for separate trade unions, etc. I could mention a lengthy list of improvements, but I do not want to continue with that.

At present the position of the worker is sound. The worker can now live in a decent house; he is a respected member of the community and he can also maintain a high standard of living. But unfortunately this high standard of living is also accompanied by its peculiar problems. Finally I just want to point out that it is in fact this high standard of living, under which everybody is virtually compelled to own a motor-car in addition to all the other conveniences, which has had the result that more and more housewives have to go and work. This is probably a good thing. In fact, it is pleaded every day that more use should be made of the potential of female labour.

I thought you were against it.

I shall tell you in a moment what I have against it. If one visits a suburb in one of our residential areas early in the morning, say by seven o’clock or half-past seven, one sees mothers leave their homes to wait for buses at the bus stops on their way to work in factories. If one watches what happens in their homes, one sees seven or eight little children who remain behind uncared for. When children come out of school in the afternoons they are always uncared for and must be satisfied with perhaps only a piece of bread. They spend their afternoons in the streets until the mother comes home at six o’clock or seven o’clock. If one has regard to all this, one realizes that this is a problem which certainly merits our attention. I would not say that women should not be allowed to work, but I should like to plead here that the hon. the Minister should consider inquiring into the needs and the problems of the working woman, particularly in the industrial field. Perhaps shorter working hours—say a shift of five hours a day—could be a solution. I do not know what the solution is. But we should take case that industrial expansion does not become a huge dragon which sinks its dragon’s teeth into our entire social structure and destroys it. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has started on the question of the working woman, on which I will not follow him, but I do want to refer to some of the things he said about the United Party and our attitude towards white labour. The one question which the hon. member did not refer to is the shortage of skilled personnel in industry. There is no answer whatever coming from that side of the House. They have no answer at all. They do not even pretend to have an answer as regards the future of the white man in industry in South Africa. Because as our industries expand there is a continual demand for white initiative, white skills. There is a continual demand upon white capability and the capacity of the white man for leadership in industry. What is going to happen is that the white man of this country is going to have become a white-coat worker rather than being a white-collar or a blue-collar worker. He will become a white-coat worker: The technician increasingly in charge of what is going on, supervising work done by non-whites, if industry is going to survive.

Will he be allowed to run away with the country?

That hon. member was talking about Hoggenheimer just now, and I wonder if that is the person the hon. member for Moorreesburg referred to the other day when he talked about long black cars and the directors of companies that we have. I wonder if they are the same persons who are sitting on the benches on the other side to-day. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister referred to the border industries and the employment in border areas and complained that productivity was very low in those areas and said that industrialists there were having difficulty in finding labour which would remain with them and which was productive. I wonder whether this is in fact something which the Minister can support, that his Government should continue, by tax concessions, to move industries into areas like that where the labour is of low productivity; whether they should go out of their way deliberately to encourage industries being sited in areas where the productivity of labour is known to be low and the turnover of labour is known to be high. It seems to me that this is the very antithesis of efficiency in industry, and I wonder whether this Minister in his heart of hearts, as Minister of Labour, really relieves that is the right thing for the Government to be doing.

I wish to make some comment on this matter of border industries. The hon. member for Yeoville raised the matter of the level of wage scales in the border areas and he quoted the Chairman of the Permanent Committee as saying that it was the policy of the Government to keep the level of wages in the border areas lower than in the metropolitan areas. I want to raise this matter with the Minister because to-day the whole of Natal practically is a border area, and it means that practically the whole of Natal is covered by the statement of this Chairman of the Permanent Committee, that the wages of Bantu employees there will be kept at a lower level, and they will in fact encourage industries to go to those areas by maintaining lower wages there than those in the metropolitan areas. I want to raise pertinently the case of Pietermaritzburg, which is to-day a border area. The whole policy of the Government is to encourage industry to go to the border areas as the solution to the sociological problem we have, the relations between White and Black and to try to increase the employment of Bantu in those areas. But there is a complication in Natal, and I have not heard any hon. member opposite refer to it. That is the presence of a large pool of unemployed Indian labour. When you consider Pietermaritzburg as a border area, the industrial area of Pietermaritzburg is sited next to the Indian residential areas of Northdale, Raisethorpe and Mountain Rise, and the Bantu area is some eight or ten miles away, right on the other side of Pietermaritzburg, and this is true of many of the areas in Natal. I want to know whether it is now the policy of the Department to restrict the working opportunities and the wage levels of Indian workers in Natal by restricting the level of Bantu wages and thereby making them more competitive as compared with the Indians. This is a very real problem in industry in Natal. Unemployment is rife among the Indian community. We had the answer given to a question here to-day that the school of industries which is being established in Natal is being established in Newcastle, while the great pool of unemployed people is in Durban and Pietermaritzburg. I believe the white community can ill afford to neglect this large number of potentially skilled people in the Indian community who, it has been proved, are capable of becoming skilled operators and who can profitably be employed in industry and who can fill the gap between the White worker and the Bantu worker. I would be very interested to know whether, in fact, the Department and the Minister have any clear pattern as to the place of Indian labour in industry, and particularly in Natal. Because we in Natal are told that we have the advantage that practically the whole of our province is a border area. That is what we are told by some Deputy-Ministers and other hon. members of his House, but there has got to be found a place for the Indian community in the industrial complexes that are being set up in Natal. I want to ask the Minister whether he has a plan, because what is happening is this. Hon. members say that the policy of border industries will solve their problem of integration of the black man into industry, but in fact what is happening in Natal is that where there have been traditional sources of Bantu labour for white industries, as you have it in Pietermaritzburg and Hammarsdale and many other areas, these areas are to-day simply being designated border areas and the name of the area where these people are living is being changed, and that is all that is happening. None of them are being moved, but this is now the solution which the Minister and the Government preach to the question of the integration of the black man and his labour in industry. I believe that the whole of this thing is an absolute farce. I do not see that it can offer a permanent solution or any kind of solution at all to the sort of problem we are facing, where the White man, by his fewness in numbers, cannot fulfil the needs of industry, the insatiable need of industry for skilled people. Some kind of solution must be found, and the solution is not the one propounded by the Government which says: Go to the border areas and the homelands. [Interjection.] I want to ask the hon. members what will be produced by the factories in the homelands, and where will those products be sold, and will not compete with the white factories already established in the white areas? [Interjection.] That hon. member says there is nothing wrong with it. He is quite prepared to accept that the Bantu factories in the Bantu areas can compete with the white factories in the white areas, and the Government is deliberately encouraging factories to go to those areas by giving them advantages. They go out of their way to induce them to go to those areas by giving them substantial advantages which will enable them to compete on a more favourable basis with the established industries in the white areas. I think that is a back-to-front way of solving the problem, which is to find a permanent and satisfactory place both for Bantu and Indian labour in the industrial set-up.

I do not want to reply to the hon. member for Mooi River, because he raised a matter which is specific to Natal and to the Indian labour position there, and I am sure the Minister will reply to him in due course. I hope he will forgive me for not replying to him.

I want to raise another matter with the hon. the Minister. I want to ask him to consider the possibility of introducing legislation compelling employers to protect their employees against excessive exposure to noise while on duty. I do this as the representative of a working man’s constituency in Johannesburg which is considered to be one of the noisiest cities in the world. The traffic noise there, the buzz-bikes, the bulldozers and the Jackhammers and the diesel engines, and the inadequate exhaust filters, are driving us nuts. I am sure the din that goes on there day and night is responsible for many workers landing in institutions where they have to be treated for nervous disorders. Cape Town, with less industrial activity in its centre, probably suffers less from this ear-rending cacophony that we residents of the Rand have to cope with by day and night. The biggest single disturber of one’s sleep in Cape Town seems to be the Mouille Point foghorn and it is a matter of surprise to me that South Africa, with the advances it has already made in science and in the technological field, has not been able to design a foghorn with a mellower and less strident sound. Research has been done in the past in regard to noise. I know that the Bureau of Standards appointed a special committee which has discussed this matter for at least four years to see whether they cannot possibly draw up a code of practice which will set noise limits in the cities. I want to ask the Minister whether any further developments have flowed from these discussions. Is it not possible to frame legislation which can serve as a basis for local authorities to act by regulation to reduce the noise level in our urban communities? Legislation empowering these regulations must make provision also for offenders to be punished suitably. There is no doubt that noise, particularly the high frequency sounds found in industry, causes irreparable damage to people. I am told that workers exposed to noise of more than 85 decibels have had their hearing permanently damaged. Research overseas has shown that workers in noisy surroundings are less efficient and suffer often from nervousness, insomnia, headaches. speech impediments or even epilepsy. Noise has also been found to affect the vital centres such as the vascular system and the organs responsible for regulating breathing and circulation. Although a person can adapt mentally to noise, as I have to adapt to the maddening nocturnal noise of the foghorn, it does not mean that the effects of noise on the system are in any way diminished. I have a voter in my constituency who has worked for 20 years in one of the noisiest occupations, boiler-making. He never detected that his hearing was diminishing, but it has now been discovered after 20 years that his loss of hearing is already very severe. People working in these noisy occupations first lose the ability to distinguish high frequency sounds and later on it becomes difficult for them to hear low frequency sounds, like voices. The tragedy of this is that exposure to noise induces loss of hearing which is not amenable to treatment, and such loss of hearing is often permanent. I was glad to read in the Press the other day that the S.A. Road Safety Council is also worried about the traffic noises in our big cities and they have sent one of their most important officials, the Regional Director of the Council, Mr. Vorster, overseas to study traffic noise and its control in the big cities like Athens, Rome and Lisbon, Madrid, Paris and London, and also to study what precautionary measures can be taken against these noises by way of legislation. It is suspected that there is a definite relationship between traffic noises and the road accident rate we have not only here but all over the world. Combating noise is an urgent matter which affects the whole of South Africa and the whole of our working community. One of the countries where the noise problem is the worst is America. A few years ago an aircraft company was sued by a wine-grower because he alleged that his wine turned sour because the jets flew over the vats. We in South Africa, particularly in the Western Province, may land in the same position, seeing that we are on the threshold of the jet age here. I would like the Minister to tell us what investigations have been made. We also know that dairymen have claimed that jets taking off from airports close to their dairies curdled milk even before the milk was produced, and chicken farmers have said that egg production had fallen as the result of the noise of these jet planes. Cases are known of people who got headaches from noise and became nervous. Noise has also been blamed for hypertension. There was a study made recently in Germany by an industrial physician who said that noise was causing many changes in the blood vessels of the human being. We also know that intermittent noise, in particular, regular intermittent noise, will reduce the efficiency of a group of typists. There are many sources in our community from which noise derives but I want to mention only the three general ones, namely industry, traffic and airport noises. [Interjection.] Yes, we can include the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) as well. I want to ask the hon. the Minister under whom industrial noises fall, whether he would not consider giving a lead to the country with suitable legislation, if possible, in order to protect South Africans who are being exposed to and bombarded by sounds and noises from all directions in our modern society.

I do not want to dwell on what the hon. member for Turffontein has said. He has gone to great lengths in explaining to this Committee about the terrible noises in his constituency. [Interjection.] Well, I am not particularly worried about the hon. member or his concern about noises, and I do not feel sorry for him either;

I feel very sorry for the people in his constituency whom he represents in this House.

Sir, the hon. member for Algoa spoke about the money which the United Party Government was able to lend, on interest, to Great Britain soon after the war. It surprises me that the hon. member for Algoa should even mention the amount—£80 million.

In gold, and that was before devaluation.

I wonder whether the hon. member has told his constituents what happened to that loan or how much they got back when they recalled the loan. It would be interesting to hear what he tells his constituents about £80 million. That amount was withdrawn and this Government could not get the whole amount back either. I would like to know from hon. members opposite what the Government did with that money.

Sir, we all know that in South Africa four-fifths of our labour force consists of non-Whites and one-fifth of Whites. We have heard a great deal here about the manpower shortage in South Africa to-day, particularly in the field of skilled workers or artisans. Nobody will deny this and nobody on that side has disputed it either. But what I cannot understand is that whenever we study South Africa’s concentration of labour force, particularly in the metropolitan areas, where I would say 99 per cent of our labour is con centrated to-day, we find that where we have a mass concentration of non-white labour, there is the same concentration, proportionately, of white labour. The two always go together. If the Government plans to remove all the non-white labour or most of it to the reserves, then obviously they must plan to move a large percentage of our white labour force to the reserves as well, or to the borders of the reserves.

Not necessarily.

Who is going to train the non-white labour in or on the borders of the reserves and who is going to give them leadership?

Do not worry about that; let industry worry about that.

Sir, this is precisely what I am worrying about. Unfortunately at the moment the voter outside is not worried about it, but when he does become worried, it will be too late. This has been the pattern of industrial development over the last 300 years; wherever you have a large concentration of black labour there you also have a large concentration of white labour; the one goes with the other. We now see the unscrambling of the egg about to take place under this Government. I say “about to take place” because so far nothing has happened. We have heard so much about their plans but in fact so little has happened. In the area from which I come and with which I am well acquainted, the border area adjoining the Native reserves, we all know that past border area development has not even created enough work to provide for the natural non-White increase in this area. We do not have nearly enough industries in the border areas to cope with the natural increase of the population, let alone the 5 per cent we hear so much about from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, and which he plans to send back to the borders or the reserves every year. Here in the Cape Peninsula we find that from the year 1955 to 1966 there was a natural increase of over 13,000 in the Bantu population. We are told that these people are to be sent back to the reserves. The hon. the Deputy Minister who told us this, also told us that they were devising and inventing modern machinery which would replace a certain percentage of non-Whites at present employed in the Western Cape. He mentioned the quarries at Milnerton, for example, and he said that whereas at one time they had 300 non-Whites working there they now had only 46 non-Whites working there.

And doing more work.

The hon. member says they are doing more work. Yes, the production at the Milnerton quarry is 300 times more than it was when 300 Natives were employed there. This greater production has been made possible by the introduction of modern machinery; this is correct, but I would like to know from the hon. member over there who pretends to know so much about this matter, what has happened to the other 254 non-Whites?

There are so many vacancies.

Have those non-Whites been sent back to East London? I certainly do not want them there. What is the Government going to do with these non-Whites who are being replaced by modern machinery? You see, Sir, we in the Border are civilized too; we have also acquired modern machinery. Modern machinery is not only being used here in the Western Cape but on the borders of the reserves as well. I was in a factory only last week, where I was very interested to see the modern machinery in operation there. I saw one Bantu woman doing work which had been done before by five white men—one Bantu woman working a whole complete loom by herself and working it perfectly. Sir, if the United Party had done this, a great deal would have been said about it in this House, but when the present Government does it, then the hon. member opposite smiles.

You do not know the tricks of the trade.

I would not call it a trick of the trade; I would call it a trick of electioneering. Sir, we on this side of the House welcome the fact that those five skilled artisans have been able to move on to seek new pastures, new fields in other parts of the country in which the’-r services are desperately required, but the 254 non-Whites who have been removed from the quarry at Milne ton are certainly not going to find work in any modern industry in the border areas either; because we have modern machinery there too. If these non-Whites in the Peninsula were such a danger, as we are led to believe in every election, if they are such a danger to the Whites and if the Government was really sincere about removing them from the Western Cape, why wait until 1978? Why not move them now and get them out of the way if they are such a terrible danger to the Whites? [Time expired.]

When I rose some while ago to reply, amongst other things, to what hon. members said here with regard to the deep-sea accidents, I did not refer to the contribution by the hon. member for Berea. I should now like to refer to that, and with reference to that make an appeal to the deep-sea divers themselves. These deep-sea divers are all experts in their field, experts who know the requirements of their work better than many other technicians. I now want to make an appeal to them that in the meanwhile they should take the opportunity to submit the necessary demands to their employers in the interests of their own safety. These demands can then be included in their service contracts. Deep-sea diving, as hon. members know, is a new field. It is a field which requires thorough investigation. Surely hon. members cannot expect us to produce precipitate legislation in this regard, no matter how sympathetically we are inclined. Legislation drafted in this connection will also have to be accompanied by safety regulations, and that legislation will have to receive very thorough consideration from this House. In fact, it could even first be considered by a select committee. It is not a matter in connection with which we can rush through legislation precipitately.

I want to remind you, Mr. Chairman, of what happened in the case of building and excavation work. In former years we also received serious complaints in connection with safety conditions in that field, and an inquiry was then carried out in connection with building and excavation work. From the outset building and excavation work was included under the Factories Act, but it is only recently that the regulations in connection with that chapter were published, not as a result of laxity on our part, but because it is such a technical, complicated matter. One cannot simply sit down and draw up a set of regulations. A very thorough investigation must first be carried out. The people concerned with building and excavation work saw to it that their safety was assured, before these regulations came into operation, by way of agreements with their employers. My appeal to the people who do deep-sea diving is to see to it in the meanwhile that their own safety is assured by way of agreements with their employers. For the while we have to await the report, as I said a moment ago. Once that report has been studied, we can consider to what an extent we can introduce such amending legislation. In the light of what I have just said, there is no need for me to repeat that this is not something which will take place overnight; it is a complicated matter, and for that reason I ask that these people should avail themselves of the opportunity to establish safety measures in a new field. We are all concerned about the safety of these people, but I feel that they should also contribute their share.

Would you consent to having the Inspector of Machinery in Durban instructed to have that work stopped—it has already been stopped—and that that work should not be continued with until such time as such agreements have been entered into? In the meanwhile this work may claim further lives.

Order! The hon. member cannot make a speech now.

This will obviously depend on the findings of this committee of inquiry. I cannot make recommendations until the result of the inquiry is known to me. I shall await the report and in the light of that report we shall take the necessary steps.

But in the meantime the work continues.

I am very sorry, but I am not going to be influenced by a popular outcry; I am not going to take precipitate action. This is a serious matter, and it must be handled responsibly.

But human lives are at stake.

This matter will be dealt with in such a way that the maximum security is provided for these people. I can do so only within the framework of the powers vested in me.

But you have the power to have the work stopped.

I now want to come to the other contributors to this debate. The hon. member for Westdene, for example, asked that there should be closer correspondence between our publication Rehabilitasie and the publication of the Department of Social Welfare. It is a matter which is being investigated, and I am convinced that in course of time we shall be able to make a recommendation in this regard. I shall later deal with the other matter raised by the hon. member, i.e. that relating to the mine-workers.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) referred to private registration offices. It is the position that these offices are registered for definite periods, but before this registration is renewed they have to submit a report to the Registrar of Industries on the administration of each particular office, on how many people they placed in employment, how many applications they received, etc. In the light of that report the Registrar of Industries then judges whether any abuses had occurred. If there had in fact been abuse, he would not hesitate to decline to renew their registration. But these offices do render a service, and for that reason they cannot simply be abolished off-hand. Whether we appreciate everything done by them, we shall leave at that. In the past, however, they did render services, and in view of the existing control I think we should leave the matter as it is.

The hon. member for Rosettenville referred once again to training of apprentices. I may just point out to him that I as Minister can effect amendments only on the recommendation of the Apprenticeship Board. It is a good thing that representations are made here, because they may elicit response from that Board. But the correct channel to follow in this regard is through the Apprenticeship Board, it is up to that body to make recommendations.

The hon. member for Mooi River raised the question of industries for Indians, particularly where Indians are concentrated in large numbers. This is a matter which the hon. member would do well to raise under the Indian Affairs Vote. If I were to reply to it now, however, my reply would be exactly the same as when it is discussed under that Vote, a Vote which I shall handle on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs. It is, namely, that in principle it has already been approved that decentralization benefits shall also be available to those Indian industries. In fact, a considerable deal has been done in that field. But I do not think this is the proper occasion to go into that any further.

Regarding the hon. member for Turffontein’s concern about noise, he will be pleased to know that during this Session we amended the Factories Act so that occupational deafness is now also covered as an industrial disease.

The hon. member for Boland referred to the training of non-white apprentices. This is a matter which is very dear to my heart, and as Minister of Coloured Affairs I am also particularly interested in it. When the hon. the Prime Minister opened the recent Session of the Coloured Council he referred to steps taken in this regard and set out our objectives —for example, co-operation between the Departments of Education, Arts and Science and of Coloured Affairs, with the object of training more Coloureds as apprentices. The present position is quite encouraging. In 1966, 964 Coloureds were registered as apprentices, as against 934 in 1965. Although Indian apprentices are not under discussion now. I may just say that there is also a considerable number of them. We are therefore doing what we can. It is of course mainly in the building and furniture industry that these apprentices are registered. Personally I should like to see more apprentices registered in other industries as well. In the metal industry, the engineering industry, a development is already taking place on those lines. The number of apprentices registered in this industry is showing an increase—for example, 120 Coloured apprentices were registered by the end of September, 1966, in the metal industry in the Western Cape alone. But the question of the registration of Coloureds and Indians as apprentices is related, of course, to the attitude of the Apprenticeship Committee—in other words, the attitude of the trade unions to the registration of Coloureds and Indians as apprentices. This is something we cannot force onto them. The Act does provide that there can be no discrimination on the basis of race or colour, but the Apprenticeship Committee is in command as regards the admission of Coloured apprentices. This is therefore a case where we need their co-operation. We must gain their goodwill. This goodwill, however, is very closely connected with their sense of security. As long as the white artisans feel, for example, that the registration of Coloured apprentices is going to undermine or weaken their position, they will resist it. For that reason we must be able to give them the assurance that it will not happen. This is in fact where the value of job reservation comes to the fore, namely as a measure to indemnify those workers in this respect. It nevertheless remains the task of all of us—not only of the Government, but of everybody interested in this—to induce the trade unions to adopt a conciliatory attitude in this regard.

Now I want to refer to the matter which was also raised by the hon. member for Westdene, namely the mine-workers’ dispute. In the first place I want to take this opportunity to convey my appreciation to the three gentlemen who served on the mediation committee, for their patient mediation. They are Mr. Tindale, chairman of the Wage Board, Dr. Viljoen, chairman of the Industrial Tribunal, and Dr. Jacobs, the deputy economic adviser of the Prime Minister. In this regard these three gentlemen performed a gigantic task. In fact, it is doubtful—and this is how the Chamber of Mines put it to me in writing— whether agreement would have been reached between the Chamber and the Mine-workers’ Union if it had not been for the assistance of this mediation committee. For that reason I want to convey my gratitude to this committee for the great work done by them in this regard. At the same time I also want to convey my appreciation to the leaders, on the one hand of the Mine-workers’ Union and on the other hand of the Chamber of Mines, for the responsibility with which they brought their negotiations to finality. As in the case of the finalizing of any agreement, both sides had to make concessions here and there in their maximum demands. It is part and parcel of agreements that the parties have to make some concessions as regards their maximum demands. Only responsible leadership can bring that about. If that leadership is not present on both sides, one cannot achieve such an approach. I would concede that although both sides did not get what they wanted originally, the advantages both sides are now going to receive are nevertheless so considerable that I may say without fear of exaggeration that we may now look forward to a long period of industrial peace in the mining industry. I want to add that this announcement wass not welcomed by everybody. To certain outsiders the achievement of an agreement was by no means a welcome matter. There were outsiders of whom others and I myself are thoroughly aware who actually wished that there would be no agreement, because they saw these difficulties and dissatisfaction in the ranks of the mine-workers as a wonderful platform to satisfy their own political ambitions. I do not want to say anything further about those isolated political adventurers. Past events make it completely unnecessary to dwell on that. I should rather speak of something else, namely that this agreement which has been reached, is significant in many respects, also because it actually heralds a new dispensation for the mine-worker in South Africa. Hon. members will remember that when I got up here the other day to make the offer of a mediation committee to the Mine-workers Union I set out three requisites or objectives in that regard.

In the first place, there had to be a satisfactory wage for the mine-worker. Secondly, the white mine-worker had to feel protected in such a new wage agreement. I put it that as far as his protection was concerned, the industrial colour bar should be enshrined in such a new wage determination. Thirdly, it was essential that a strong and sound Mine-workers’ Union should exist in this country. When I review the existing situation, I want to state my conviction that these three factors are present. They are present because this new monthly wage system for the mine-workers heralds a new dispensation, not only because it holds financial benefits for them, not only because it means considerable wage increases for them, but also in view of the social character of this monthly wage system. This social benefit is worth a great deal to them. To be paid monthly instead of weekly is of tremendous social benefit to the mineworker in his family life, because he can now run his family’s domestic affairs in a much more orderly and systematic fashion. As regards the extra expenditure on these wage increases, I am informed by the Chamber of Mines that it is going to cost the gold-mining industry an extra R9 million a year in respect of the gold-mine workers alone. To prevent this extra R9 million a year which the gold-mining industry has to pay the mine-workers from having an inflationary effect, it was also seen to in the agreement that certain time-consuming activities were eliminated, for example the hours that Bantu shift-ganggs have to wait before they can start work. It is expected that the elimination of these uneconomic and time-consuming activities may enable the mining industry to counter the inflationary effect of such a wage increase. In connection with the elimination of these activities I just want to mention that it was accompanied by certain exemptions, in terms of the regulations under the Mines and Works Act, which the Government has approved. But the Government approved those exemptions on the condition, firstly of a joint demand by the Mine-workers’ Union and the Chamber of Mines, and secondly, on the very clear understanding that if these exemptions which are granted prejudiced the position of the white mine-workers in any way, the Government would not hesitate to withdraw those exemptions. In the light of that I just want to mention that the Government Mining Engineer, who comes under the control of my colleague the Minister of Mines, will keep a very close watch on the effect of these exemptions. A very close watch will be kept to see to it that these exemptions have no detrimental effect on the position of the white mine-worker. Irrespective of what the Government Mining Engineer will do, it was agreed that the mining managements and the trade union representatives would also exercise joint supervision over the effect of this agreement, to prevent any irritations from arising.

Finally, I just want to say this in connection with the Mine-workers’ Union: As far as they are concerned, it is indeed the desire of the Government and of myself that the Mine-workers’ Union be built into a very sound and strong trade union. In fact, it is essential to industrial peace in the mining industry that the Mine-workers’ Union should be strong. It is essential that as the organ of 22,000 goldmine workers it should be a sound and strong movement. It should be a responsible organ for these people. As the Government attended to the considered opinions of the responsible trade unions in the past, the mine-workers need not fear for one moment that the Government will not continue to attend to their considered opinions. With such an appreciation for each other’s responsibilities, I have every hope that it will go well with the affairs of the mine-workers in the times ahead.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 44.—“Coloured Affairs, R48,260,000”, and Loan Vote P,—“Coloured Affairs R1,366,000”:

May I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? It has been the custom for years for my colleagues and myself to avail ourselves of the debate on these Votes in order to plead with the Government for a review of the political rights of the Coloured people in this country. I do not propose to follow that course to-day. I feel that it would be quite unfair and unwise for us at this stage to initiate a debate on the political rights of the Coloured people. That matter has been referred by Parliament to a commission and I feel that it would be quite wrong for any discussion to take place which might either anticipate the recommendations of the commission or which may in any way prejudice the deliberations of that commission. In those circumstances I do not propose to deal with the political rights of the Coloured people this afternoon. I feel that we will have ample opportunity to discuss the political aspects and the future of the Coloured people after the commission has presented its report to Parliament.

For the present I therefore propose to deal with some of the basic issues relating to our Coloured people and the positive approach that has been made towards their social and economic position and to recommend, where necessary, how the Government might consider improving that situation. In all fairness I think I must confess that by and large there has been a much more friendly approach by the Coloured people towards the policy of separate and parallel development. This, to my mind, has no doubt been brought about by various factors. Firstly, by the improvement in the positive approach of the Department of Coloured Affairs to the economic problems of the Coloured people. I do not for a single moment suggest that what has been accomplished meets all the justifiable demands of the Coloured people. But there is no doubt that there has been a substantial improvement in respect of many of the bread-and-butter issues which have taken place over the last few years. This has helped to bring about a far better understanding between the Coloured people generally and the Department of Coloured Affairs. I also feel that the general improvement to which I have referred is also attributable to the clearer statements which have emanated from the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs with regard to the Government’s determination to ensure that there will be the closest co-operation with the Coloured people in giving effect to the Government’s policy of separate development and that the end of the road has not been reached as far as the Coloured people are concerned. I think that these assurances given by the hon. the Prime Minister himself and by the present Minister of Coloured Affairs have helped greatly to ameliorate the feelings that previously existed between the Coloured leaders and the Government.

The Coloured people, by and large, have now come to realize that this policy of separate development has been accepted by the white electorate time and again since 1948. They realize that the white electorate in ever-growing numbers have identified themselves with this policy of separate development, or parallel development as some of the members of the Government choose to call it, and in the circumstances the Coloured people, generally speaking, are reconciled to the acceptance of this policy, provided that there is exhibited to them in tangible form, the positive benefits that they will receive in the carrying out of this policy. I am quite certain that the Coloured people, again generally speaking, are anxious to live in peace and harmony in South Africa under this system of separate development, provided, however, that they are dealt with fairly as citizens of their own country.

There is also no doubt to my mind that the present Secretary for Coloured Affairs, Mr. D. J. Bosnian, like his predecessor, Dr. I. D. du Plessis, has won over a great deal of Coloured support for the Government’s policy by reason of his friendly and sympathetic approach to the many problems confronting our Coloured citizens, and I feel that it is appropriate that I should pay to him this tribute today.

Now, I feel that it is necessary for me to point out some basic facts concerning our Coloured people in the Republic, and the important role that they will be called upon to play in future years. From the latest statistics available it would appear that the Coloured people number about 1¾ million souls, and therefore constitute 50 per cent of the white population of our country and 10 per cent of South Africa’s entire population, black, white and Coloured. It is important, also, to remember that our Coloured people contribute 10 per cent of the total economically active population of the Republic. In the Peninsula, in the Western Cape, of course, they constitute by far the biggest single group of the economically active population—statistics show that in the Peninsula alone they constitute nearly 50 per cent of the economically active population living in this area. The over-all picture of the labour force available in this country indicates that the total Coloured labour force amounts to nearly 600,000 people, which is over one-third of the total Coloured population in this country.

I mention these facts in order to indicate the important role our Coloured people are playing and will in future be called upon to play in the Republic, and particularly in the Western Cape. When we bear in mind that the Government’s policy of the gradual withdrawal of the Bantu labour force from the Western Cape is likely to be given effect to, we must realize the important roll which lies ahead for our Coloured people, because they will have to fill, to a very large extent, the depleted labour resources in this area. But it is not only in this field that the Coloureds will have to fill the gap. They will also have to play a most important part in the skilled and semi-skilled labour fields of this country. In the Western Cape particularly, our economy will depend very much indeed upon the degree to which our Coloured artisans skilled, semi-skilled and unskilled—can step into the breach. It is therefore most important that the Government should ensure that everything possible should be done, as speedily as possible. to accelerate the necessary training of our Coloured people so that they can take their place in the future labour resources of this country. The Government will have to accelerate its endeavours to ensure that the services of the Coloured people are to be fully utilized in this labour gap.

At the same time our Coloured people must appreciate, and I say this advisedly, that opportunities are being presented to them as never before in the labour field, and it is up to them to make every possible endeavour to encourage their young people to become trained so as to enable them to take their part in the ever-growing important role which lies ahead for our Coloured community.

The recent Act passed by Parliament establishing training centres for our Coloured you hs “for any kind of employment”—to use the words of the Act itself—should, if properly administered, help our Coloured people very much indeed. Gradually the Coloured leaders are forgetting their misgivings and their original mistrusts and fears about this measure. One realizes that it will be extremely difficult for the Government to implement its plans without the fullest co-operation of the Coloured people. I wish to avail myself of this opportunity publicly of appealing to our Coloured people to co-operate with the Department of Coloured Affairs in the implementation of this scheme and to do everything possible to make a success of it. At the same time I would ask the Minister of Coloured Affairs to ensure that our Chamber of Industries should have representation on the Management Committees which the Minister will be establishing for these training centres. I think that it is important that our Chamber of Industries should be directly represented on these committees. The Federated Chamber of Industries has given the plan its blessing publicly, and I am sure that the Chamber can help a great deal in making this experiment a success I would therefore commend to the hon. the Minister that he should give favourable consideration for the Chamber to be represented on these Management Committees.

I would now like to deal briefly with one or two aspects concerning Coloured education, because I regard this as one of the most important features falling under the control of the Department of Coloured Affairs. At the outset I should like to congratulate the Minister and his Department in their appointing Dr. R. E. van der Ross as the Assistant Educational Planner for Coloured Education. In Dr. van der Ross we have an outstanding Coloured educationist and I have no doubt at all that, under his guidance and with his co-operation, the Coloured people can look forward to an acceleration in the field of Coloured education in this country. The Director of Coloured Education, Mr. Kobus Louw, has already done—in all fairness a great deal in the advancement of Coloured education, and deserves the highest credit for what has already been accomplished. There is, however, very much still to be done, and I am sure that by bringing into the fold educationists like Dr. van der Ross and others of the same standing, the Department can depend on receiving the complete co-operation of the Coloured people in the advancement of the educational facilities for their children.

There are, however, one or two disturbing features which I feel that I must mention. In the first instance I feel that I must draw the Minister’s attention to the continual resignations of Coloured teachers from the Educational Department. It is true that during 1966 the number of Coloured teachers who resigned was much lower than in previous years, but notwithstanding that it is a great pity that there should be these continual resignations. One can only attribute this to the fact that the Coloured teachers resent very much indeed the differentiation in pay that exists, when compared with the pay received by their white colleagues. This is something that has to be seriously tackled and bridged by the Minister if we are to get the number of teachers that the Department really needs. I can only hope that the Minister will do everything possible to try to bring about a more equitable system of conferring upon Coloured teachers the same pay and benefits as their white colleagues receive for the same work.

Then again it is most alarming to see how year after year there is a tremendous drop in the number of Coloured children from the primary school to the secondary school, and an even greater drop in the numbers who eventually find their way into the high school. The figures are most alarming. It would appear that the total enrolment of Coloured pupils in the primary State schools and the State-aided schools amounts to 354,532. That is, from Sub A to Std. 5 there was that number of pupils. This number drops alarmingly when we look at the enrolment for the secondary school, from Std. 6 to Std. 8. The 354,000 dropped to 32,615. When we look at the number in the high school, we find that it again dropped to a mere 3,455. Surely it is necessary to ask ourselves why it is that in respect of our Coloured pupils the vast majority of them do not seem to go further than Std. 5, and many of them in fact leave school long before they reach Std. 5. The answer is comparatively simple. Firstly, the economic position of the Coloured parents is such that they are unable to keep their children at school beyond Std. 5. These youngsters have to become breadwinners because of the economic conditions prevailing in the homes of most of these people. Surely this is an aspect which will have to engage the most serious attention of the Minister.

But there is another reason why it is essential that the Government should give the closest consideration to advancing the earning capacity and the economic standards of our Coloured people. Another reason for this alarming situation is that up to the present the Government has not been able to introduce a system of compulsory school attendance. I know the reasons why it has not been possible to introduce it for Coloureds, but I venture to suggest that the time has come when this should receive the earnest and almost immediate consideration of the Government as a matter of extreme urgency. We surely cannot afford to allow our Coloured people, who comprise 50 per cent of the white population, to grow up illiterate, and that is what is happening to-day. I know that the introduction of compulsory school attendance is bound up with the availability of accommodation and teaching staff, put here again, if the Coloured teachers were encouraged to take up this noble profession on the basis that they would receive the same remuneration as white teachers, I am certain there would be a greater response. There would be more men and women who would be prepared to become teachers if they knew that the remuneration and benefits were equal to those of their white colleagues. In regard to the availability of accommodation, I am very sorry to note that because of the desire of the Government to arrest inflation, the Public Works Department has cut drastically the amount available for Coloured schools. There has been a drop of some R2 million in this regard. Now, I cannot blame the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs for this. This is the responsibility of the whole Cabinet. I can only express the hope that in the near future funds will be made available to the Coloured Affairs Department to provide the accommodation which is essential if we are to have compulsory school attendance introduced for Coloured children. I was very interested to read a statement made by the Secretary for Coloured Affairs which received great publicity in the Cape, in which he outlined some of the major aims of his Department for the future. I was pleased to note that in the very forefront of his aims he placed “the extension of existing facilities and the provision of additional schools to meet the demand of the ever-increasing population and the introduction of compulsory school attendance”. I am sure that this worthy object, put so succinctly by the Secretary, will receive the approbation of most of the citizens of this country, and when these additional facilities become available I am sure that we will receive the wholehearted co-operation of the Coloured parents. Then again, I feel it is necessary for the Minister to speed up the provision of more training institutions for Coloured teachers. The number of Coloured teachers, 14,713, is by no means sufficient to cope with the ever-increasing Coloured population. It is necessary, to my mind, to provide more training institutions for teachers, and as a start I would strongly commend to the Department that part-time classes for teachers should be introduced on a much larger scale immediately. This will not require much increased accommodation. Within the ambit of the accommodation available, the part-time classes could be extended.

Now I would like to say a few words about the University College of the Western Cape, which has really accomplished a great deal in the short period of its existence. I was very glad to read of the public tribute paid to the Rector and the staff of this college by the hon. the Prime Minister a few days ago when he addressed a gathering there, and I should like to associate myself with the tribute he paid to the staff for the magnificent job they are doing. I think the Department should strive to allow this University College to conduct further courses which are at present not available at this college, and in respect of which the students have to apply to go to open universities if they want to take those particular courses. I think the time has come when the Department of Coloured Affairs should go out of its way to make available at this college as many as possible of the ordinary courses which are available at the open universities. I am sure this would enable a great deal of the friction which exists between white and Coloured students at some of these universities to be eliminated.

Then, Sir, I was very glad to learn from Mr. Bosman’s summary of the aims of his Department that they were striving to augment the present assistance towards the cultural development of the Coloured people. This to my mind is undoubtedly a step in the right direction, and I feel that the time has come when we can conscientiously appeal to the hon. the Minister to do something tangible in regard to this aspect; in other words, to do something tangible to encourage the cultural development of the Coloured people. I think that this can best be done by the Government providing a substantial subsidy for the Eoan Group who has helped tremendously to develop the cultural life of the Coloured people of this country. I do not think it is necessary, in the limited time at my disposal, for me to dwell at length on the magnificent accomplishment of the Eoan Group. I think the hon. the Minister himself will be fair enough to pay tribute to the magnificent work they do. I teel that if the Government would contribute liberally to this scheme by way of a substantial subsidy, this group could do infinitely more than they are doing in advancing the cultural life of our Coloured people.

Sir, in this very well documented statement made by the Secretary for Coloured Affairs, I was glad to see that he included in the future aim of the Department the continuation of the development programme and agricultural guidance to farmers in an endeavour to make the rural areas as self-sufficient as possible and to grant ownership to occupiers. Sir, this is most important because agriculture provides the most important single occupational opportunity for the Coloured people. The Coloured people constitute 30.86 per cent, nearly 31 per cent, of the economically active persons engaged in the agricultural industry. This figure is bound to increase when the Orange River scheme, the Berg River scheme and other irrigation schemes open up new opportunities in agriculture. It will therefore be seen that it is most important that preparations be made immediately for training our Coloured people to meet the future labour demands of this industry.

Finally, I would like to point out that with the economic growth and the industrial expansion of South Africa, there must arise greater demands for skilled craftsmen and production workers in all industries. In the debate on the last Vote, we heard some discussion on this very aspect of the matter and we heard hon. members suggest, quite rightly, that immigration was not the answer. I feel that this greater demand for skilled craftsmen and production workers cannot be met by the up-grading of the white labour force alone. It will certainly help but it cannot be met solely by the upgrading of the white labour force. We will have to apply ourselves assiduously to the training of Coloured labour to enable it to take its part in the economic growth of the country. This is a responsibility which the Department of Coloured Affairs must face up to with the utmost vigour. I am sure that the hon. the Minister can rely upon the support of our own industries in the training and upgrading of Coloured labour. In conclusion I want to say that the Coloured people must realize that opportunities will be provided for them in this new era of economic expansion and that it is up to them to make the most of these opportunities.

After listening to the hon. member for Peninsula, I almost feel like saying to him: “Look how the mighty have fallen.” If one recalls the speeches on Coloured Affairs made by the hon. member here in the past, and compares them with his speech made here to-day, then it was a pleasure to listen to him. In the past the hon. member for Peninsula and other hon. members had the habit of attacking and criticizing the Government. To-day the hon. member for Peninsula has accepted his responsibility and he has also addressed himself to the Coloured population whom he represents here, and has reminded them that they also have a responsibility. He made three important statements. He pointed out to the Coloured population— and this should have been done a long time ago by a person such as the hon. member for Peninsula—that they are at the moment being afforded opportunities such as they have never had before in their history, and that they are being afforded these opportunities under this Government. He pointed out to them that this Government was displaying positive goodwill; those were the hon. member’s words. But the hon. member also made another admission here. He said that the Coloured population was approaching the policy of separate development in a friendlier spirit. There was a time when hon. members on that side and this side fought like cat and dog whenever Coloured Affairs were discussed, and that led to two things: It prejudiced the Coloured’s case, and it certainly did not further South Africa’s case. I do not think that the United Party itself has undergone a change of heart, but recently the members of the United Party have adopted a different approach. There has been a note of objectiveness and positiveness. The Government and the National Party always welcome positive criticism. I think that the change of heart which the United Party as well as the Coloured Representatives have undergone, is attributable to the change of heart amongst the Coloured population. It is the Coloured population which has caused the United Party to see things in a different way. Nobody can deny—nor did the hon. member for Peninsula deny it to-day—that there has been a change of heart amongst the Coloured population. The policy of separate development which the Coloured population at one stage regarded as being degrading and humiliating, has in practice become to appear to them to be uplifting and ennobling. This side of the House and this Government has, in this sphere as it has done in all other spheres, converted its words into deeds. To this also the hon. member for Peninsula has admitted today in a candid way in this House. The Coloured population is, on an ever-increasing scale, identifying themselves with this policy of separate development because it is a policy which helps them to help themselves and because it is a policy which enables them to develop a pride of their own. If one were to glance at the report of the Department of Coloured Affairs, to which the hon. member for Peninsula referred, then one would find there a short summary of what has been done over the past few years for the Coloureds in terms of this policy of separate development. I should just like to mention a few things in passing. What a tremendous development there has been in the rural areas! Take housing for example. In the past few years, under this Government, more than 40,000 residential units have been built for Coloureds alone. In the field of commerce avenues have been opened up for them which have never been open to them before. The same applies to education and professional posts. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, that in the Department of Coloured Affairs there were 15,079 posts last year, of which 13,825 were filled by Coloureds? Just think of local government where the Coloureds have never had any say. They had the franchise with which they could do nothing. During this short period since it became the policy, 44 local authorities have already been established. Think of the opportunities the Coloureds are being afforded in the field of welfare services. More than R13 million is being spent on that to-day. [Interjection.] That hon. member has not done his homework. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister because I think the hon. the Minister is the right person to make an appeal to our city councils. City councils should grant bursaries to Coloured students who would qualify for them and come into consideration for training as welfare workers. They have people enough; we have not. We have a shortage of people. I would like city councils to grant bursaries for the training of welfare workers, both male and female, for that purpose. The city councils could even go further. They could also grant bursaries to Coloureds to be trained to serve in local governments. Two years ago these were ideas which were being discussed in public, i.e. that if at that stage a Coloured municipality was to have been established, there would not have been a single Coloured throughout South Africa who would have qualified as a town clerk. I think that town councils can do something in this regard to help Coloureds to help themselves, as the Government is doing in other fields.

Mr. Chairman, it is during recent years in particular that tremendous progress has been made in the field of Coloured relations and our relations with and in regard to the Coloureds. We can probably ascribe the fact that it was possible to do so to many factors, factors which I do not in any case want to discuss here in detail to-day. It is sufficient for me to say that we believe that those relations in regard to the opposite colour will improve even more in future as the policy of this party is unfolded. You will allow me to dwell on two factors only, which I believe have contributed to that tremendous progress which we have made in the past. You will allow me to refer in the first instance to the provision of basic services in the Coloured areas, and in the second instance to the concept as formulated by the former Minister, i.e. the concept of good neighbourliness with clearly demarcated dividing lines. I am mentioning these two aspects in one breath because the availability of services—and I am thinking in particular of the availability of transport and commercial services—determines to a very large extent the movement of our Coloured community. It makes no difference where they live. These two factors determine that movement. The Coloured metropolis in the Cape Flats is in the heart of my constituency, and so are the other large Coloured areas such as Bellville South, Athlone and the other similar areas. Notwithstanding the fact that we have this large concentration of Coloureds within the constituency we nevertheless have amity here. There is also very good neighbourliness with the adjoining White areas. This is possible because these areas which I have just mentioned do, for the most part, have quite adequare services at their disposal, with the result that the points of friction which may have arisen are being restricted to an absolute minimum. As an example of those existing services and future services I may mention the case of Athlone where a supermarket at a cost of more than R600,000 is being envisaged by the Coloured Development Corporation. There is no need for that Coloured community to overflow into the adjoining White areas because (hey have all the necessary services and facilities within their own area.

However, there is one field in which that good neighbourliness is being destroyed and where antagonism and tension between White and Coloured is being created. To illustrate this for you I want (o mention the case of Tiervlei, although it could, for argument sake, be any other area. I am mentioning it because I am acquainted with the circumstances there. Tiervlei is a White residential area—a purely residential area which has been very peaceful and quiet all these years. Adjoining this area is the Coloured area Florida with approximately 22,000 Coloureds. In that Coloured area there are in fact adequate commercial services in order to meet the needs there. But within the White residential area there are two bottle stores at present, while in the Coloured area there is not a single bottle store. This situation has given rise to the fact that Coloureds stream into the White residential area to these two fountains of life. This is precisely where the points of friction have now arisen, for around these amenities we find a congregation of idlers, and all kinds of unpleasantness. What is more, it is the existence of those amenities there which determines the entire movement of the Coloureds. Instead of making use of their own railway facilities in their own area, namely the Modderdam Station, we now find that these amenities draw the Coloureds in a different direction altogether, so that they use the Parow and Tiervlei stations with the resultant unabated movement of Coloureds through a White residential area. It is this very movement which is destroying the goodwill which existed towards the Coloureds. I want to state to-day that if these same amenities also existed in the Coloured area we would be able to eliminate that point of friction quite easily. I do not want to overstep the mark. The Liquor Amendment Act of 1962 provides for consultation with the Minister of Coloured Affairs. I do not want to elaborate on the Act now. I know you will not allow me to do so because it falls under the Justice Vote. I just want to consult the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs and ask him seriously whether it is not possible for us to help Coloureds to provide that service in this Coloured area, as well as in others, through the agency of the Coloured Development Corporation since there is statutory provision for doing so. I am aware that there are many practical problems involved—for example that there may not at the moment be any suitable Coloureds or Coloureds who are well provided with capital. We do not want to cause harm to anybody in this process, we only want to improve the relationships between White and non-White. That is why I want to ask him to consider whether the solution which I have proposed is not a practical one and whether, through the agency of the Department of Coloured Affairs, White initiative cannot be afforded an opportunity for a specific period of time of providing this service there. I am not pleading for economic apartheid, not at all. I am only asking for this because it is at these points where friction still exists between White and Coloured, particularly in this area which I have mentioned, and where it is causing a great deal of unrest.

As far as the United Party is concerned we too have no intention in this debate of raising the question of political representation of the Coloured people and that for the reason already mentioned by the hon. member for Peninsula. I should also like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Peninsula about the very good relationship existing to-day between the Coloured people on the one hand and the Department of Coloured Affairs on the other hand. I believe on account of the very sympathetic manner in which the officials of the Department are treating the Coloureds and on account of the great interest the Department takes in their welfare, the Department has succeeded in winning the Coloured people’s goodwill. We appreciate it and we thank them for it. In so far as the hon. member for Malmesbury is concerned, I just want to state that he seems to think that a very great change is taking place in the parties. Well, as far as the United Party is concerned, we have always been just as interested in the welfare of the Coloured people as any other party. We have always felt that the Coloured people need and deserve the close co-operation of the Whites and that they should get all the assistance they can get. I want to admit quite candidly that a lot has been done in his connection over the past 20 years. A lot has been done— that is true, but this is something one could have expected should have been done for the Coloured people over the past 20 years. What a shocking state we would have had to-day if nothing at all had been done. So it is quite right that what has been done had to be done and I do not think that if any other Government had been in power something similar would not have been done.

I also want to deal with the question of schooling for Coloured children. This is something which is of the utmost importance. We on this side of the House feel very strongly that compulsory schooling should be implemented without delay. I know the Government would like to implement this and have already accepted the principle of it. Where we differ is in the timing of it. We on this side feel that the time is ripe for it to be implemented now. It should not be delayed any longer. Progress has already been made in this field, although not sufficient. I suppose one of the reasons for this is the shortage of school buildings—'here is not sufficient schooling accommodation. But that is not very much of an excuse because I submit we should have been able by now to provide all necessary buildings. Another reason is the shortage of teaching staff. It is true that you cannot go on providing buildings if you do not have the teaching staff available. This is probably where there is a bottleneck. However, education for everybody is such an important matter in the lives of the people and in the interest of the nation that everything should be done to facilitate schooling of the Coloured children as fast as possible. I notice from the Department’s report that during the past year there has been a slight increase in the number of children going to school—as a matter of fact, there has been an increase during the years 1964 to 1965 of something like 10,000. Bu‘ there are so many still not at school that this increase is very small indeed. As a matter of fact, the Department itself on page 18 of its report expresses the view that the number of pupils who left school during the course of 1965 is still “alarming”. There are, therefore, still far too many Coloured children leaving school. Something should be done about it. In the primary school the number leaving between sub-standard A and standard II amounts to 6 per cent, standard III 7½ per cent, standard IV 9 per cent and standard V 10 per cent. Whereas there were nearly 80,000 pupils in substandard A in 1965 there were only 22,000 in standard V. During that period, therefore, a tremendous number of children have left school. In secondary schools the losses are even much higher. The number leaving at standard VI is 11.6 per cent, standard VII is 3.4 per cent, standard VIII 9.5 per cent, standard IX 14.3 per cent, and standard X 3.7 per cent. While we start off with 80,000 children in substandard A when we get to standard X we have just over 1,400 pupils left—a tremendous loss and wastage take place during the interim. As the hon. member for Peninsula stated, this state of affairs is probably caused by the economic position of the Coloured people. This necessitates boys and girls to leave school the moment they reach working age in order to supplement the family’s income. Something should be done so that this should not be necessary. Another reason I think lies in the fact that the parents do not realize their responsibilities towards their children, they do not realize the necessity for schooling for their children. Therefore they must be compelled to send their children to school. Even amongst our white people there are parents who would not keep their children at school if they were not compelled to do so. So. how much more is that the case amongst the Coloureds? The result is that large numbers of boys and girls run about on the streets, without care and supervision. They learn bad habits, delinquency develops and some develop into what is known as skollies. So we have a social problem in this country, due to the fact that so many children leave school when they really should remain at school. A further result is a reduction in the Coloured people’s productivity in the labour field, because the better educated they are the more productive they can be in our industrial and economic life. We have a large shortage of manpower, something which to a large extent can be countered by better training for the Coloured people—in the first instance keeping them at school and then educating them as artisans, office clerks and for many other types of work. I think that they must be compelled to go to school and the brighter ones must be assisted to continue as far as possible. I think that any money spent on keeping these children at school and getting them educated is money well spent for our country. We white people would never think of allowing our children to run about. We want to see them at school, and the few who do not want to go to school, wil be compelled to go. because it is in the national interest, and. Sir, surely the same applies to the Coloured children. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the policy-formula of this Government—i.e. that of good neighbourliness with proper lines of demarcation—towards our Coloured people in this country, is making a break-through into our entire way of thinking in this country. This is proved very clearly by the debates up to now, if we compare them with what the position was a few years ago. When we discuss the future of our Coloured people then we are discussing and thinking about that matter in this country in quite a different spirit than we did amongst ourselves in this House a few years ago. But that is not what I want to talk about now. I am standing up to raise a specific matter, something which I also raised on a specific occasion last year.

Last year under this Vote I pleaded that the hon. the Minister should go into the possibility of developing, through the agency of the Coloured persons Development Corporation, a harbour for the Coloureds somewhere along our west coast. On that occasion I pointed out that the Coloured people had played an important part in the development of the fishing industry, of our marine industry in all its various facets. The Coloureds have made a very great contribution, and it is obvious that the Coloureds have an exceptional aptitude for the marine industry. Because the Coloureds have played such a great part in the development of this industry in the past, I felt that we should make provision for the Coloureds in the shape of a Coloured harbour somewhere along our coast.

The Minister said at that time that he would have the matter investigated, and I am aware of the fact that an investigation has in fact been instituted. I am also aware of the fact that certain problems have arisen. There are practical problems involved in the creation of such a harbour for the Coloureds. In the search for a suitable location it was found in places that the ocean-bottom was too shallow, and in other places there were other practical difficulties.

I want to admit now that I was acting quite intentionally when I deliberately kicked the ball out of my constituency in the direction of poring Bay. There was a reaction, and the reaction was just what I wanted. Where white interests have already been established and are developing we cannot also try to establish the Coloureds as far as their development and participation in the development of the marine industry is concerned. The Whites do not begrudge the Coloureds a place somewhere, but we must be able to maintain this formula of ours there too, namely that of good neighbourliness with proper lines of demarcation. We must therefore look for a new place where we can make provision for the Coloureds in this regard. We must not go to a place where the white interests have already developed too far.

Now I want to say that I am aware of the fact that certain practical difficulties have cropped up. I am aware of the fact that the Minister has given much attention to this matter. Now I want to say here to-day that I think we should not lose heart. I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to two matters in particular. The one is: Let us, as an interim arrangement, look for a place where the Coloureds can develop their present concession in the marine industry. I am thinking for example of the possibility of that at Lambert’s Bay, where the Coloured Development Corporation is already active, should be allowed to continue with its activities. There is also the possibility of St. Helena Bay where a new harbour for the fishing industry is at present being developed. There are also places like Jacob’s Bay and even Saldanha Bay. But I want to state this very clearly, and I want to plead for it, i.e. that it should be regarded as an interim measure and that the hon. the Minister must state very unequivocally here that it remains our ideal to create a nucleus or a harbour somewhere for the Coloureds where they can carry out their activities. If we analyse the concentration of our Coloured population in the Cape, where three-quarters of them are concentrated, we have here today in the Peninsula the one major complex where the Coloureds will within 40 years’ time be in an absolutely majority position in regard to the Whites. This sector of the Coloured population which is concentrated here is assigned to trade and industry. I am talking now about Cape Town, the second largest industrial complex in our country. There in the Namaqualand region we have the large rural Coloured areas. It is a large area which has made important progress during the past few years, as has been indicated by the hon. member for Malmesbury. What I am advocating is that if we let this choice for the Coloureds fall somewhere along the west coast, we would be giving this idea, if I may express it like this, a geographical content and that we will be able to develop such a harbour for the Coloureds somewhere along the coastline in association with this Namaqualand Coloured area. When I say this I want to refer here to the investigation which is at present being instituted in the vicinity of Boegoeberg where the State is engaged on instituting an investigation, particularly into the possibility of building a new fishing harbour in that vicinity. When I say that, then I want to say at once that I am not kicking the ball from poring Bay to Boegoeberg. I have discussed the possibility with the hon. member for Namaqualand, and he agrees with me. The idea of developing a new harbour in this vicinity, from the ground up, is being expressed. Now I feel that we must, with the development and the planning of such a harbour in this area from the ground up, undertake this thing properly for the Coloureds, something which will fit in with this project. It should also form a junction with the large rurual areas of Namaqualand. In the meantime the participation in this industry by the Coloureds should be continued as an interim arrangement at one of the existing places.

Then I want to raise another matter, i.e. the position of Coloured housing in the rural areas, Coloured housing in our agriculture. I have pointed out that a large nucleus has developed adjoining Cape Town. This is a region where the Coloureds are dependent upon trade and industry. What are we doing here to-day? We are actually—and I am quite right in saying this—subsidizing commerce and industry in respect of Coloured housing in this region. Some time ago I noticed that the Secretary for Community Development announced that within the next five years 23,000 new Coloured houses would be built here in the vicinity of the Peninsula only. That is over and above the removal of other Coloured communities which still has to take place. We are actually subsidizing commerce and industry with these major housing schemes. And what are we doing to-day in respect of Coloured housing in agriculture? We are doing absolutely nothing. On the contrary, we are actually discriminating. Because, Sir, what happens if a farmer improves the housing of his Coloureds? A new valuation is made and he has to pay higher taxes to the Divisional Council. In other words, we are discriminating against agriculture in this regard. I think that basically this is absolutely wrong.

I am aware of the fact that the hon. the Minister and his Department have already in the past given this matter their attention. I do not know what the analyses indicate, but I should imagine that one of the practical difficulties is that of finding a medium. In our large cities there is a local government. There is a municipality, a city council, which can act as medium through which to deal with the Government’s housing loans. But if the Minister wants to give assistance in respect of housing in agriculture as far as the future pattern is concerned then there is no medium. The only medium through which a handling of funds may take place is apparently the Divisional Councils. But we have the position to-day that the Divisional Councils of the Cape are under suspicion. They are totally under suspicion. We cannot use the Divisional Councils as the necessary media here. I want to express the hope that the Minister will use his influence so that we will find a formula as quickly as possible. This is a very urgent matter which should receive our immediate attention. Now I wonder whether we cannot, in the meantime, think of a formula which is aimed at giving the farmer a rebate on his taxes when he builds new houses for his Coloureds or improves and renovates existing houses. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, during the past year the Department has made amazing progress in regard to the demarcation of Coloured seaside resorts. It was a necessary development. These were steps which have actually been left in abeyance but which are now being taken at long last. I should like to state in this House to-night that I welcome them very much, because both the Coloured population and the Whites are in favour of these things. You can realize that if each race group has its own holiday resorts, its own beach areas where it can relax, then this can also contribute towards eliminating race friction and consequently establishing more harmonious co-existence.

With the demarcation of beach areas various new seaside resorts have been opened up. Many of them are very attractive and pretty. I am thinking now of the very well-known Diaz beach at Mossel Bay, half of which has been allocated to the Coloureds. I want to state to-night in this House that if anybody in this country or anywhere in the world for that matter claims that we are giving the Coloureds inferior beach areas then I invite them to go and have a look at that area which was apportioned to the Coloureds at Mossel Bay. As I have said, they were given the half of Diaz beach, probably one of the prettiest beaches along our South Coast.

Why did they not get the whole beach?

Because half is quite enough. Many of the new places which are being opened up are not easily accessible, and it is now being expected that our Divisional Councils should make those places accessible and develop them as seaside resorts. I want to associate myself now with what the former speaker said. Our Divisional Councils are already under suspicion to a certain extent, and if we were now to place this additional financial burden on them. i.e. that the coastal Divisional Councils should accept sole responsibility for the development and the opening up of those areas, it would put those bodies in an untenable position. They would have no other choice but to increase the land tax even further. I think the entire House would agree with me that such a position simply cannot be tolerated.

Now hon. members probably know that when a new seaside resort is opened up there are tremendous incidental costs. In the first place the land which is being handed over ha? to be surveyed. There are the surveying costs in that connection. Often the land must also be purchased from some owner or other. Because it is on the coast an access road to that area must be built. Now it often happens that that road has to be built over dune-sand, and if that is the case, then it is obvious that the road will have to be provided with some kind of permanent surface, otherwise it is going to be of no value. If one has to provide a road with a permanent surface, there are major costs involved. It is also essential that there should be a good water supply, and that water must often be laid on by pipeline which is miles long. Other health services must also be provided.

I now want to mention a practical example, In my constituency the Divisional Council of Riversdale is responsible for no less than two Coloured beach resorts. One of them will cost the Council more than R15,000 to develop properly, i.e. according to the requirements laid down by the Department.

We think it is a very unfair burden to place on the shoulders of the Divisional Councils along the coast. In the first place we must remember that it is not only the Coloureds who fall under that Council who are going to go to those places for their vacations. Coloureds from all over the country will stream to that holiday resort. Now one may perhaps argue that there are certain service fees which it is possible for one to collect in various ways. Perhaps it may be possible to lease stands to them. They can also be asked to pay for camping places. Now it is a fact that the holiday periods for Coloureds are very short: I would say that at the most they are between 10 to 14 days. One can realize therefore that during those few days it will not be possible to collect much. Consequently the service fees which it will be possible to collect in this way will make almost no difference to the entire matter.

I therefore want to avail myself of this opportunity and make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. I want to ask him to see to it that the Department of Coloured Affairs regards the financing of the Coloured beach resorts as solely its own affair and that it accepts full responsibility for that. In this way the extra financial burden which is now cropping up will be distributed throughout the entire country. Because a Per all Coloureds from all over the country will go there on holidays. In this way the burden will not have to be borne by the coastal divisional councils alone.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Malmesbury began his speech here this afternoon by saying to the hon. member for Peninsula, “How are the mighty fallen!” If I were that hon. member I would rather have said, “How are the mighty risen!” My comment to that is, “How have we not fought for this opportunity!”

If the approach of the Coloured Representatives he-e in this House has in fact undergone an obvious change since they came here for the first time in 1958, then I agree with the hen. member for Malmesbury. But it has not been as a result of a change of heart or a change of attitude or approach which has arisen amongst the Coloured Representatives; it is as a result of the general changes which have taken place. The change in the attitude of the Coloureds towards the Department of Coloured Affairs and the positive implementation of Government policy is not …

But that has always been the policy—you simply did not understand it.

I am speaking now of a period lone before that hon. member even heard of Coloureds. [Interjections.] It is not attributable only to a change of heart or a change of attitude which has developed amongst the Coloureds. It is also attributable to other things. When we came to this House in 1958 as Coloured Representatives—and I do not want to hurl any reproaches about now, I am merely sketching what happened— we were confronted by a situation where the one Act after the other was made, the implementation of which, notwithstanding the good intentions which may have arisen, had not yet yielded the fruits which they have since yielded. The direct positiveness of that policy and the benefits of that legislation had not yet been proved to this House, to the public and to the Coloureds to whom it applied.

The hon. member for Peninsula was quite correct in saying what he said here this afternoon. I am grateful that the good effects of many laws have now become apparent. Certain laws could be interpreted—and were in fact interpreted as such—as purely oppressive measures as far as the Coloureds were concerned. We now find ourselves in a position when a separate university for Coloureds is not merely being talked about. Such a university does exist now and Coloured students can actually obtain degrees there. Group areas are no longer merely being discussed. Group areas are no longer merely being regularly proclaimed. something which simply amounted to the Coloureds having to get out of the towns. Building operations are continually in process, laying out and development work is taking place. I am thinking now of places like Oudtshoorn and Mossel Bay where the people are being removed and where they are going to the new Coloured areas with a measure of eagerness because they will be able to build or own new houses there in a properly planned vicinity. That is why there has been a change in the attitude of the Coloured population. This is as it ought to be, because South Africa needs it. That is why we as Coloured representatives are grateful that we are no longer having to deal with the position as it was nine years ago. We are glad that we do not have those conditions which existed when we came to this House. We are now dealing with positive implementation of Government policy. We can see the positive side of the policy. We can pick the positive fruits of that policy.

I want to react for a moment to what the hon. member for Moorreesburg said. I appreciate his desire that an opportunity be created for the Coloureds to find their rightful place in the fishing industry. But I think the hon. member mshits, or as he put it, miskicks the ball when he speaks of a full-fledged separate Coloured harbour along the coast of Namaqualand. The rural areas of Namaqualand have never asked for a harbour. It is the Coloured fishermen, the Coloured people in the fishing industry, in the concentration to the south, who are concerned in the fishing industry and who want to make a breakthrough into the fishing industry. We must remember that as far as the fishing industry is concerned, the erection of a canning factory will not be the solution. If we go to harbours such as Hout Bay or St. Helena Bay or Paternoster or Lamberts Bay, which are already situated a long way from Cape Town, then we find that there are fresh crayfish products there which have to be handled. You yourself know, Sir, that as far as transport communications are concerned, the further one travels into Namaqualand the worse they get. In any case the railway line only runs as far as Bitterfontein, and that is already a long way away from the coast.

What about sea traffic?

Surely the hon. member is talking about something now which is undeterminable. After all, he knows very well that the fishing industry in which he has interests and which is situated along the west coast has lines of communication with Cape Town which consist of road communications and not sea traffic. His base is there, and if the catches are brought ashore there, they are transported to Cape Town.

I agree with the hon. member when he raises his plea, but I differ from him in the following respects. If the Coloureds can now be afforded the opportunity of standing on their own feet in the fishing industry, if they can be afforded an opportunity of gaining a full-fledged place in the fishing industry, from the catches themselves to where the catches are canned and sold, or whatever the end products may be, I cannot see why they have to be given a separate little harbour, a harbour which still has to be built somewhere. We have a large city here—Cape Town. We have group areas here which have been proclaimed in terms of the Group Areas Act. The people are living and developing separately here. Why cannot provision be made for them in an existing place?

For good neighbourliness there must be properly demarcated dividing lines.

Must these proper dividing lines now be a coastal strip, a wild coastal strip where nothing is happening—100 miles long—in order that they may be separate? That is how far poring Bay is from Lamberts Bay. The hon. member knows that himself. No. S r. I see it all. Although I agree now with the hon. member, I do not see why a new harbour for the Coloureds only should be developed somewhere. There are existing harbours where good and efficient facilities can be created for them. Why should it be only at one place? Just as we have Coloured group areas in various places, they can also be given interests at various places. I see no difficulty in that.

What he actually wants is a Colouredstan.

Yes, I must agree with that, because the hon. member referred specifically to the Coloured rural areas of Namaqualand which have never had anything to do with the fishing industry. The people concerned in the fishing industry are to be found along the west coast toward Cape Town and further.

I now want to make a certain appeal to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister and everybody in this House realizes that it is absolutely essential for both the present and the future of South Africa that there should be a feeling of confidence, of mutual understanding, of mutual trust between White and Coloured. It is desirable, it is essential. We cannot separate the Coloureds in their own area where they may develop under an autonomous or a semi-autonomous government of their own. There has been a tremendous change in the attitude of the Whites towards the Coloureds, and of the Coloureds in respect of the white Government under which they find themselves in South Africa. Fortunately the period of political strife, and the period immediately subsequent to that, in regard to the Coloureds’ political rights, is something of the past. Coloured leaders are realizing to an ever-increasing extent, and they are saying so candidly, that if the Coloureds want to develop into full-fledged citizens, then they must undergo an economic and educational process of upliftment and that is why use must be made of the opportunities which are being created by the Government in order to achieve that. In my opinion there has been a change of heart particularly amongst our intellectual Whites. They realize that in the period in which we are living we must begin to count numbers and that there need be no doubt in regard to the loyalty and patriotism of the Coloureds. I want to make an appeal to the Minister. I want to ask him to take into consideration that we are not only dealing with the present day, with what the Government is actually doing, and with the change of heart to which I have referred … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow the hon. member who just sat down and other hon. members in their arguments about fish, but I just want to state that the policy of this Government and the Department towards the Coloureds amounts to the following. To express it in fishy terms: One can give a person a fish to eat and so satisfy his hunger, but if one teaches him to fish so that he himself will be able to satisfy his hunger in the future, then one really does something for him. I think that is also the approach adopted by this Department. The policy is to help the Coloured so that he may help himself in the future.

The hon. member for Peninsula spoke about the goodwill existing amongst the Coloureds towards the Government and its policy. He said that they were far more well-disposed towards us now. He said that that friendly attitude could develop still further, but laid down the condition that we had to provide tangible proof of our goodwill. We must keep on giving and then we shall retain their goodwill. Well, that is not quite correct. The Department’s approach is to give to the Coloured, to teach him and to help him so that he may help himself to stand on his own feet.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) spoke of the school-leaving of Coloureds. He asked that we should give them more facilities. Has the hon. member ever thought of making more propaganda among his constituents and his Coloured leaders for the Coloureds themselves to keep their children at school longer? As I have said, it is the function of the Department to help the Coloureds to help themselves. We have heard in this debate how much assistance has already been offered. We have heard how the Coloureds are gradually realizing that the assistance offered to them is in the interests of their own group.

Progress reported.