I listened attentively yesterday to what the hon. member for Karoo said. He made a few very interesting statements. With reference to the industrial conciliation legislation of this country, he said: “Our Industrial Conciliation Act is as good as any in the world—indeed, it is better than most legislation of a similar kind.” As far as that is concerned I agree with him, of course. But who is responsible for this legislation?— the National Party, and therefore we have industrial peace and quiet in this country.

It is based on General Smuts’s Act of 1924.

Hon. gentlemen opposite opposed this legislation tooth and nail in 1956. And yet they come along now and claim for themselves a share of the credit for the industrial peace and quiet which we are experiencing in this country. In addition the hon. member for Karoo made the most nonsensical remark imaginable. But then one cannot expect anything but nonsensical remarks from the hon. member. He said that the Bantu Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act should be revised “because the black masses in this country do not have industrial peace and quiet” and that we cannot look after their rights properly. Considering the latest annual report of the Department of Labour and the information contained in it, one would ask oneself how the hon. member could pluck up the courage to make such a statement. There are almost 600,000 Bantu employed in our factories. If we review the year 1966, we notice that 14 labour disputes occurred, disputes which are regarded as strikes. Only 1,374 Bantu were involved. In addition there were 48 labour disputes where activities were brought to a standstill, but which cannot be legally regarded as strikes. Only 1,722 Bantu were involved there. I now ask that hon. member, on what grounds does he make the ridiculous statement that, in terms of present legislation, we cannot look after the interests of the Bantu in our industries?

Thirdly, the hon. member asked the Minister: “I should like him to explain to us why he is so hostile to Tucsa.” It is on this question that I want to dwell for a while. I want to suggest that Tucsa has strained the patience of the Minister of Labour and I wondered if the time has not arrived for the Minister to cancel its registration. I think that the time has arrived for this to be done, because this trade union is harbouring sinister motives in this country.

Tucsa is not a trade union.

It is a federation of trade unions and gives guidance to 66 trade unions. I say that I think it is time for the Minister to act in respect of Tucsa, because the question is whether the continuation of their registration is justified. Tucsa and the United Party are allies. Both of them advocate the principle of “the rate for the job”. If this is accepted and applied, what will become of the white worker? And the white worker knows that. That is why the United Party looks as it does—none of them represents a workers’ constituency. The hon. member for Yeoville was chased from Alberton to Vereeniging and from there to Yeoville. Whom he represents there, I do not know. I think that it is necessary for us to call to mind briefly the history of trade unionism in South Africa. Up to 1947 we had the South African Trades and Labour Council. In 1947 that organization was dissolved as a result of the fact that a motion that the Bantu be excluded from the white trade unions was negatived. Listen to the account in “Die Evolusie van Tucsa” (The Evolution of Tucsa) in this connection (translation)—

That is so, the Afrikaner trade unions broke away, and 33 of them affiliated themselves under the South African Confederation of Labour; representing about 200,000 Whites; they were exclusively white trade unions. They broke away because they subscribed to the traditional policy of racial differences and because they endorsed the policy of job reservation. And then those hon. members are always wanting to present Tucsa to us as the so-called representatives of the workers in this country. What is Tucsa composed of? In 1947, when the old Trade Union Council dissolved, Tucsa was built up from those remaining leftist trade unions. That is what Tucsa is composed of. And what happened then? Tucsa went underground during those years and its mouthpiece was overseas at the time. In 1954, when Tucsa was constituted, after a united front was established from those old trade unions which remained, Canon Collins and Solly Sachs were its mouthpieces abroad. Look at what Solly Sachs and, inter alia, Collins as well, said in 1956—

Solly Sachs said, inter alia, that the first step would be to get the Nationalists out of power. Action had to be taken at trade union level; at least one million Bantu labourers could be organized into trade unions, but technical and financial assistance was necessary. I am quoting from an article which appeared in Die Burger on 11th June, 1956. I say that there we saw the spirit of trade unionism, of Tucsa. They used their mouthpieces abroad, and what happened then? In 1962 they plucked up the courage to adopt a defiant attitude towards this Government. They took a decision, and I want to quote again from “The Evolution of Tucsa”, in which it is stated (translation)—

Sir, I say that here you can see what attitude these people adopted towards the country. They went further and in 1965, at their congress, their Secretary, Mr. Grobbelaar, said inter alia—

I say that that is a defiant attitude which these people adopted and I say that it is this type of trade union which brings about the trouble which is being experienced in Europe to-day. I want to ask the Minister of Labour very earnestly if these people still have a right of existence in South Africa? Do they still have the right to organize our trade unions? I think that the time has come for us to take steps against them and not only make threats. We can go further. We can see what attitude they adopted at their latest congress a few months ago. A certain Mr. Fraser of the Cape Musicians’ Association said—

Can we tolerate this defiant attitude of these people any longer in the Republic of South Africa, where we have industrial peace and quiet as no other country in the world has? I want to make a last appeal to the hon. the Minister to give short shrift to this Trade Union Council of South Africa.

In view of the fact that the hon. the Minister has the power in terms of section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, No. 28 of 1956, to take precautionary measures against interracial competition by means of work reservation determinations in order to protect the economic prosperity of employees of any race, I want to avail myself of this opportunity this afternoon of requesting the hon. the Minister on behalf of the workers employed in the rubber industry to give serious consideration to the possibility of making a work reservation determination in respect of this industry. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) has been consulted in this matter, and he agrees with my request.

In the Uitenhage-Port Elizabeth area the rubber industry consists of three factories, namely Goodyear, Firestone and General Tyres. This established industry has always offered a livelihood to a large number of white workers in the past. In 1962, 1,160 workers were employed, while 1,103 were employed in 1966. At the moment 1,225 white workers are employed in the rubber industry. These statistics show without any doubt that, from 1962 up to and including 1966, there was a decrease in the number of white workers employed as compared with the establishment of the three factories mentioned.

From 1967 up to the present, there has been a slight increase in the number of Whites employed, but proportionately a considerable increase in the number of non-Whites employed. It is a fact that more Whites can be employed if the employers are not so selective as is the case at present. According to the information I have—and I have verified this information—a strict screening process is usually applied whenever a white worker is employed, which is not the case when a non-White applies for employment. Employers usually advance the argument that there is a shortage of white workers. Although this may sometimes be true, this is not always the case. The statistics revealed that the following position prevailed during March, 1968, as regards unemployed persons in the Uitenhage-Port Elizabeth area: White males 231; white females, 350; and white male youths, 15. In spite of this you will find, Sir, that the employer will tell you that there is simply no white manpower available. Another argument which is continually being advanced is that the work in the rubber industry is of a dirty nature and that Whites are not prepared to do this kind of work. What strikes one, though, is that non-Whites are employed in this industry in numerous positions which do not involve dirty work. The point I want to make, is that if a white worker offers his services, his services should be employed and he should receive preference to a non-white worker.

In this country, with its intricate racial composition, no informed person can be opposed to work reservation. The various employers should accept this basic principle as one which ensures that survival of our white workers. After, all, it has been proved in practice that this is the only measure which can ensure the orderly co-existence of the various race groups in industry. It is also being used effectively to prevent workers from being replaced by cheap labour in their rightful occupation. The latter phenomenon is one which is rapidly developing in the rubber industry in Uitenhage and Port Elizabeth. Work reservation has never yet had a restrictive effect on industrial development and it is a well-known fact that all qualified workers who are fit and available are in employment to-day, whether it be reserved employment or not. There are, in fact, certain organizations in this country to-day which are trying to bring work reservation into discredit, and which are doing so with various motives, but I accept without any reservation that the hon. the Minister will not allow the sound foundations which the present Government built up during the past 20 years to the benefit of both employers and employees, to be destroyed.

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member allowed to read his speech?

The hon. member may not read his speech.

I am referring to my notes; I do not know what the hon. member for East London (City) is referring to. In any case, he does not know what a white worker is.

Order! The hon. member must not read his speech. I myself gained the impression that he was reading his speech.

I submit to your ruling, Sir. I have to mention here that the Minister will in no way be responsible for or amenable to the present orderliness being converted into chaos under Nationalist rule in future as a result of work reservation perhaps being broken down. I am also aware of the fact that should the hon. the Minister decide to make a new determination, such determination has to be made in consultation with the Industrial Tribunal. I think the time has come for a determination to be made in respect of the rubber industry.

Whose notes are those?

I am aware of the fact that a determination such as I have mentioned can only be made after, as I have said, the Industrial Tribunal has carried out a thorough investigation, and I want to plead with the Minister this afternoon that such an investigation will, in fact, be carried out in the Uitenhage-Port Elizabeth complex, because such an investigation is also carried out in consultation with the various trade unions and the various employers’ organizations. I can assure the hon. the Minister that the white workers in that area will welcome such an investigation. The work reservation determination which applies to the motor assembly industry provides—and I think the hon. member will allow me to read out the figures now —that at least 65 per cent of the employees, excluding office staff, of Volkswagen S.A. Limited should be Whites. In the case of the motor assembly factories in Port Elizabeth it is 45 per cent. Owing to the general shortage of white workers, which is a periodical phenomenon, the employers concerned are unable to maintain the prescribed percentages. The hon. the Minister was compelled to grant temporary relief in this connection in the past by means of exemptions. If such a determination is made in the rubber industry, I want to ask that, in case the manpower resources do not permit it, temporary exemptions be granted according to the manpower resources. If the hon. the Minister accedes to my request, the same procedure I have set out here may be followed in the rubber industry as well. It is an undisputable fact that work reservation will not be abolished as long as the present Government remains in power. The white workers of the country are grateful for this, but I am pleading to-day that work reservation should also be applied in the rubber industry, where the employers are at present too much inclined to make use of cheap labour at the expense of the Whites.

It is not my intention to get into a controversy with the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark. His attack on Tucsa is far worse, I think, especially bearing in mind the language that was used, than Tucsa’s attack on the Minister, as he put it. Tucsa represents 66 trade unions and many thousands of workers, and my feeling is that the members of Tucsa can defend themselves against the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark.

But you cannot do it.

It is not my intention to defend Tucsa, but I do say that whatever Tucsa is doing must be legal; whatever they say must be legal; otherwise the law would step in. I regret very much that the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has gone so far as to ask the hon. the Minister to step in and virtually ban this co-ordinating council. I do not think that is called for. The position to-day is that we must try to strengthen the trade unions as much as we possibly can. If it is the wish of any group of workers to belong to an organization, it is their business. Let them go about it as they see fit.

The hon. member for Yeoville last night emphasized the fact that the labour pattern in South Africa was changing and he gave examples of the change that was taking place. I think we must exphasize that. I think we must again emphasize to-day that the time has now come for us to re-assess the value of our labour. In every single trade, in every single Government Department, we find that there is a shortage of white manpower. We can go through any of the categories of labour and we find the same situation there. As the hon. the Minister knows, this shortage of manpower is causing a lot of difficulties and a lot of wastage. We come up against this fact over and over again. It is not that we have not got the manpower. There is plenty of labour available here, but are we making the best use of it; are we training our people sufficiently? Is the basis of the educational pattern correot? Are we planning now for the future? It has been said over and over again and I want to emphasize that the numbers of Blacks who are entering the trades are increasing by the month. That pattern can mean one thing only and that is that if the white man is to keep his place in the labour market he must be well trained. We must see to it that he keeps the jobs at the top of the rung. As long as we have a mixed population purchasing the goods manufactured in our country, so long will we have a shortage of skilled workers, because we have limited the skills to the white people. Virtually the only skilled people are the Whites. There are some Coloureds in the Cape who have the skills to do certain work. The hon. the Minister has said over and over again that with the introduction of automation we will solve the problem of the shortage of white workers. But, Sir, this push-button mechanization is not the solution to the labour problems and difficulties in this country.

You may get a machine which only requires the push of a button to make it work but we have to have people to make the machines and that needs the highest possible skill. There seems to be a desire to try to solve the problem by moving labour from one part of the country to another. That does not solve the problem. What difference does it make if you take black people from the Transkei and get them to work on the borders? Does that make the problem easier? What do you solve by doing that? The more success you have in the border industries the more integration you will have there and, what is more, because of the failure to train the black man in the skills, even in that area, you will have to have migratory white workers going down to the border areas. Who is going to do the skilled jobs if we are successful with the establishment of industries in the border areas? The border areas such as Rosslyn and Hammarsdale where we have been successful in establishing industries are not true border areas. They are simply extensions of growth points which already exist. I say that it makes no difference to the pattern that is evolving in our country whether we have the workers in one part of the country such as the Transkei border area or whether we have them in Rosslyn or in Johannesburg. It may temporarily clear the streets of a few black people if you are successful in your efforts to turn the established black man away from his home on the Reef and force him to go back or even anchor him to his homeland. But the pattern of labour will evolve and you will get more and more black people coming into industry. Sir, we must ask ourselves where we are wasting white manpower. Is the Government employing too many? Are they making the best use of the available manpower? Are there too many Departments to-day which are virtually making it their business to confine the development of industry rather than to expand it? This country must expand; we have to expand and we must not be afraid to use the labour that is available. Job reservation cannot save the white man. The white man must be saved and he must be encouraged to get the best possible education and the best possible training. What we have to strive for is to make him the best man for the job. Because of the shortage in the numbers of Whites and because the black population is increasing much faster than the white population, we will always find that there is a shortage of white workers. That is inevitable, because the Blacks and Whites are purchasing what the skilled white man is producing. The black man, at best, is only helping to produce that article. We cannot do without his help. This country cannot exist without him. Our pattern is such that we cannot exist without the black man’s help in any of our industries. There is not a single industry to-day which can carry on without the help of the black man. This pattern is developing rapidly and I do not see that the Government is doing anything to plan for the security of the white man except by using the term “job reservation”.

Who is it being used for? Last year it was for a working population of 2 per cent and to-day it is less than that. What jobs are reserved to-day for the white man? If we want to use that term, it can only be used in the sense of sheltered employment for those people who cannot face competition and compete in the progress that we are making. We have to look after these people, we have to have a type of employment for them which is suitable for them, bearing in mind their abilities. This phrase of job reservation is being used as a political catchword. And what does it imply? Nothing at all, and the worker today knows very well it does not mean anything. {Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville who acted as the Opposition’s main speaker in this debate, began by saying that he did not want to quarrel with me this time; that he did not want to fight with me this time. Let me say at once to the hon. member that I have no illusions regarding those fine, sweet-sounding words of his, for if we had had labour problems in our country, we would have heard quite a different story from that side. We would then have had a fuss and agitation of the first water here. But because things are going well on the labour front, because we have full employment in the Republic, because we have no significant unemployment, because we are enjoying a period of unprecedented industrial peace which is the envy of Europe and other countries, that is why we now have this sweet-sounding attitude on the part of the Opposition. We have heard speeches of this kind from the Opposition because things are going so well in South Africa on the labour front. No less an authority than the Rand Daily Mail wrote as follows in a report on 27th October, 1967—

It is true that things are going well with our people in the economic sphere to-day. There are wage claims to which attention must continually be given, but we have a standard of living which is amongst the highest in the world. We are also experiencing industrial peace, and that is why the United Party now wants to speak in this debate about the increasing employment of blacks in industry. To the Opposition this now means—the last hon. member who spoke, also referred to it—that a change in the labour pattern has supposedly taken place. In his dirge the hon. member for Yeoville came to the conclusion that “South Africa can no longer think in terms of economic separation”. Before I deal with this United Party scare story, I should just like to put a question to the hon. member for Yeoville, and anyone else on that side who wants to reply. The question is this: Can any hon. member on that side recall anyone on the National side ever denying that the non-Whites should also be granted opportunities for employment in South Africa? Has any person on the National Party side ever stated that non-Whites should not be granted opportunities for employment in South Africa?

You have in fact said that our industries should be less dependent upon them.

First listen now, you can speak again later on. Are there responsible people on this side who have ever denied that the non-Whites are making an important contribution to the development of our country? No person is so foolish as to do that. We admit that the non-Whites are making an important contribution. To-morrow, after this Vote has been dealt with, and when my other Vote, i.e. Coloured Affairs, comes up for discussion, I will probably be asked, inter alia, what is being done to make the 1,800,000 Coloureds in our country prepared for employment. Of course we are doing everything in our power to make the Coloureds, the Bantu, the Indians prepared for employment so that they can occupy their rightful place in the labour market of the country and be granted an opportunity of making a livelihood. That is not what hon. members on the opposite side have in the back of their minds when they say that we can no longer speak of “economic separation”. No, what the hon. member for Yeoville and all hon. members on that side have at the back of their minds, is the hope that our labour position will be such that their actual policy of economic integration can become a reality. That is what they want. That is what they have at the back of their minds. It is their entire endeavour, i.e. to bring about economic integration and everything which goes with it, mixed trade unions, the recognition of Bantu trade unions and the abolition of work reservation. That is what economic integration means according to the United Party recipe.

Now one is struck by the fact that the hon. members for Yeoville and Rosettenville, and other hon. members on the opposite side, should be so terribly concerned about the position of the Whites in South Africa. But do you know what strikes one the most in regard to this concern, Sir? When this side comes forward with measures which actually serve as a fundamental protection to the position of the white workers we receive no support from that side. I shall refer in a moment to a number of measures, which have been introduced here during the past year or two, and which received no support from that side. On the contrary. Let me say this to the hon. the Opposition. They need not be concerned about the position of the Whites in South Africa: Under the policy of the National Party the white worker in this country is being protected. The fact of the matter is that in spite of the tremendous national development which we have experienced during the past few decades, in spite of the need to supply all the non-white groups with more and more opportunities for employment, the position is that the position of the Whites in this country is absolutely safe. It is safe in spite of all these developments. This is probably one of this Government’s greatest achievements. The hon. member quoted certain figures in an attempt to illustrate the increasing employment of blacks in industry. I have no desire to go into this matter again. I think that I did so at the beginning of the year during a previous debate when I supplied detailed particulars. All I want to repeat now is the conclusion, which is that the percentage of white artisans, as opposed to non-white artisans, has remained virtually constant in South Africa since 1959. There is now talk about the influx or entry of blacks and other non-Whites into our industries. But why is the fact not mentioned that between the years 1954 to 1967 80,000 more Whites entered the labour force in industry? Is that not something important, does the Opposition attach no value to that? One thing of importance in this entire national development, this entire economic and industrial development of ours, is the following. In the past four to five years we have, owing to our labour measures, succeeded in keeping the percentage of Whites in industry virtually constant at 25 per cent of the labour force. This is an achievement, an achievement which proves that there has been no change in our labour pattern. On the contrary, it proves that this Government has always succeeded, with its labour measures, in maintaining the traditional labour pattern in South Africa, in spite ofi the tremendous national development. It is not being denied that during recent years a reclassification of certain types of employment has taken place. In view of our tremendous development, and our manpower shortage in certain fields, certain reclassifications of employment have in fact taken place. But what is important is that where a reclassification of types of employment has taken place, whether it was at Iscor, or whether it was in the engineering industry, or in whatever facet of our economic or industrial life it took place, this change took place in the first instance with the consent of the white trade union and the white workers concerned. That reclassification was not forced upon these people against their will and desires. It was done in consultation with them. It was done with their consent. It was done on certain conditions, i.e. that if there should be any kind of economic recession, or something of that nature, that work which has at present been transferred to the non-Whites would, if it should ever become necessary, be returned to the Whites in that a reclassification can be made. What is also important is the fact that no white person has been dismissed as a result of this reclassification of work. Not a single white person has been dismissed or prejudiced. In this agreement which Iscor has now entered into, it has been laid down that no White will be prejudiced in that case. If anybody has been prejudiced, I would be very glad to hear about it in this debate, or at any other time, so that the matter can be rectified.

Then you are simply justifying our standpoint?

I just want to say that all these stories of the United Party are a question of kicking up a lot of dust, by which means they hope to have economic integration take place. But as long as this Government remains in power, the white workers in South Africa have the assurance that this fate will not overtake them. This reclassification of work is not a complete handing-over of work to the non-Whites. Let us take the example of Iscor, where the workers negotiated with their employers for eight months. In that case certain types of work were handed over, but it is not being done in precisely the same form as it was previously done by white people. Those types of employment are sometimes being subdivided into two or three parts now. It has been completely re-classified and in this way it is being given to non-Whites who are in fact doing it for lower wages, but they are not doing the same work as the white people did. What they are now doing is entirely operators’ work. But now the hon. member for Yeoville has also said that the bargaining power of the white worker will now be weakened as a result of the employment of non-Whites. He then quoted some trade union leader or other to support his arguments. Before I deal with the facts I also want to furnish a trade union opinion in this regard. I want to furnish an opinion emanating from one of our oldest trade unions, a trade union which knows a great deal about bargaining, namely the typographic union, which stated in its publication of March, 1968, under the title “Frustration”—

This is only another opinion, but what are the further facts? It is being alleged that the bargaining power of the white workers would supposedly be weakened as a result of the presence of black labour in industry. But is that the position? During the last few years the trade unions have not gone downhill. They have not declined, as the hon. member for Yeoville kept telling us in this House in 1956. For days on end, in 1956, we had to hear in these debates how the trade unions were going to disappear, and how they were going to be destroyed. They have not disappeared, nor have they been destroyed. On the contrary, since this Industrial Conciliation Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1956 the membership of our trade unions in this country has increased to 438,000, an increase of 56,000. But this is not the only figure to have increased. We who attended the 1956 debate will remember how the hon. member for Yeoville kept on trotting out of the House to meet Mrs. Solly Sachs here in the Lobby to get a little more ammunition. We were then told that the entire industrial council system was going to collapse. Their great thinker, Mr. Ivan Walker, wrote each day to the English language newspapers saying that “the industrial council system will be destroyed”. But, Mr. Chairman, do you know how it was destroyed? It was destroyed to such an extent that the fact is that there are at the moment 100 industrial councils in this country. It was destroyed to such an extent that between now and January, 1967, 34 wage agreements have been entered into in this country, which ensured improved conditions of service and wages for workers. It is therefore completely nonsensical to allege that the bargaining power of the worker, and specifically the white worker, has deteriorated. On the contrary it has, as these figures indicate, been maintained because this Government believes in a healthy trade union system. We believe that we need a healthy trade union system in this country, to further our economic welfare. That is why this Government will see to it that a healthy trade union system is maintained.

We come now to another fallacious argument with which we have had to deal. It has been alleged that the position of the trade unions is no longer a representative one. As a result of the presence of black labour in industry, the employers, according to the Opposition story, supposedly no longer regard the trade unions as being representative. In other words, they will not be held in the same esteem now, and they will no longer be able to negotiate. But the hon. member for Yeoville, who is well acquainted with the Industrial Reconciliation Act, ought to know that when it comes to the representative standing of parties, as it is called, the Bantu are not included. Then the number of employees is taken into consideration. The percentage of employees who belong to trade unions is taken into consideration, and on those grounds the representative standing is determined, and on that basis therefore they are afforded bargaining power. We need pay as little heed to this kind of double talk, as to that in regard to the Bantu trade unions with which the hon. member tried to keep us occupied here. As his interjections yesterday proved. They are on the one hand opposed to the recognition of Bantu trade unions, but on the other hand the hon. member does not hesitate to write an article in one of his mouthpieces, namely The Star, in which this article of his appeared under the title “Must African workers go unorganized”, by Marais Steyn, M.P. On the one hand tears are now being shed because the Bantu workers are unorganized, but on the other hand they feel that it is politically somewhat inopportune to admit that they are advocating the recognition of these trade unions. That is why we now have this kind of double talk, and the equally nonsensical question: What is going to happen if the Bantu in the homelands want to establish trade unions? I replied to that last year, and I have no hesitation in repeating my reply. If they want to establish trade unions there, they are welcome to do so. In the same way as we are not going to prescribe to them what they can do in their areas, so South Africa will not allow itself to be prescribed to. As far as the border areas are concerned, I want to say that they will be in white South Africa, and that the policy of this Government will be implemented there.

I come now to Tucsa, about which I do not think it is necessary to say very much. The hon. member for Karoo spoke about my “hostile attitude” towards Tucsa. I do not really know what these words “hostile attitude” imply, because I granted these people an interview in Pretoria a few months ago, which to my mind is definitely not proof of a “hostile attitude”. I told them on that occasion that if they had another matter they wanted to put to me, my door was always open to them. I want to repeat this to-day. They are quite at liberty at any time, if they have a matter of importance which they want to take to the Government through me, submit this matter to me. Does that testify to a hostile attitude? No, it is not a question of a hostile attitude; it is a question of government policy which has to be implemented. I am not going to discuss that to-day. Enough has been said about that from my side. I have, on various occasions, stated very explicitly what the attitude of the Government to Bantu trade unions is. I said that we regard the Bantu as being insufficiently mature to have trade unions, and that they will merely be used as an instrument by left-inspired communists and others. I am really not going to elaborate on this matter any further to-day.

Arising from the appeal made by the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark who stated in this regard that their registration should be revised, I should like to say this. I should like to see those white members who are still affiliated to Tucsa facing their responsibility towards themselves and South Africa now. I estimate that there are still between 60,000 to 70,000 Whites who belong to trade unions which are affiliated to Tucsa, as against 180,000 to 200,000 Whites who are affiliated to the Confederation of Labour, and the responsible members of Tucsa must ask themselves whether they are prepared to contribute financially or otherwise to the organization of Bantu trade unions. They must ask themselves whether they regard it as being in the interests of workers relations in South Africa. They must also ask themselves whether it is in the interests of the maintenance of our South African pattern of life. I think they also have a responsibility to South Africa and to themselves. I trust that they will face that responsibility.

Have you any proof that Tucsa trade unions are organizing amongst the Bantu?

Yes. What gave rise to my former appeal was an announcement in a circular issued by Tucsa itself that they were going to commence organizing Bantu trade unions. It can be done, but they decided that it should be done actively, on a large scale. It was stated in the circular that they had decided that their organizations should contribute financially so that organizers could be appointed to organize the Bantu into trade unions. It was as a result of those resolutions and announcements that I made that appeal to them.

I do not want to say anything further about Tucsa now, but I should like to say a few words about the alternative, namely the Bantu labour councils. The hon. member for Yeoville also referred to the work of the Bantu labour councils. It is true that the establishment of these Bantu workers’ committees is not progressing as well as I should have liked. I think all of us would like to see more of them. At the moment there are 49, and that is not enough. One would like to see more being established. The reply to the question why we are opposed to the organization of Bantu into trade unions is to be found precisely in this small number. The Bantu are not interested in trade unions. That is the fact we must recognize, apart from the other disadvantages. The fact that only 49 Bantu workers committees have been established is to a certain extent also attributable to a lack of interest amongst the Bantu in such organizations. In spite of this, the fact of the matter is that these Bantu worker’s committees, by means of the Bantu labour council, has in fact during the past nine years succeeded in obtaining wage increases for the Bantu workers in this country to the amount of R47 million. This fact is probably responsible for the quotation which I made at the beginning of my speech, which amounted to the fact that the Bantu and other non-Whites in this country are enjoying a higher standard of living then any other non-white community in the world. I want to state to-day that I will gladly receive suggestions for the promotion of these workers’ committees. I am prepared to consider further proposals in this regard, and to ascertain whether it can be implemented administratively or by means of legislation. It has occurred to me that one could co-opt persons from the industries into these workers committees, in the hope that one could in this way furnish the Bantu with more guidance and information there and also be able to stimulate their interest. I am quite open to any positive suggestions in this regard, and I really hope that this will be done, provided it is done within the framework of the existing Act.

I also want to say a few words in regard to wages in the border areas. In this regard we have once again learnt from the hon. member for Yeoville that these are supposedly very unfair towards the white workers. The impression has been created that they can be paid any wage in the border industries. This is not so. The border areas fall under the jurisdiction of the Wage Board, which institutes investigations there from time to time. We are aware of the fact that the clothing factories in the border areas have, during the past few years, twice been investigated, and that wage determinations in respect of them have been made. In this regard our attitude is that while, on the one hand, we want this border area development to proceed, we will as government, on the other hand, not allow this to be done in such a way that it prejudices the employment position of the white workers in any white area. That is our primary objective, and that is why we have the machinery of the Wage Board and industrial tribunal, which can be used in this regard. You will recall that I recently instructed the Industrial Tribunal to investigate the question of the pre-construction industry at Rosslyn because suspicions were being voiced that that pre-construction factory was supposedly constituting an unfair threat to the other established pre-construction factories. This matter will be investigated. Once again we were forced to listen to the old story of the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Karoo echoed what he had to say. They alleged that “job reservation” was a “dead letter”. It is supposedly as dead as can be. If work reservation is as dead as a dodo, then I am surprised that the United Party exhaust themselves to such an extent by protesting about it. Surely one does not protest so vehemently about something which is quite dead. After all, if that is the case one does not pay any heed to it.

That is what they want so badly.

No, Mr. Chairman, it is not read as a dodo. There is one thing which the United Party knows very well. They know that work reservation stands between them and the implementation of their policy of economic integration. That is how matters stand. They are now saying that no determinations are being made. One of the wise gentlemen on the opposite side even went so far as to say that over the past two years no determination had been made. It really seems that they do not look up their facts very carefully. The fact of the matter is that during the past two years five determinations have been made. It is net dead. We said at the time of the introduction of the Industrial Reconciliation Bill—Minister Schoeman first dealt with it and subsequently Minister De Klerk—that the greatest value of work reservation was that it would serve as a watchdog. This is still the case. It is not only a watchdog for that small statutory number which have to be covered. It is a small percentage, as hon. members have now ascertained time and again on the basis of questions. As long as there is work reservation, the traditional labour pattern in this country will be maintained. It is not only being maintained by way of the determinations which I as Minister sign. We have now had a very good example in regard to this powerful engineering industry. Work reservation was included in their agreement without having been promulgated by Statute. In this agreement work reservation has for the first time been fully recognized and embodied. It is an agreement concluded between the workers and the employers, which simply proved that the employers do not attach any value to this so-called “rate for the job”, one of the favourite topics of the United Party.

This so-called “rate for the job”, which we have to hear so much about from time to time, was also raised here. The hon. member for Yeoville even asked me to say something about it. So let me say something about this hackneyed and meaningless cry. Recently the hon. member stated it in explicit terms when he wrote in the Star of 13th November, 1967—

The hon. member who is proving so ingenious now, would do well to give his attention in the recess to what this “effective rate” would lead to. Because nobody who has anything to do with wage determination can formulate any kind of understanding of what such an “effective rate” is. There is a minimum prescribed wage. Whether it is a wage determination, or a wage agreement, there is a minimum wage. Then one finds that employers, in accordance with a workers’ productivity, increase his wage above that prescribed determination. In the one factory the wage is increased by a certain amount, and in another factory by another amount. In the same industry one comes across a hundred different wages, which are all above the prescribed wage. How must one determine an “effective rate” now? Surely a survey must be made of the wages which are being paid in the entire industry—whether it is the engineering industry, the building industry, or any other for that matter—in order to determine what the “effective rate” is. Then all the workers must sit and wait until the computer has determined what the effective rate is. Does the hon. member realize what chaos this is going to create in the labour world? And now I want to ask him that if he wants to talk about the “effective rate” again, not to come forward with a slogan-like statement, but to work out the thing properly for us and then we shall listen to it very attentively. But in this form it has no meaning for us whatsoever. It is merely one of those typical United Party battle-cries which we have grown so accustomed to by this time.

The hon. member for Brakpan referred to the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister at Nigel, in which he expressed the desirability of our sending a workers representative overseas to make contact with others. I want to say in parenthesis that the hon. member for Brakpan has apologized to me for being unable to be present here to-day, but I am nevertheless replying to his question. I can just announce that the Government is at present considering this matter and hopes to make an announcement in this regard soon.

The hon. member for Langlaagte raised the question of aptitude tests and asked for the expansion of this system. Firstly I want to say how pleased I am about the appreciation which the hon. member is displaying of aptitude tests. I really do think that these aptitude tests are rendering a great service as to the correct utilization of our labour force. As regards his plea that we should expand these tests to the schools, this is in fact being done in part. The school leavers are being put through these tests so that they can be channelized in the right direction, but when it comes to secondary schools, it is a matter peculiar to education. There the Department of Education has its own vocational information service, and it is a task which is the full responsibility of that service.

The hon. member for Uitenhage discussed work reservation in the rubber factories. The problem we have is that there is such an insignificant degree of unemployment in that area that one can hardly, purely on those grounds, proceed to an investigation and a determination. Nevertheless I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we will ask our divisional inspector of labour to institute another investigation and to submit a report, and on the basis of his report in this regard we will consider whether we will ask the Industrial Tribunal to go into the matter.

I want to express my gratitude to the Minister for the excellent explanation he gave to this House to-day. We can be thankful that the National Party came into power in 1948. Yesterday we listened to the speech made by the hon. member for Yeoville, which, as the Minister put it a few moments ago, was larded with the idea of economic integration. That is so, but let us go (back in history and consider what the labour problem in this country was after the war. Then those hon. members will say: “We had been fighting a war.”.

What were you doing?

We can still remember the chaos which prevailed in the building trade, but this Government has succeeded in bringing about peace and quiet among the labour force. The labour force of this country is satisfied with the actions of this Government. The workers have had and will continue to have the privilege under this Government that the door is open to them and that the Minister of Labour gives them a hearing when they want to negotiate about any matter. Our trade unions have not been silenced; they have had the right to bargain with their employers and then to state their case to the Minister. We want to thank the present Minister of Labour on behalf of the mine-workers, who are working and earning a living under very difficult circumstances. But the Minister has succeeded in making the miue-worker a very satisfied person to-day and he was also responsible for the fact that the mine-workers are solidly behind the National Government. If the mine-workers should become the decisive factor in any more constituencies to-day, the new members they will send to this House will be members of the National Party, because we know who recognized us and who disregarded us in the past.

Yesterday we listened to the speech made by hie hon. member for Yeoville, in which he pointed out, as was done a moment ago by the Minister, the danger of the white man being ploughed under in industry, but I want to say the following. What have those hon. members done? I want to put it to them that everything is being done for the non-Whites and for the Bantu to raise their standard of living and to teach them that they can also equip themselves for the future. I want to tell hon. members opposite that there are non-Whites to-day who are qualified as bricklayers, as electricians and as carpenters for the purpose of doing such work in their own areas. I want to thank the Government for having passed the Act at the time in terms of which the Bantu will do his own work in his Bantu townships and in his homeland. As the Minister said, we want to raise the standard of living of those people as well. Let us compare the standard of living of the white worker to-day with that before the war when the previous Government was in power and even with the position during those years between the end of the war and 1948. After all, we know what the position was. I have been a worker all my life and the workers sent me to this House to represent them, and I am grateful for that. It will be foolish for anybody to reject the hand which has been feeding and clothing him and which has provided for his future over the past 20 years, and this the workers will not do.

I want to submit a request to the Minister of Labour to-day, and I am doing so on behalf of the mine-workers. Not only the mineworkers but also their employers want the 31st May, Republic Day, to be declared a paid holiday for them. I had the privilege of having the Minister of Justice as my guest in my constituency last Friday, Republic Day, and we had to postpone the proceedings and his speech until 5 o’clock in the afternoon so that the mine-workers could come up from underground in order to give them the opportunity of listening to the speech of the Minister. The mine-worker is interested in Republic Day. The Minister of Justice also told me that according to his estimate there were approximately 7,000 people present; this was an excellent attendance considering that Stilfontein is only a small town. The mine-workers have only three paid holidays, namely Good Friday, the Day of the Covenant and Christmas Day, with the option of having New Year’s Day as a holiday, for which purpose they have to apply for leave. However, 99 per cent of those applications are refused. They get Republic Day as a paid holiday every five years. That is why we ask—and I do not think we are asking much—.that mine-workers be given Republic Day as a paid holiday every year. Why do I make this request? Because when we voted for a Republic, the mine-worker voted “Yes”, and I had the privilege of stating the standpoint of the mine-worker over the radio and the mine-workers listened to my voice on many evenings. The workers are satisfied, but they ask that they be given the 31st May as a holiday. The factory worker is in a better position than the mine-worker in this respect, because the former have more paid holidays. Since the hon. members of the Opposition are so concerned about the future of the white workers, I ask them to support me when I ask that the Minister should declare the 31st May as a paid holiday for the mine-workers as soon as possible.

I am sorry the hon. member for Yeoville is not here at the moment. Last night the hon. member spoke for half an hour and he spoke again after that, but he produced very little. I now want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville something he does no-t know, something he should remember for the future, and that is that any employer watches productivity and if his employer, namely Yeoville, listened to. the productivity of the hon. member last night or as we know him in this House, I would suggest that he will get the “sack” when his contract of service expires, and he will not be the only one. You know, Sir, the contracts of many of the members of the United Party were not renewed the last time those contracts expired, and I think that hon. member is rapidly approaching the stage where he will receive the same treatment.

The hon. member made a terrible fuss about black labour and about industries being dependent on that black labour. But this is nothing new; surely we know it and we have room for that Bantu labour. We need that labour and we admit it. But something the hon. member did not tell us, something which is very important, is that those Bantu labourers are equally dependent on those industries to give them a livelihood and to enable them to earn an income. The hon. member also spoke of labour in South Africa becoming blacker; he juggled with figures and he told us how this had increased over the years. To a certain extent this is true. Our country is developing and labour has increased on all levels. There are many more workers in the factories to-day. However, what he did not tell us, was that the black labour increased during the past years but that white labour increased as well, and the ratio remained virtually the same over the past ten or 12 years.

The position has not been upset at all; the position remains exactly the same, and as long as we can at least maintain the position that the ratio remains the same, there is no question of the labour market becoming blacker. The hon. member for Yeoville also referred to the Minister of Transport and to the changes taking place on the Railways, but this is nothing new either. We are making adjustments and reclassifying jobs all the time. We made an adjustment in the mining industry last year, which is one of our oldest industries. We made that adjustment with the approval of the white mine workers. The same happened at Iscor this year. Nobody denies that. The hon. member for Kensington spoke about training. Sir, we are training both Whites and non-Whites, and whenever there is work in the white areas, which we appropriate for the white workers, which cannot be performed by the Whites owing to the shortage of white workers, we use non-white or Bantu labour, and for that reason there is always a reclassification of work if necessary. If the hon. member had made any useful suggestions, we would have been grateful, but he did not do so. I think hon. members opposite should pay tribute to the hon. the Minister and the Department of Labour for the labour peace which has characterized South Africa, particularly under the regime of the National Party Government. I think there is no other country in the world where one finds such labour peace as we have in South Africa today, and for that reason many countries are extremely envious of South Africa. We should also pay tribute to the workers for the way in which they are rendering their services. We are aware of what has taken place in the world during the past few days and during the past few weeks. Everywhere there have been strikes which are in fact paralysing the governments. In South Africa, however, strikes are virtually unknown, and we owe that fact to the National Party Government, which knows the worker. The worker also knows the National Party, and that is why members of the National Party are virtually filling this House, while the United Party will have to relinquish a few more seats here in the next eleotion.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with a few matters which the public in South Africa and perhaps we in this House do not take much notice of, and that is what the Minister and his Department are doing in connection with sheltered employment. I want to quote a few figures in this connection. At present there are 13 factories which have provided employment to an average of approximately 2,000 people per year over the past few years. These factories afford these people a livelihood which ¡they would not have had otherwise. The fact that they are performing a useful service is a source of confidence and self-respect to them. I also want to refer to the workshops for the blind. At the moment there are eight workshops, which employ an average of approximately 400 persons per year. These people find it very difficult to compete on the open labour market. The Department is also doing rehabilitation work, which also involves these people. This rehabilitation work is a wonderful success and a wonderful asset to the people and the country. During 1966, for example, 6,962 people who were physically and mentally handicapped received guidance, as compared with 5,049 the previous year. In other words the number increased by almost 2,000 within one year. [Time expired.]

I do not want to take issue with the hon. member for Mayfair when he commends the Department for the work ¡that it has done for disabled persons, in providing employment for them, and so on. One would naturally wish to give the Department every encouragement to continue to expand this very good work. I want to come back to one or two other statements which have been made here and which are far more contentious. I want first of all to discuss the question of the Settlement of Disputes Act, and the Minister’s original claim that the Act was working satisfactorily. ¡He has stated that he himself is prepared to see some improvement in the Labour Board set-up and to see whether he can do something about increasing the number of work committees which are operating. As he mentioned to-day in the House and as he told me earlier in the Session in reply to a question, there are only 49 such work committees in operation at the present stage. Sir, I believe that however much the Minister improves the implementation of the Settlement of Disputes Act and however many additional work committees he sets up, he is not ever going to improve the conditions of African workers to anything like the extent that they would be improved if Africans were allowed the ordinary benefits of collective bargaining, benefits which we allow to every other racial group of workers in South Africa —to the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. It is only the Africans who are denied the ordinary rights in an industrial democracy of collective bargaining machinery. I think this contention is borne out by the fact that African wages still remain at a very unsatisfactory level, by and large, although I will concede at once that there have been improvements over the past few years. There has been an improvement percentagewise. In other words, it can be said that wages have been increased from about 19 per cent to 31.6 per cent from 1962 to 1967. But what one tends to forget when discussing percentages is that if the percentages are based on an absolute level which was originally very low, then obviously even a percentage increase of as much as 33 per cent is still going to leave the absolute figure very low. Sir, I want to give actual examples. As I say, wages have improved in certain manufacturing and construction categories but they are still well below the poverty datum level, which has been estimated in the cities at something like R55.57 per month per family. The average wages in manufacturing, according to the latest figure that I could get, are something like R44.30 per month and in the construction industry R41 per month. Those are the averages. There are obvious certain categories where the wages are higher but there are also certain categories where they are lower. This, of course, is well below the poverty datum une. ft is true that these poverty datum line figures are based on one earner per family, or actually 1.3 earners per family. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration pointed out earlier this Session that there is usually more than one worker per family amongst African urban families. I concede that that is so, but I want to point out that under the Government’s own policy, particularly in the Western Cape, where large numbers of African women are being endorsed out of the urban area and where children are also being endorsed out, the tendency, of course, is to remove from the family unit those workers who could be augmenting the family inoome. And do not forget, Sir, that when the women and children are sent back to the rural areas they still have to live and no work is provided for them in those areas. That is one point, and the other point, of course, is that reliance on children to augment the family income is in any case something which I think all of us would deplore. Children are leaving school at far too young an age, and in far too low a class ever to become really productive members of society, and therefore to rely on an African family having more than one wage earner per family is in itself a very uneconomic operation, apart from being sociologically very bad. Sir, I want to say that in practically every field wages are still very low, and in this respect I do not except mining wages either. Mining wages are still very low. There was an article recently in The Financial Mail, which shows that the average cash wage on the mines is still 58 cents per shift, and if one adds to that the cost to the mines of providing food, i.e. 17 cents per shift, it brings the wage up to 75 cents per shift, which represents an increase of 16 cents since 1960. It is also true that on the mines something like 66 per cent of the working force are extra-Republic Africans; they come from beyond our borders. The gap between skilled and unskilled wages on the mines is widening all the time, it is not narrowing, and even though there has been a percentage increase in mine wages, I think it is a frightfully low figure for this day and age. One should remember too that our own Republican Africans who come in as migratory workers to work on the mines, also leave families behind them in the reserves, and that as long ago as 1942 the Mine Wages Commission found that the allegation that the families of these workers were self-sufficient in the reserves was nothing more than a parrot-cry. I believe that the situation has deteriorated and not improved since then, because the reserves are not more productive to-day; they are less productive.

Then I want to come to a very important agreement which has been mentioned in the House but which has not really been discussed in any detail and that is the agreement entered into by the engineering and iron and steel workers quite recently. The hon. the Minister mentioned it and said that he had seen to it that although some of the jobs were reclassified and down-graded so that African workers could take on those jobs at lower wage rates, not a single white worker would be prejudiced in the engineering and iron and steele workers quite recently. The hon. the the Minister has seen to that. What I want to know is what his Bantu Labour Board was doing while these negotiations were taking place and while this agreement was being reached over a number of months of dispute between the eight negotiating unions on the one hand, with some 75,000 white, Coloured and Indian workers, and the steel and engineering industries federation, representing some 32 employers’ associations. I understand that the Bantu Labour Board apparently took an interest in what was going on. I would like to know just what representations it made on behalf of the workers whom it is supposed to represent and, if so, what were these representations and whether they were met in any respect. Because it seems to me that the 150,000 African workers in the iron and steel engineering industry have been squashed between their employers on the one hand and the organized workers on the other hand. The result is that they have come out of this agreement very poorly indeed. Under that agreement the vast majority of them received only from a ½ cent to 2 cents per hour extra. The lowest paid are getting only 19 cents per hour, and that in an industry which is an essential industry and which is, physically speaking, a tough industry because it requires a considerable amount of tough work from the worker involved in it. The two lowest categories under that agreement will now receive R37.24 per month and R43.12 per month—well below the poverty datum line which, as I have mentioned, is R53.32 per month. But apart from the fact that these people came out of this agreement very badly, I should also like to ask the Minister what arrangements have been made to protect those Africans who were employed at higher wages and whose jobs have been downgraded. There are, in fact, many cases where jobs have been downgraded. I know that employers were not supposed to dismiss those in their employ, but what real protection can the Africans claim when they have no union to speak up on their behalf and when it is easy enough for an employer to say that he is dismissing a worker because his work is no longer satisfactory, and not because the job has been downgraded? In that way, instead of having to pay a worker R31.95 per week, which he had to pay, he can now employ somebody at about one-third of that wage. [Time expired.]

I shall not follow up the argument of the hon. member for Houghton, because the hon. the Minister can reply to the representations she made here on behalf of her constituency of Houghton. I should like to take hon. members back to a period 150 years ago when the first legislation in connection with industrial health was passed in England. In 1802, to be precise, an Act was passed in which it was laid down that children under the age of 9 years should not work for a longer period than 12 hours per day. In 1813 that Act was amended by providing that children under the age of 9 years should no longer be employed in factories at all. At the present moment there are approximately 13,000 factories in South Africa in which approximately one million workers are employed. South Africa’s industrial development took place mainly during the period after World War II. Therefore we can say that our industrial revolution started 25 years ago only. The representations I want to make, I want to link to Act 77 of 1967, in particular chapter vA of that Act, the chapter dealing with industrial diseases. In terms of that chapter the Minister is empowered to lay down certain requirements before a factory may be licensed. The legislation provides that certain precautionary measures have to be taken where it is evident that certain substances or certain processes are detrimental to the health or safety of workers.

To me it is a matter of great importance that we should move, as regards industries, in the direction of an industrial health policy, even at the present time. Therefore I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should see to the establishment of a bureau for industrial health in future. It is important that we should know what kinds of industries there are. I want to ask that we should start by classifying industries according to the product manufactured by the industry, according to the substance used by it, and according to the type of labour. When we have that classification we shall be able to determine in what industries a possibly harmful substance may be present, in what industries there may be a possibly harmful manufacturing process, and what types of labour may be detrimental to the health of the workers. We should adopt a dual approach as far as industries are concerned. We should adopt the work to the worker, and the worker to the work. The main task of this industrial health bureau will be, after the classifications have been made, to collect data in regard to conditions in all factories, including conditions relating to diseases and injuries. On the basis of the collected data it will be possible to make certain conclusions which may subsequently be embodied in legislation. This proposed bureau will not only be concerned with dust as is the case as regards the Pneumoconiosis Bureau of the mining industry, but will have to cover a much wider field. Dust is not the only thing which is dangerous. We know of nearly 280 substances which have a possible connection with the development of cancer. In a previous debate the hon. member for Durban (Central) referred to the possible dangers of asbestosis, not only in asbestos mines but also in certain factories, and we know that asbestosis is a definite factor in the development of a certain type of lung cancer. Similarly there are certain substances which cause certain types of skin cancer. If we can collect all data of this kind, we shall be able to move in a definite direction and establish an industrial health service. In terms of Act No. 77 of 1967 the hon. the Minister may order, when he has any suspicions, the examination of employees. Now I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister that such examinations should not only be carried out when there is any suspicion, but that employees on all levels should be examined prior to being employed. I make this suggestion because certain substances and certain conditions of which we have no knowledge, may cause clinical symptoms to show only after as long a period as 20 years has expired. We cannot wait until the disease condition has been recognized before saying that we want to put an end to it.

The functions of the medical officers in the industries should run concurrently with this proposed bureau. It has been urged before that our medical schools should create more opportunities for post-graduate courses in industrial diseases. I want to be bold by saying that I doubt whether we have 10 people in South Africa at the present time who have a diploma in industrial diseases. The establishment of this bureau may have the result that medical schools may at the outset introduce a short course of, say, one month, and may subsequently, as things develop, introduce a diploma course of one year.

I was pleased to hear that the hon. the Minister will also accept auditory complaints as a possible industrial disease, in the same breath I want to break a lance as regards conditions which affect human eyesight. As we know, the presence of foreign objects in the eyes of people is one of the most common occurrences under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. There are, however, other conditions as well. The continuous presence of dust may also affect a person’s eyes just as dust may affect a person’s lungs. In addition there are certain gases which can harm the eyes. There are also flying bits of lead and molten iron which can harm the eyes. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman. I want to revert to the hon. the Minister’s speech and at the outset I want to say that we on this side of the House deplore the irresponsible statements he made against us on this side, statements which, if the Minister was being responsible, he ought to know were completely untrue.

How can you say that?

Order! What did the hon. member say?

I said the Minister ought to know the statements were untrue. We can descend to the same level and debate his Vote on that level if he wants us to but I do not intend to do so because we on this side of the House consider that certain things are developing in the labour pattern in South Africa which are far too serious as far as the future of the country and the white worker in this country are concerned, for us to try and score debating noints against each other. The sort of ridiculous statement the Minister made was to say that job reservation stands between us on this side of the House and economic integration. Perhaps when the Minister sets up again, he will explain to us how this can possibly be when there are some 19 job reservations and to date there have been over 800 exemptions from these reservations. These 800 exemptions affect thousands of workers. In other words, very few workers are in practice being affected or protected by this wonderful system of job reservation which the hon. the Minister and the Government have devised.

I want to deal with something a little more important and that is the statement by the Minister that we have been raising “Sap-spook-stories” in dealing with the facts which to-day are found in the field of labour. I might say that the significant thing is that, although the Minister made belittling remarks, he did not deny any of the statements of fact which were mentioned by the hon. member for Yeoville and by other hon. members on this side. These facts relate to the increasing interdependence of non-white labour and white capital, knowhow and initiative in this country. This economic interdependence, if the Minister does not like the words “economic integration”, is a fact of life in South Africa, and it is no good the hon. the Minister, burying his head in the sand like an ostrich and pretending it does not really exist. The Minister had his attention drawn to the hon. the Prime Minister’s own Economic Advisory Council’s report in which it was stated quite clearly for the benefit of the hon. the Minister of Labour and other Ministers that more and more non-Whites will have to be employed in white industries. in the white sphere of the economy, in the future. Not less and less, but more and more. Did the hon. the Minister deny that statement? Of course he did not deny it. But he tried to pooh-pooh the arguments that we raised on this side of the House arising from this situation.

Is it a fact, or is it not, that 80 per cent of the total labour force in South Africa to-day is non-white? Is it a fact or is it not that 72 per cent of the labour in manufacturing industries in South Africa to-day is non-white.

Does it mean that they are integrated?

It does mean that they are interdependent and that without the non-white labour the white industries will collapse. What is the difference? If that is not economic integration, I do not know what is. But, as I said before, perhaps hon. members prefer the term “economic interdependence”. In other words, white manufacturing industry in South Africa cannot do without non-white labour. On the contrary, it is going to need them in increasing number in the future. We on this side of the House ask the Government: What are you doing to face up to this fact, and where are you leading the country? This is the argument which I would like to develop. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister pertinently, in view of his statement that the white workers in South Africa are being looked after and protected by the Government, to tell us where he and his Government are leading South Africa in the labour field. Because if 80 per cent of the non-white labour force is to-day non-white, and will increase in the future, the country must have regard to the effect of this development in relation to Government policy. Because it is clear Government policy that the non-Whites in South Africa will be developed to become citizens of independent black states, although it is still not clear where the states for the Coloureds and the Indians will be. Nevertheless. it has been stated as clear Government policy that the non-Whites in this country, be they Bantu, Coloured or Indian, will not become South African citizens, but will become citizens of some independent non-white state. Now, Mr. Chairman, is there any other country in the world that has a labour force of which 80 per cent will be citizens of foreign countries? Where is this Government leading us, and what will be the position when this policy of the Government is achieved? This is what I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us.

I want in this context to quote to the House an editorial which appeared in the South African Financial Gazette, which everybody knows supports this Government, in the column “The Political Economist”, on 10th April, 1968. This deals with whether we should have Bantu trade unions or not. This is the main purpose of this article. But I want to quote it in another context. For the purpose of my argument. I am not so concerned whether there are going to be Bantu trade unions or not. What I am concerned about, is what is going to be the political status of the non-white labour force in the future under this Government. This is what this editorial says:

Now I would like to draw particular attention to this—

I would like hon. members particularly to listen to this—

Now I would like to ask the hon. the Minister pertinently: Is this statement that I have read out, his policy and his Government’s policy?

It is the inevitable consequence.

As we see it, it is the inevitable consequence of the Government’s policy. If it is, perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us in what way the country’s economy is going to be protected when at least 80 per cent of the labour force consist of non-Whites who will be citizens of foreign countries. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, like other hon. members the hon. member for Musgrave did not listen to the explanations given by the hon. the Minister on 8th February, when the no-confidence motion was under discussion. Nor did he read the part where he set out the position very clearly.

As far as his remark in regard to economic integration is concerned, I just want to say that, if what the hon. member for Rosettenville meant is not economic integration, i.e. when he said that we should train all people, irrespective whether they are White or non-White, to fill the positions for which they would be suitable, then I do not know. In other words, there should no longer be posts that are reserved for Whites only; everybody can be trained for them.

Who are you going to use in the border areas to do the skilled work?

As regards the reclassification of employment: every time this was done, it was done with the full concurrence and co-operation of the trade unions in question in the various industries. That is why the Opposition cannot accuse the Government of doing things they should not do. These people co-operate every time. It is an accomplished fact that the National Party is the friend of the worker, and particularly the white worker, in South Africa. This has always been the case and it will always be so, because the Government has always set great store by the happiness and the welfare of the white workers, and has always emphasized the fact that these people should feel assured of guaranteed security as regards their work. At present we do not only have a great deal of labour peace in our country, but people also take delight in their work. We must give the Government credit for that. Nor will it be inappropriate to pay tribute to the workers corps of the Republic of South Africa as well as the trade unions to which they belong for the way in which they negotiate and the cooperation they give.

According to the Sunday Times of last week, a certain Richard Nixon made the following statement—

I say that any country that has produced and is still producing the Prime Ministers this country has been producing over the past 20 years, as well as the members of the Cabinet, will not only grow, but will develop into a mighty giant.

What about the former Prime Ministers?

This also includes the Minister of Labour who is handling labour matters in an extremely competent way. This also includes the Department of Labour which is intensely interested in the workers of South Africa and their problems.

Now I come to border industries. I am pleased that the hon. the Minister said this afternoon that all border industries are situated in white South Africa. That is why we can have no differentiation as regards the division of work. The division of work must in all respects be on a uniform basis throughout the country. As regards border industries— although the Bantu should receive training as far as possible—my plea is that skilled and more highly semi-skilled work should be reserved for Whites, and that the posts that are being handed over will in future be reserved for the Whites as white labour becomes available again. Nor can a precedent be established in terms of which Whites, who have been working in factories for years, will now have to work shoulder to shoulder with the non-Whites. The availability of white manpower should always be the determining factor as far as the labour pattern in the white areas is concerned. This also includes the border areas. As far as the abolished posts are concerned, the white workers should always be placed in a better and happier position. Nor should the job reservation determination be effected on a percentage basis, but on a posts basis. The motor-car industry is a strategic industry. What applies to other industries, should, as regards the division of work, apply to the motor-car assembly industry as well. Nor should there be any differentiation in respect of these motor car assembly industries, because this would not be fair competition. I trust that the investigation the hon. the Minister ordered, will bear fruit in this regard and that the labour pattern will be maintained throughout the white areas and that the position of the Whites will remain consolidated in that way.

Now I want to raise a few points concerning sheltered employment. In respect of sheltered employment there are 79 instructors and senior instructors. They work in a supervisory capacity over less fortunate people, namely the physically handicapped, people who cannot compete in the open labour market. These are people who must feel that they are not a burden to us but that they, too, are an asset to our country. I want to state that I am highly appreciative of the good and constructive work these instructors are doing. In practising this calling they render a major service to South Africa. Apart from the fact that they must be trained artisans, they must also to a very large extent possess other qualifications, qualities and aptitudes as regards this particular task. Apart from being responsible for the highest possible productivity, they are also responsible for these people being in a happy frame of mind. They must always give moral support to these people and encourage them. They must always understand them. They must do upliftment work and make these less fortunate people realize that they, too, have a right to exist. They must have good judgment, a great deal of patience and a cheerful outlook on life. They dare not be fickle. The salaries of these instructors are as follows: The salary scale in respect of instructors is R1,800 x 120 to R2,400, and in respect of senior inspectors it is R2,400 x 120 to R2,640. These compare poorly with the salaries of other professional officers and particularly with the salaries paid inter alia by the C.S.I.R., Iscor, universities, and so forth. It is only a small corps. There are only 79 of them. In the light of this I wish to make a very serious plea to the Minister and ask him whether it is not possible for the salary scales and conditions of service of these instructors to be reviewed. I trust that the Minister will direct his attention to this urgent matter.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that for all this talk of the Government being the upholders of the working classes, very little interest seems to be displayed in this debate. This is meant to be one of the most important Votes. The National Party is always telling us that it represents the workers but look at all these empty benches opposite. It has been like this all afternoon. We might as well be at an old lady’s sewing bee for all the interest there is in this debate. I have never seen anything like it. One of the hon. members made a comment about my constituents and the people I represent. They are very well aware of my views. They have re-elected me on several occasions, knowing full well what my views are and knowing full well that I spend a great deal of my time taking up the cause of people who are not represented in this House at all. But as far as these hon. members are concerned who purport to represent the white working classes of South Africa, I must say that one would expect a little more interest to be displayed in this Vote.

The workers did not show very much confidence in your party.

Never mind about that. I am here and I do not purport to represent the workers. The hon. members do. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, at least we have stirred these hon. members up a little and that is something.

I was trying to get a little clarity on this issue of the agreement in the engineering, iron and steel industry which was recently gazetted. I was asking the hon. the Minister what steps his own Bantu Labour Board had taken on behalf of the 150,000 African workers employed in that industry. I mentioned that there were many people working in occupations which have now been downgraded as regards pay packets. Although the agreement is meant to protect them, I want to know what actual steps are going to be taken to see that workers are not victimized by employers who are going to find it very hard to resist the temptation of dismissing those African workers presently earning higher wages in terms of the old agreement and employing Africans from the vast reservoir of cheap labour which is always available to the white employer in South Africa because of influx control, the poverty of the reserves, etc. What steps are going to be taken to ensure that employers do not dismiss these people on the pretext that their work is not satisfactory and so on and taking on workers at one third of the former cost? What is going to be done about those persons whose wages were cut in the industry immediately preceding the publication of the agreement. They have no comeback in terms of the actual agreement which was published. I want to know whether the Minister’s Bantu Labour Board is going to do anything about these people. It seems to me that this whole agreement has been manifestly unfair to the African workers in this industry. I think that the hon. the Minister is still entitled to take some steps in this regard if he wishes to. He can publish supplementary agreements. I believe that he can do something to set right this obviously unfair position.

As I said in the beginning, whatever the hon. the Minister does and whatever his Bantu Labour Board can do, and whatever the works committees can do, none of them will be able to replace the real right of collective bargaining which is obviously what the African workers should now be enjoying. We are long past the stage in South Africa where the Africans all do unskilled work as migratory labourers. Whatever the Government does by job reservation, by influx control and by the system of trying to send Africans back to the reserves, the fact remains, as everybody who has studied the labour pattern can see, that it is not an unchanging pattern at all, despite what an hon. member over there said, when he said that we should maintain the traditional labour pattern. There is nothing traditional about it any more. It is changing all the time, and it is changing for one very good reason, namely, because of technological changes which are changing the purely skilled jobs into machine-operative jobs, and which are shading the differences between purely skilled jobs and purely unskilled jobs. It is in all this welter of semi-skilled jobs and reclassified jobs that the Africans are now working, and they are much more sophisticated workers than they were 20 or 30 years ago, before the last war. And yet, although Africans are now much more efficient and their labour is contributing much more to the whole development of South Africa and to our wealth, and although they are doing much more efficient and sophisticated work, at the same time the Government has been doing everything it can to prevent them from getting any sort of industrial citizenship in South Africa, from reaping any of the benefits of their efficiency and their more sophisticated work in the field of labour relations. The Government should be seeking ways of developing the Africans’ ability to become part of the ordinary labour structure in South Africa. When hon. members talk about leftist elements in Tucsa, they just do not know what they are talking about. Tucsa and all the labour unions adopt the sensible attitude of wanting to bring the entire labour force into their organization and assisting and getting better bargaining power as between employers and employees. In that way they are taking not only a more realistic view—not a leftist view—of the existing labour structure in South Africa, but they are looking after their own interests as white workers as well; because quite obviously as the number of Africans in employment in the manufacturing industry increases vis-à-vis the total number of employees, the relative bargaining strength of the white unions declines as against their employers, unless the increasing number of non-white workers is taken into account in the unions’ bargaining power. I was glad to hear the hon. the Minister say that he has no hostility towards Tucsa. I think that is a sensible attitude. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark was really being very stupid when he asked for measures to be taken against Tucsa. Tucsa is taking a realistic view. The Minister may not approve of their ideas, but he surely does not just dismiss them as being leftists. He knows that they have a very real case to put forward, and he must understand that their appreciation of the situation differs from his own. It certainly differs from the views of the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, and I should hope so, for the sake of the future of labour relations in this country. The point is this. Why do Tucsa and other unions feel so strongly about affiliating and organizing Africans? They know that by watching over the interests of African workers they are in effect watching their own interests. As Mr. Scheepers, the newly-elected president, said—

And he want on to say—

The whole point is that the overwhelming weight of numbers of African workers, who are now coming into the semi-skilled jobs, has created a situation where, unless the white workers take the African workers along with them, as well as the Coloureds and Indians who are already affiliated, because they are not excluded under the definition of “employee” in the Industrial Conciliation Act, they are going to be left in a powerless position in regard to bargaining with the employers. Whatever the Minister does by job reservation or attempting to keep certain categories of work for certain racial groups only, he will not be able to withstand economic forces, and the economic forces are willy-nilly dragging more and more non-Whites into these semi-skilled jobs because there are not enough Whites to do the work. That is why the mines are experiencing difficulty and why there has been talk of reclassification of the oldest job reservations in South Africa, which were not introduced by the Nationalist Government but which were introduced in 1911 by the Mines and Works Act. That is the oldest job reservation in South Africa, and that was done at a time when there were enough white workers to do the skilled work reserved for the Whites. But the situation is different now. The Whites are moving out of manual skilled jobs into white-collar jobs and administrative jobs, and therefore the non-Whites are filling the vacuum. It is in the interest of all the workers, the Whites and the non-Whites, that a solid trade union movement be developed.

There is one other point I want to raise very quickly with the Minister. Apart from relying on job reservation, which is largely in any case pushed to one side, what is he doing about the future retraining and re-deployment of workers who are going to be displaced through technological changes? What positive programme of retraining of workers has his Department got whereby the older workers in particular, who cannot adapt to the new technological changes, are being retained on their jobs? [Time expired.]

I do not find it strange that the hon. member for Houghton also followed the argument of the hon. members for Yeoville and Musgrave to a certain extent, namely that the bargaining power of the white worker is at present being endangered as a result of the increasing development of the Bantu in our industries. What is the criterion by which this position should be judged in South Africa? The ratio between Whites and non-Whites has been maintained for years now. What is the criterion? The criterion is that in South Africa we have industrial peace as nowhere else in the world. The hon. member for Musgrave suggested that the Minister replied to the hon. member for Yeoville and the Opposition on a low level, but I want to suggest that there are major political motives behind the argument advanced by the Opposition to the effect that the bargaining power of the white workers is diminishing. It is nothing but an attempt to hide their policy of integration.

I want to say something with reference to a specific example—and the Minister also referred to it in his reply—which we have in one of our most important industries, namely the gold-mining industry, which is an industry in which these very dangers exist and in which employers are inclined to replace Whites by non-Whites. I am referring to the wage agreement concluded with the Mine Workers’ Union last year. This wage agreement has been in operation for almost a year now, and we should be in a position at this stage, after one year, to judge what that wage agreement involved. It is accepted that this wage agreement is being applied with great success, not only as regards the workers themselves, but also as regards the employers. The fact of the matter is that not only were the mine workers granted a wage increase in terms of this wage agreement, but that in terms thereof they also protected themselves against the infiltration of Bantu in the mining industry. There is therefore no need to apply the criterion that work reservation means nothing because only a few reservations were made. The trade unions in South Africa—and I am referring here to the Mine Workers’ Union in particular—are strong enough and their bargaining position is such that they can protect ¡their position as white workers in the industry through normal wage agreements.

I also want to refer to another aspect of the mining industry. Whereas the Mine Workers’ Union duly protected itself against the infiltration of Bantu, there is another employees’ organization on the mines, namely the Association of Underground Mine officials, where we have the problem developing at the moment as regards the infiltration of Bantu who want to take over the jobs of the Whites. This problem originated in a certain occupation in particular, namely that of samplers. This position also applies to those officials who are dealing with underground ventilation. For many years this work was performed mainly by Whites, but a tendency has now developed at certain mines to give this work to Bantu. This has caused a very great deal of dissatisfaction and uncertainty among some of the white workers in the mining industry. It is important to note that the composition of this employees’ organization is such that it consists of 18 different underground occupations in the mines and that the ventilation officials and the samplers constitute only one of those 18 occupations. Owing to the diversity of interests in this organization, these people are not in a position to protect themselves against such action on the part of the employer and for this reason it is important that attention should be given to this situation. If this position is allowed to develop further, we may find that on the mines, where we are enjoying a great measure of industrial peace at the moment, problems may develop as a result of the fact that certain employers do not always have the interests of the white workers at heart, but that they mainly concentrate on getting as much cheap labour across the colour line as possible. The matter has already been investigated and we should like the Minister to tell us whether he will take certain steps in this regard in order to protect these specific occupations in the mining industry.

I want to follow up the excellent suggestions made by the hon. member for Brentwood with which I heartily agree. Last year the hon. the Minister took certain powers in regard to the care of workers’ health, apart from injury. These powers involve him in a great deal of research, particularly as far as staff is concerned. I think he has had at least six months to give this matter thought but it has not been possible to ascertain from his Department what is happening. I think in view of the powers that he took we are entitled to know what his plans are and in particular how he intends to carry out this onerous duty which he has assumed. As I say, it is an onerous duty and one which will have to be carried out if this country is to continue healthily developing industrially at its present rate. We would like to know what his plans are in regard to dust diseases, which form a particular group. They are found in the textile industry, in asbestos manufacture, in rubber works and in the manufacture of abrasives such as Vim, for example. They present certain particular problems, problems which are not solved and done with when the employee gives up his employment in that industry. They cannot be kept under control unless there is a pre-employment examination. There must also be interim examinations, as there is in the mining industry. There must be highly skilled laboratory workers to take dust counts. Up to the present the policy of the Minister’s Department has been to rely on the haphazard sending of sufferers to the Miners’ Medical Bureau, but this is a much wider problem today and some independent authority is required to investigate. As the hon. member for Brentwood has said, there must also be postgraduate training of doctors. The present position in regard to dust diseases is that the local practitioners on the whole do not recognize the importance of an early diagnosis of the disease. On the whole they do not appreciate the effects on the men, with the result that in many cases these men are treated not as the victims of dust diseases but merely as the victims of some other trouble in the lungs. In these cases the question of the development of cancer at a much later date must also be given full consideration. Tn later years, long after the man has ceased to work, it should still be possible for him to have recourse to the industry for assistance for himself and his family. This is a long-term project and it requires a great deal of study.

Then I want to point out that there is no university in the country which has an occupational disease department in its medical faculty. In Germany there are three universities which have occupational disease faculties. In England there are four, and the heads of some of the departments occupy professorial chairs in occupational health; they are senior members of the clinical staff of the hospital. In this way the coming generation of doctors will receive instruction in the recognition of industrial diseases. I think it would be worthwhile for the Minister to consider approaching one or two of the medical schools and offering to subsidize such chairs, or alternatively he could approach the Minister of Education who is responsible for the medical schools, and ask him what can be done about it. But it certainly devolves upon the hon. the Minister to see that this form of education, which will be of great assistance to his Department, is provided in the medical schools.

Then there is another problem which faces the Minister and that is the question of poisonous gases. This is a problem which should exercise his mind, because up to the present moment what has been happening is that industrial gases have been withdrawn from the factories and spilled into the outside air with disastrous results in some cases to the public. Since the passage of the Atmospheric Pollution Act this is slowly being eliminated. The Atmospheric Pollution chief officer has concentrated largely up to the present on smoke which he is trying to eliminate. He is making progress slowly but the hon. the Minister ought to help him to prevent the pollution of the atmosphere by effluent gases from workshops. The rivers are also being polluted and here again the Minister must see that the effluents are disposed of in some way which will not affect the rivers of the country. In England there are rivers which have been polluted to an extent that all the vegetation on their banks has disappeared, as well as the fish life. All these problems must make the hon. the Minister realize that the Act which he passed last year is one which involves a great deal of work. I would like to hear firstly what progress he has made in solving these problems, and secondly I would like him to realize that we on this side of the House take a great interest in these projects and that he must expect us to inquire into them.

This debate is probably by far the most peaceful labour debate I listened to since I came to this House. I think it is a feather in the cap of the hon. Minister and his Department of Labour that so little criticism has come from the Opposition on the way in which he runs his Department. The only refrain which we have heard from the Opposition and especially their main sneaker, the hon. member for Yeoville. over the past two days, was the accusation that the future of the Whites was in danger becuase of the alleged increase of Bantu employees in our industries. Sir. I listened closely to the hon. member for Yeoville yesterday afternoon, and I must say that, true to his political dexterity in first blowing hot and then cold on any matter, he put up a very good show in that direction again yesterday. On the one hand he said that the bargaining power of the white worker was being threatened and on the other hand he pleaded that we should abandon the idea of economic segregation altogether and throw in the towel. We on this side of the House say that we have to do this. We admit that the number of Bantu employees in our industries has increased as a result of the tremendous industrial development in the country, but we deny that this means economic integration. The Opposition’s view of economic integration is completely incorrect. There can only be talk of economic integration when some of these Bantu workers are admitted to the highest level of management in an executive capacity in the field of labour, and that does not happen in South Africa. I challenge the hon. member for Yeoville, who is having such a serious discussion with his Whip now, to give us one example where Bantu employees have been employed in the highest level of management in an executive capacity in the field of labour in South Africa.

But why only there?

All that has happened is that we have bought the labour of the Bantu from them in the white areas. They came and sold their labour to us and if they want to establish recognized trade unions in the field of labour, they have to do so in the Bantu homelands, and not in the homeland of the Whites. What the hon. member for Yeoville dished up here yesterday was therefore only stories meant to scare and stir up the white workers against the Government.

I just want to give a few examples of the real position. The hon. the Minister also mentioned them. What is the real position in regard to the employment of Bantu employees in industry? The number of white employees in our various industrial sectors has increased by 80,000 since 1954. If one analyses this figure, then one finds that pro rata the increase in the number of white workers as compared with the increase in the number of Bantu employees has remained the same. After all, in view of the larger number of Bantu, it is only logical that the increase in the number of Bantu would be larger than the increase in the number of Whites, but to suggest that this indicates a deterioration as far as the position of the Whites in the various industrial sectors is concerned, is absolute nonsense. I also want to mention a few other figures to the hon. member for Yeoville. The percentage of Bantu employees in 1954 was only 28 per cent; it increased slightly to 30 per cent in 1963, but it has remained constant at 25 per cent during the past four years. The hon. the Minister also referred to artisans. What is the position in this regard? The figure was 88 per cent in 1958 and 87 per cent in 1967. In other words, it virtually remained constant. Where is the deterioration continually referred to by the hon. member for Yeoville? Sir, the Bureau of Census and Statistics has also analysed the number of white workers in the main industrial sectors, including agriculture, and they found that it increased by 60 per cent from 1945 to 1967, as compared with an increase of 45 per cent for Bantu workers over the same period. You therefore see that the hon. members of the Opposition only tried to chase up a few hares, which did nof even run.

Sir, as other speakers have said, we have a Government in South Africa which looks after the South African worker, and it is for that reason that the United Party lost one labour seat after another in the last General Election. It is for that reason that they have fallen into disfavour so badly with the workers of South Africa. It is because the National Party is the party of the worker that there is no longer any necessity to-day for a labour party in South Africa, in contrast to the position in other countries. There is virtually no other country in the world where there is no labour party. It is only in our own country that the labour party is not represented in Parliament, because the National Party looks so well after the interests of the worker.

Having said that, I come to a matter which I should like to mention to the Minister, and that is the question of unemployment insurance. I understand that the accumulated amount in the Unemployment Insurance Fund stands at approximately R133 million, and in this connection I want to ask the Minister whether the income ceiling of employees who stand to benefit in terms of the Fund cannot be raised from the present R3,120 to at least R3,600 per year. In my opinion the Fund is so strong to-day that it will be able to stand a raising of the ceiling of the employee’s income by R480 per year. I represent a labour constituency, of course, and I have received many representations in which I am asked to plead with the Minister to reconsider the matter. Has the time not arrived for increasing the ceiling by way of regulation in consultation with the Unemployment Insurance Board? White employees’ wages and salaries have increased considerably over the past few years, and I think the present ceiling is quite unrealistic.

As far as contributions by Bantu employees to the Fund are concerned, I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to effect a change there as well. All Bantu earning less than R546 per year are excluded from the Unemployment Insurance Fund. Bantu wages, of course, have also increased considerably in recent times, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to raise this ceiling so that more Bantu can be excluded. I shall tell you why I am asking this. Mr. Chairman. I foresee the day in the near future when hundreds of thousands of Bantu will claim benefits under this Act. There are already 171,000 Bantu contributors and we can imagine what the position might possibly be if these numbers increase a great deal. We are concerned about the white worker of South Africa, and we cannot allow the Fund to be depleted by this increasing number of Bantu members in time to come.

Another matter which I want to touch upon is the period of apprenticeship of building workers. Does the hon. member think it is necessary that the period of apprenticeship of a building worker should be five years? Could it not perhaps be reduced to three years? I am convinced that an apprentice building worker can master all the tricks of his trade in three years. The period of five years was introduced five years ago in order to protect members of the Building Workers’ Trade Union against over-employment in the industry. Circumstances are, of course, quite different to-day. We have a big shortage of building workers and from time to time we have even had to import immigrants, people such as Portuguese building workers, to meet the shortage. The Government is doing everything possible in this regard, and I want to pay tribute to the Government for what they are doing to train building workers within the industrial councial areas. The figures are indeed impressive. But I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to give consideration to reducing the period of apprenticeship so that we can get more building workers. This shortage of building workers is causing building costs to soar in South Africa to-day. It has an adverse effect on the man in the street in particular, the man who wants to have a house for himself. I hope the few matters which I have mentioned will receive the Minister’s sympathetic attention.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Turffontein dealt with one or two matters which I also intend raising with the hon. the Minister. I should like the hon. member to realize that it is not only hon. members on that side of the House who can speak on behalf of the working people. Many constituencies containing ordinary workers are represented by hon. members on this side of the House. In fact, my constituency was represented by a Labour Party member for some 25 years. So, it is not the prerogative of Government members to speak on behalf of the working people of this country. We include in the term “working people” the vast number of “white-collar” workers in South Africa as well, and not merely artisans.

Various points were raised by hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark launched an attack on Tucsa and referred to it as a leftist movement. I commend for his reading two pamphlets issued by Tucsa during 1965, one headed “Tucsa fights Communism” and which contains inter alia the following remarks—

This is Tucsa’s official point of view and this pamphlet clearly shows where they stand. Another pamphlet I commend to the hon. member is one headed “Why Tucsa opposes boycotts and sanctions.” Nobody could accuse this organization of being leftist. It takes a view diametrically opposed to that of some of the large and important British trade unions and also American trade unions as far as a boycott of South African goods and sanctions against this country are concerned. This is a loyal organization which is trying to the best of its ability to represent the worker’s point of view. I think the chief object of the organization is a better life for all workers, irrespective of colour. Because they are pleading for a case, irrespective of colour, perhaps it is not in agreement with some of the points raised by hon. members opposite.

Certain factors affect the South African labour force. We have heard hon. members speak of the peace in the labour market and in the labour field. I think a certain amount of credit for that is also due to this side of the House for legislation it placed on the Statute Book before that side took over. We must remember that important social security measures fall under the Department of Labour and in almost every case the original Acts were placed on the Statute Book more than 20 years ago, before the Nationalists took over. When we talk about the security of the worker we must also take into account the three important securities which many workers enjoy, irrespective of race or colour. One of these is the payment of adequate compensation should a worker be killed, so that the dependants are paid adequate compensation. The worker would be paid adequate compensation were he to suffer serious injury or contract a disease which made it impossible for him to continue in gainful employment. The worker also wants security in the event of unemployment in the form of payment of unemployment benefits so as to be able to purchase the necessities of fife. In the last place, many workers, including the white-collar workers, are concerned about the security being offered by pension schemes in this country. I think the report of the committee which investigated the pension schemes in South Africa clearly indicated the urgent need for a greater effort to be made for the establishment of further pension funds so as to create security for these people when advanced age makes it impossible for them to continue working.

As regards compensation, we have the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1941, which has been amended from time to time. Adjustments have been made regarding to compensation payable. However, there is an unsatisfactory aspect as far as the payment of compensation prior to improvements to the Act is concerned. In other words, the older worker is receiving out-dated rates of compensation. He has been left behind in the struggle to meet the increased cost of living. I feel the Minister should have an inquiry made to see whether any steps can be taken to assist these people who are receiving compensation that was awarded to them before the Act was improved from time to time.

The Unemployment Insurance Act is a vitally important measure affecting the security of the worker. Here there are indications that the strength of the fund is now growing at such a fast rate that the Minister should ask the Unemployment Insurance Board to review the position of the fund. The fund was established in 1946 and from figures which have been made available to the House it would seem that the fund now stands at over R130 million. Figures show from 31st December, 1963, when the fund stood at R114 million, it has increased by some R16 million to over R130 million by the end of December. 1967. an increase of R16 million over a period of only four years. Other information which has been made available to the House also illustrates how fast the fund is growing.

The various amendments that have been made affecting the ceilings and the groups effected who contribute to the fund, indicate that the present ceiling figures are due for further review. Wages have been increased in recent years, and it is obvious the ceiling figures are too low if judged by present-day wages and salaries. As far as group 12 is concerned, 35.9 per cent of the members of the fund fall into that group.

I believe there are certain other matters the Minister should ask the board to investigate. I believe more expeditious handling of claims for unemployment benefits should be ensured. In certain cases the dependants of a contributor experience severe hardships because the payment of benefits is unduly delayed. The groups that fall under the Act and the benefits paid to the various groups should also receive further attention. The benefits paid under the Act to members in group 12 should also be reviewed because although the ceiling has been increased from time to time, the benefits payable have not been increased in times of unemployment.

Then there is the matter of the review of illness allowances and other benefits, particularly in regard to maternity benefits. We passed legislation in 1962, which was opposed by this side of the House. This legislation restricted the payment of benefits as far as the period of employment was concerned before further benefits could be paid. As far as maternity benefits were concerned, there too amendments were made in terms of which the woman had to be employed within 18 weeks of the expected date of confinement. I believe these maternity benefits are valuable in this country to-day and the Minister should find ways and means of improving the position.

Then there is the question of older workers. Many of them find it extremely difficult to find employment after receiving benefits for the initial period of 26 weeks. Many of them had made contributions to the fund over a long period of time, some of them up to 20 years. Yet at the end of their working days they may only receive payments for 26 weeks. Although they have built up credits in the fund, they cannot be paid further benefits unless they are employed for another 13 weeks.

Another aspect of the Act which I think the Minister should pay attention to is this. I refer to the payment of benefits to the dependants of deceased contributors. In terms of the Act such claims for benefits must be made within three years of the contributor’s death. Many dependants are not aware of this provision and I believe the department should bring these facts to the notice of the public from time to time so that people who qualify for such benefits—and those who might in future qualify for such claims—may submit their claims timeously. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the Opposition speaker who has just spoken, made one particular statement with which I cannot agree. He said that the labour peace and prosperity prevailing in South Africa to-day, is also partly attributable to the Opposition. We cannot agree with that at all, for shall we ever forget what the labour position was in South Africa during the years when those people were in power? After all, we do remember that on only one occasion in the history of South Africa there was large-scale labour unrest, namely in the year 1922, under the régime of a S.A.P. Government. We also remember what the position was of the Afrikaans white worker in South Africa over the years 1930 to 1948, when the United Party was in power. We remember the atrocious discrimination that took place in those years, how our people, of whom 70 per cent were Afrikaners, were refused employment when they applied to the industries for work with such surnames as Van der Merwe, Steyn or Bronkhorst.

Webber or Winchester!

When it was Webber or Winchester, they were prepared to employ them. That is why we cannot agree with these people, because the past counts against them. [Interjections.]

Order!

My constituency, Heidelberg, is principally known as an agricultural constituency, but I also represent hundreds of workers. On behalf of those workers in my constituency I want to express my gratitude to the National Party régime for the calm and peace that prevails in South Africa, because this Government knows and understands the workers, is conversant with their problems and approaches them sympathetically. This Government sees to it that job reservation is carried out.

Yesterday the hon. member for Yeoville claimed here that our industries were being inundated with Blacks. Now I just want to hold up a few facts to hon. members, namely a few of our largest industries in the Vaal Triangle. Take Sasol as an example. At the moment 3,300 Whites are being employed at Sasol as against 2,800 Bantu, i.e., the Whites employed at Sasol outnumber the non-Whites by as many as 500. At Iscor, Vanderbijlpark, there are 7,647 white workers and 5,218 nonwhite workers, i.e. the Whites outnumber the non-Whites by almost 2,500. Vecor, the largest heavy engineering industry in the Southern hemisphere, employs 1,153 Whites as against only 797 non-Whites. If we add the workers in these three industries, we find that there are 12,100 Whites as against 8,800 non-Whites. Does it, in the light of these figures, look as though our industries are being inundated with Blacks? It is definitely not the case.

One becomes uneasy when one sees the extent to which our young people have unlearnt the habit of working. I attribute this to the fact that this is a process which is coupled with the depopulation of the rural areas. Twenty, thirty and forty years ago our young men were taught how to work on the farms. Where are the days when we as young lads had to milk 15 to 20 cows in the morning before we went to school? In the afternoons, carrying the whip-stick on our shoulders, we had to do farm-work again. Those days have passed. In view of the fact that large-scale depopulation of the rural areas has taken place, most of our young lads find themselves in cities and towns to-day. It is for that reason, therefore, that I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister for his favourable consideration that he should try to persuade the industries and even the Public Service to employ, in a sympathetic manner, these young lads and students during their holidays. By these means our young people will once again realize the value of work and money, and our students will not, as we find to-day—when they start working for the first time, when they still have no knowledge of work and the value of money —demand a minimum salary of R3,000 when they start out in life.

There is another minor matter I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister. It is that, when types of employment are regraded or reclassified in our factories, the factoryowners or the industrial inspectors should explain these matters to the workers concerned. That would obviate unnecessary misunderstanding. When this process takes place, so many of our workers become afraid that they may eventually lose their jobs. If this matter is explained to them in a sympathetic way, they will understand it and it will not contribute to unrest, for what the Minister said earlier on this afternoon, is true: so far it has not happened, nor will it happen, that the white workers will give up their work as a result of that. We thank him for that.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to follow the hon. member who has just sat down, who dwelt in the past. In fact, he went back to 1922. I was not around then.

I want to turn rather to the hon. the Minister and members on that side who seem so self-satisfied and so smug with the position as it is to-day in South Africa. Little do they know that the South Africa we knew in the past has gone and will never return. The situation in South Africa we know to-day is drawing to a close. One might suggest that a second wind of change is blowing through South Africa. This time it is going to affect us all and the South Africa of the future is being burdened with a policy which will bring about economic suicide if we go on wasting our existing manpower resources as we do at the present time.

I wonder if the hon. the Minister, who boasted at some length about the peace in labour relations in South Africa, remembers that the State itself is the largest employer of labour in this country. Because it is the largest employer of labour civil servants in South Africa, who are responsible for more than 50 per cent of the people on the Voters’ Roll in South Africa, could in fact take over this Government any time they so chose. The Civil Service—and I am not advocating this —could become the masters of South Africa and no longer its servants. When the hon. the Minister talks about peace in our labour relations, I wonder if he ignores the fact that there is no branch of the Civil Service to-day that is net up in arms against the Government, because of that very peace that he is talking about.

You are talking nonsense now!

I am talking nonsense, according to the hon. member on my left, but there are 35,000 school teachers in South Africa who at this very moment are complaining. The white workers of South Africa, far from being protected by this Government, are being abandoned. While this Government continues to chase the rainbow of separate economic development, the white workers in South Africa have not a chance. Their efforts to maintain a decent standard of living are going to be sabotaged by this very theory. Because the Government will not face the facts, and as my hon. friend from Yeoville stated, the bargaining powers of the white workers of South Africa is being diminished by the mere fact that the proportion of white to black in the economy is changing every day.

We hear so much, and particularly during this session, of the shortage of skilled labour in South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Transport mentioned that he had a 20 per cent shortage in the artisan class in the Railways. There is a shortage of 14,000 skilled labourers every year, and the number is increasing, to such an extent that within two years we are going to be 30,000 short of skilled workers.

The normal increase of the Whites and immigration can never hope to fill this gap. Yet the Government is making no effort whatsoever to train the non-Whites to fill the gap that is being created because of this shortage.

Does the hon. the Minister know that within five years one million more Bantu workers will come onto the labour market each year? What has he done about those particular workers? Where is he going to find jobs for them? He will not find them in the Bantustans. According to the figures we have been given to-day, he will not find them in the border areas either.

What is he going to do? The Minister of Transport helps him out of a difficult position by employing more and more Bantu in jobs previously done by Whites each year, so much so that last year he had 16,000 of these Bantu doing jobs previously done by Whites. This position is going on each day and each year and the Government is sitting back and ignoring the facts of life in South Africa. Registered factories in South Africa employed 100,000 more Bantu in the last three years than they did Whites. The position is not going to stay like this; it is going to get worse and worse. I would plead with the hon. the Minister, because when he gets up he talks smugly about the labour relations in South Africa. Let him look at the population ratios in South Africa and let us see whether that will not wipe the smugness off his face. If we do not make better use of our labour resources there is no hope for either white or black South Africa. It is no good the hon. member saying that they are the friends of the white workers because this very policy is in fact going to be their undoing. Already over one-third of the white workers work for the State. What are we doing to uplift the other two-thirds. We have done preciously little in the past 20 years to make the white workers better trained. If we were to train the white workers we would not only be able to uplift them but in the process we would be able to uplift the Bantu workers as well because they will follow them. We must upgrade the white workers of South Africa. The Government, who claims to be the friend of the white workers, has not yet started on this programme. We must not only do that but also train the non-Whites to the utmost of their capabilities as well. The danger here is not to the white workers of South Africa but to everybody in South Africa, because if we do not make the best use of our labour resources of all race groups it will be to the detriment of the Whites as well as the non-Whites. Hon. members opposite would do well to remember that. Surely the time has come for us to conduct a research into the whole question of labour. It seems to me that the Government is content to rest upon its strength based on its laws of job reservation, border industries and Bantustans and ignore the very fact that the nation’s strength lies entirely in its available man hours.

I should like now to turn to one or two other matters. The hon. the Minister may remember that I put a few questions to him in connection with the loss of a fishing vessel a few months ago. I know that there are difficulties in this regard. The vessel is missing and there are certain procedures which must be followed. I should, however, like the hon. the Minister to tell me whether all fishermen who go out on our trawlers are all covered in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I ask this, because the information I have is that many of these trawlers pick up their crews on the wharves before they sail and that there is in fact no registration of these workers, so much so that many fishing vessels go out to sea while the companies concerned do not know the names of the people on board their own vessels. I should be very glad if the hon. the Minister could give me some assistance in this regard because I should like to deal with this fishing vessel which is now missing.

I should also like to raise the question I raised with the hon. the Minister of Transport with this hon. Minister, namely the question of people of about 45 years of age, so many of whom are in our unemployment queues each week. It seems that very little is done for this kind of worker who has great difficulty in finding employment because of various companies’ pensions schemes, etc. I wonder whether the Minister of Labour could not prevail upon the Minister of Transport to make better use of these particular people. When I tackled the Minister of Transport on this matter he told me that there were various difficulties as to the grade in which they could be employed, and so on. I therefore appeal to the Minister of Labour to use his good offices and talk to his colleague to see whether he can find better employment opportunities for these people over the age of 40-45 who are almost becoming unemployable in the South African labour market to-day.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Natal devoted the first part of his speech to the manpower resources of South Africa and the utilization of those resources. He accused the Government of a number of things in this connection. He said, inter alia, that we were wasting our manpower resources in this country. He also said that we should make better use of our labour resources. He concluded his argument in this connection by making the accusation that the State was not doing anything to increase the productivity of its workers. Let us for a moment consider a few statistics which completely contradict the first two statements of the hon. members. In 1948 the gross national product of South Africa was less than R2.000 million. In ten years’ time it more than doubled itself to R4,297 million. During the next eight years, up to 1966, that figure again virtually doubled’ itself to nearly R8,000 million. These statistics are sufficient to prove my case, and from them I deduce that a government which does not increase the productivity of its labour force, will not have been able to quadruple its gross national product within a period of 18 years unless it has in fact done a great deal in order to increase productivity. I want to leave the hon. member for Port Natal at that. In any event, he will not get very far with those arguments either inside or outside this House.

I want to revert to the rumours which were spread here by hon. members opposite yesterday and to-day. What those rumours amount to is economic integration and in those rumours this Government was accused of economic integration. These are rumours which are carried further afield in South Africa by the English-language Press and people who have command of English only believe those rumours. Those rumours eventually give rise to the disparagement of our labour legislation and to the creation of points of friction in the manufacturing industry for which this Government and the Department of Labour are blamed in the end. Those rumours have an essentially negative and destructive meaning in the establishment of order and the retention of the labour peace which we are experiencing and for which we are grateful. We should have regard to the following figures. Non-Afrikaners own approximately 80 per cent in the sphere of commerce, approximately 93 per cent in the sphere of the manufacturing industry, approximately 73 per cent in the sphere of finance and approximately 93 per cent in the sphere of mining. With non-Afrikaners I mean people whose home language is not Afrikaans. Their home language is some other language and as a result they read the English-language daily Press. These are the people who read those rumours, ones which originate amongst hon. members opposite and are carried further afield by the English-language Press, in the English-language Press only. These are the people who believe and accept what they read, namely that labour integration has become part and parcel of the labour pattern in South Africa. These are conditions which may give rise to a white woman doing clerical work in the same office as a Bantu man. These are conditions which may give rise to white men and Bantu men doing desk work on an equal basis on factory premises. Then the Department of Labour and this Government are blamed for economic integration. I accuse the United Party of trying to create a condition of racial strife by making irresponsible remarks and of blaming the Government for the consequences of those remarks in the end. The basic task of the Department of Labour is the very task of creating a state of affairs which is conducive to labour peace, especially in a country like South Africa with its multiracial composition. In my opinion labour peace implies that the identity of the individual will be preserved. It also implies that workers will be looked after materially, with due regard being had to the interests of employers. Hon. members opposite had a great deal to say about social security, but they placed the emphasis on the material aspect of social security. In South Africa the task of the Department of Labour is much wider than that, because in addition to that it is also the task of the Department to ensure that each individual worker will retain his identity. Furthermore it is the task of the Department to safeguard the traditional sphere of employment of each group for that group. At the same time the individual worker must not be denied the opportunity of realizing himself and the possibility of increasing his productivity.

I want to contend that, measured in terms of these norms, the Department of Labour has for the past 20 years been standing this test admirably.

On the Vote of the Department of Labour provision is being made for an amount of R3,000 as class fees for officials who want to improve their positions by means of further study. Here the Department is setting a praiseworthy example. I now want to make an appeal to the private sector to follow this example of the Department, the example which the Department is setting by creating opportunities for its officials to realize themselves and to increase their productivity on the basis of more superior knowledge. The opportunities which have been created by the authorities in the field of education, should be utilized more effectively by the private sector by encouraging their workers, by means of financial assistance and by means of making the necessary time available, to improve their positions. If they do that, they will be following the praiseworthy example of the Department of Labour and of other State institutions, and along those lines they will allow the urge for self-realization which every individual workers has, to find more effective expression.

Mr. Chairman, it is a known fact that South Africa’s industrial labour force is made up of 80 per cent non-Whites and 20 per cent Whites.

That is not what the hon. member for Turffontein said.

These are the facts, however, regardless of what hon. members on that side of the House might have said. We are very fortunate in this country that the non-white labour force, comprising 80 per cent of the total labour force, are a very docile group of people. I often wonder whether the necessary liaison exists between the hon. the Minister’s Department and himself and the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. One has the one Minister saying one thing and then one fails to hear the other Minister support him. Only last year the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education said (Hansard, 6th February, 1967, Col. 723)—

In the same speech the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned how he proposes to repatriate the black labour force from the Western Cape to the Eastern Cape, or to the homelands. He said (Hansard, 1967, Col. 725)—

In the same speech he went further and said (Hansard, Col. 727)—

Was that speech not made under a different Vote, namely Bantu Administration?

He was speaking about Native labour in the Western Cape and how he was moving the labour from one area of South Africa to another area. I am merely quoting him in order to get clarification from the hon. the Minister of Labour. I want him to tell us whether he is preparing and planning employment for this labour which is being shifted around like pawns on a chess board. It is difficult for us, in spite of these figures which we receive from the Department of Bantu Administration, to ascertain exactly how many of these Natives are being removed from here and sent back to the Eastern Cape. The mayor of East London was reported to have said that early in September, 1967, the official number of Africans in Mdantsane township was 40,000, i.e. about six people per dwelling, but it was estimated that the actual population was something between 80,000 and 100,000 people. These are the estimated figures. We have heard a lot about job reservation to-day. Job reservation and influx control appears to be operating under this Government only in one direction. Only Bantu from the Eastern Cape—the area which I represent —can come to this area under job reservation and influx control. I want to know whether these Natives who are removed from the Western Cape are being removed to the Eastern Cape only under job reservation as well.

Are you applying these laws to those being sent back to the Border and Eastern Cape?

Order! The hon. member is on the wrong Vote. This matter should be raised under the Vote Bantu Administration.

I am speaking about Labour.

No, this is not a Labour matter. This matter should be raised under the Vote Bantu Administration, where the necessary financial provision is made.

I am very concerned about employment for the labour which is being pushed back to my area. There are thousands of people there with no employment at all.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is inquiring from the hon. the Minister whether he is willing under section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act to reserve work for the Bantu who are being shifted to the Eastern Cape. This is the concern of the hon. the Minister of Labour.

I must tell the hon. member again that this matter can be more appropriately raised under the Vote Bantu Administration.

I want clarification from the hon. the Minister of Labour whether he is seeing to it that this labour is not floating in mid-air. Employment has to be found for them somewhere. In other words, if these people have been moved to the Border and Eastern Cape then, surely, the Coloureds living there should be moved to the Western Cape to keep the industries going and to work in this area? This is supposed to be Government Policy? Nothing is being done about them, however. They are sitting there and many Coloured people have difficulty in obtaining employment. I believe that this Government has no right to remove one Native from the Western Cape without providing him with employment elsewhere. This is not being done.

It is just hamba ekaya.

Exactly. Only last year the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development made some very challenging statements about farm labour in his address to the East Coast Agricultural Union’s Congress in Port Elizabeth.

Order ! The hon. member must come back to the Vote. He is now dealing with the Bantu Administration and Development Vote.

I shall discuss farm labour. The hon. the Deputy Minister said—

In spite of the Deputy Minister having said this, I would like to know why we in the Eastern Cape have to pay labourers more when we can get them for virtually nothing. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that farmers must pay more if they want them. I do not want more, so why should I have to pay more. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank sincerely the hon. members who took part in this discussion and who made appropriate contributions. Their contributions bore testimony of a thorough study of and knowledge and interest in labour affairs. I shall reply briefly to those contributions that were relevant and to which I owe a reply.

The hon. member for Stilfontein made a plea that Republic Day should be declared an annual paid holiday for miners. This is a matter to which we are all sympathetically inclined and which is close to our hearts. However, as in previous cases where we had to introduce statutory paid holidays, the Government had to give serious consideration to the economic aspects involved. When Ascension Day was made a statutory holiday, the matter had been considered for a long time. It is not only emotions which are decisive, but one must also think of the economic state of the country. As regards Republic Day we have the same problem. We need not elaborate on the matter of sympathy, and we should like to see it becoming an annual institution. It is of the utmost importance to the Republic of South Africa that we should be economically strong so that we can withstand the pressure being exerted upon us. We have to use our economic strength to offer proper resistance to the people who want to get at the Republic. Until now, therefore, the Government has felt that Republic Day cannot become an annual paid holiday. As you know, Sir, the rule is that this is the case once every five years, but I share the hope that the day will come that South Africa will be strong enough economically to be able to feel that this Republic is secure enough to do this. In the meanwhile, our people who are working on this day, must feel that they are rendering a service to this Republic in this way too.

The hon. members for Mayfair and Hercules raised the matter of sheltered labour, and for that I want to thank them especially. This is a division of labour which does not receive much attention, because it is not one of the dramatic facets. It is work which in fact escapes one’s notice. I am very glad that hon. members have referred with great appreciation to the instructors and the good service they are rendering there. They also submitted pleas in connection with wages. The department granted wage increases to the instructors in the sheltered labour factories two years ago, and I may say that their wages are continually brought into line with other Public Service increases. You may therefore rest assured that that group of workers is receiving our attention. In the same connection I want to express my appreciation to the voluntary organizations assisting in the maintenance of these sheltered labour factories. The one I visited in Industria some time ago, is supported by the Women’s Federation. I want to express my sincere thanks to them for the extremely great service they are rendering there. In other places again, other voluntary organizations are active, which are also rendering service which should be appreciated by every single one of us.

The hon. member for Houghton raised a few matters. The first was that she was not really enthusiastic about the invitation. I issued in respect of suggestions for improving the work committee system. This I can quite understand. She is enthusiastic about one thing only, and that is the recognition of Bantu trade unions. I understand that she cannot be enthusiastic about something like this. However, the hon. member put a few other questions to me to which I should like to reply now. Her first question was in connection with the Bantu in the engineering industry. She wanted to know, inter alia, whether the Bantu Council had made representations to me in this connection. Yes, the Bantu Council had various interviews in this connection with the Industrial Council concerned. They had one discussion after another and I can also tell you what conclusion was arrived at. As you know, Sir, the Bantu Council, or the Native Settlement Council, as it was called originally, is of course no mediating council, but acts as an intercessor in this respect. As a result of the action taken by the Bantu Council, various benefits were introduced as far as the Bantu workers in the engineering industry are concerned, and I now want to set out these benefits to you. To put it roughly, the total amount which will now be paid to the workers in the engineering industry in the form of wage increases will be R10 million per annum. Of this R10 million the Bantu in the engineering industry will receive R5 million in the form of wage increases.

How many workers are there in each group?

Unfortunately I do not have the figures at hand. However, you would do well to listen to the other particulars. I know that they will not meet with your approval, because you would like to have a sombre picture, but if you listen carefully, you can think about it further. The retrospectivity is also applied in respect of the Bantu workers in so far as they are also going to get retrospective wages, and R1.5 million will be paid to the Bantu retrospectively. But this is not all. They will also receive benefits in respect of the shift allowances. They will receive shift allowances which have been increased from 4 per cent to 5 per cent for the afternoon and for the second shift, and from 8 per cent to 10 per cent for the evening and the third shift. They will also share in the new overtime rates which will be granted. The Bantu workers will also get the extra week of long service holiday leave after 10 years’ service, just as in the case of the Whites. The unskilled wage group, which forms 50 per cent of the labour force in industry, will receive an increase of 2 cents per hour. But apart from this, the hon. member wanted to know whether any of the Bantu workers have been reclassified and will now be adversely affected. No, I can assure the hon. member that this will not happen, because one of the provisions in the agreement is that no worker, irrespective of race and colour, shall be adversely affected as a result of the reclassification. So the hon. member may rest assured about this. An employer is also prohibited from dismissing a worker as a result of the reclassification, except of course when such a worker through misconduct provides sufficient reason for being dismissed.

May I ask who would inquire in the case of somebody being dismissed when the employer says he is no longer doing his work well and the employee says that it is because the work has been down-graded?

We have our Bantu work committees, and the Bantu Council is continually paying attention to such cases. Such cases are also continually brought to our notice by the officials of the Department of Labour, and this particular council deals with them. Therefore those cases will certainly come to notice and be put right.

The hon. member also wanted to know what the position was in connection with Bantu wages on the mines. Briefly the position is that two-thirds of the Bantu workers on the mines are foreign Bantu, but the wages paid amount to 58c per shift plus food, which is purchased by the mines on a large scale, but which normally would cost a Bantu approximately 34c a day at retail prices. Therefore his wages amount to 92c per shift. In addition, of course, he receives free accommodation and he has no travelling costs. They also receive free medical services and hospital treatment. Therefore, if one adds everything up, it is considered that they earn a good living wage, and if one considers the fact that the mines experience no problems in meeting their labour needs, it seems to me that these wages are satisfactory.

The hon. members for Brentwood and Durban (Central) raised the question of occupational diseases. We are at the moment drawing up regulations in connection with occupational diseases under the amended Factories Act, and we hope to announce those amended regulations shortly. I may just mention that very sound co-operation exists among our Department, the Department of Health, the Pneumoconiosis Council and the C.S.I.R. in this respect. It will interest hon. members to know that at the head of our own division we have a Government medical officer who is qualified in industrial hygiene. Apart from this we have, in reply to what the hon. member for Durban (Central) pleaded for, made representations to our universities to introduce courses in this field.

The hon. member for Turffontein as well as the hon. member for Umbilo raised the question of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The plea was made that the ceiling should be raised in this regard. I am very sympathetic towards this, because, as we all know, wages have increased considerably recently and perhaps it will be quite fair to consider raising the ceiling. I may just mention that the Unemployment Insurance Board is considering the matter at present and that they will submit a recommendation in good time. The hon. member also wanted to know whether these increases could not be made by way of regulation instead of by legislation. This is a matter about which I have asked the Council to make recommendations, and we shall consider it in due course.

Then the hon. member asked whether there should not be a further raising of the ceiling for the Bantu. This would create very serious problems for us and at the present moment I cannot say that I am at all in favour of its being considered.

As regards the building apprentices, the hon. member made the plea that we should see whether we could not reduce their training period from five to three years. It will interest you to know that the apprenticeship committee concerned has already recommended that it be reduced from five to four years. The tendency with the various apprenticeship committees is continually to reconsider the training of apprentices to see whether the periods cannot be reduced, and the hon. member may be sure that this matter is receiving consideration.

The hon. member for Umbilo also asked in connection with the Workmen’s Compensation Act whether the benefits could not be made retrospective. This is a matter which we have considered very sympathetically before, but it is not practicable, because, as you know, the Workmen’s Compensation Fund is maintained by the employers, and it is unfair to expect the employers to pay higher assessment rates in respect of workers who were employed in the industry years ago, and not even in their own service.

May I ask a question? Would it not be possible to introduce the same principle as that accepted in the Pneumoconiosis Act, namely that the State accepts responsibility in respect of retrospective responsibility? The precedent has been created.

This is of course a principle which has never been considered in the case of the Workmen’s Compensation Fund. It is a financial arrangement to which the Government will certainly have to give serious attention.

The hon. member for Heidelberg asked whether employers would be encouraged to employ students in holiday periods and. if so, that our Department should render assistance in that respect. I can only give the assurance that our Department of Labour does quite a good deal every year to have students placed in holiday jobs, and we will certainly continue to do so.

Then the question was also asked whether, in connection with the reclassification of jobs, to which I referred in my first reply to-day, we could not give more information to the workers themselves so that they could understand how everything worked. This is a task for the trade unions and employers concerned. When the monthly wages system came into operation on the mines, the miners’ own periodical published detailed articles about it in order to explain it, and the mine-owners themselves have a periodical in which such articles have been placed. The Iron and Steel Association also has a periodical in which they have furnished these explanations. I do think this is a task which one should leave to these two parties, i.e. the employers and the trade unions. It is not a task to be performed by the Government.

The hon. member for Port Natal raised the question of compulsory cover for fishermen. I have a written communication on this. As far as the compulsory cover of fishermen under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is concerned, it is necessary to realize that they actually fall into three groups. The first group consists of full-time fishermen. These persons are appointed on the basis of wages payable for time worked. A master and servant relationship exists and compensation is payable for injuries arising from accidents occurring in the execution of duties. The second group comprises the fishermen who are paid on the basis of a share in the catch. In this case the owner of the boat may appoint a skipper to exercise control over the boat. The skipper receives a wage and is covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Act in case he becomes involved in an accident. The skipper or the boat owner offers the use of the boat on the basis that the fishermen will receive a share of the catch. No service contract exists and therefore such fishermen are not workmen as defined in the Act, and are accordingly not entitled to compensation. The third group consists of fishermen who make a contribution to the running costs of the boat, but who keep the catch for their own account. In this case there is no service contract either, as the fishermen are working for their own profit and at their own risk. They are not workmen under the Act and their income cannot be determined for assessment for compensation purposes. I trust that these particulars will be of assistance to the hon. member and that he will approach the problem of the fishermen concerned, within this framework.

The hon. member for Wonderboom made a plea that the private sector should also be encouraged to follow the example of the State as regards the further training of its workers. This is a plea which I can support fully, because in the struggle for existence all of us realize that it is absolutely necessary to develop each person’s talents to the maximum. With this, I think, I have covered the main relevant issues.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 44,—Coloured Affairs, R54,200,000, and Loan Vote P,—Coloured Affairs, R 1,400,000:

Sir, on many occasions we on this side of the House have raised the question of schooling for Coloured children. I want to do so again and I make no apologies for doing so, because I think it is something that is absolutely necessary. I am quite convinced that we still do not have sufficient schooling facilities for these children. I want to say categorically that I appreciate the fact that the Department of Coloured Affairs are doing their best in this matter and that they are doing their best to get as many Children into school as they possibly can. I am not trying to suggest that nothing is being done in connection with this matter or for the Coloureds in general. The point simply is that not sufficient is being done to ensure that there are sufficient schooling facilities for the children. There are far too many Coloured children to-day who are not at school. There has been a slight improvement in this connection lately. In 1965, according to the report, there were 340,000 children at school, whereas in 1966 there were 354,000. In other words, there was a slight increase. This increase is due in the first place to the fact that there was an increase in the Coloured population, but that still does not make provision for the tremendous backlog which must still exist. Sir, what perturbs one very much is the number of pupils who leave school at a very early age. At the bottom of page 22 of the report we find that from St. I to St. V the loss of pupils between the first and second quarters amounted in those years to 20,000. This number refers to children who leave school during the course of the year, not at the end of the year. What makes the position even more disturbing is the number of children who leave school at the end of the year. When we analyse these figures we find that in Sub A, in the first year, nearly 5,000 children left school and that in the years thereafter an average of about 3,000 children left school every year during that period. When one comes to the higher classes the position is far more serious. The numbers of children in St. VI, VII, VIII, IX and X dwindled very much. The number of children dwindled from 83,000 in Sub A to 1,300 or 1,400 in St. X. There is a terrific loss of pupils from Sub A to St. X. Even assuming that some of the children start to work after St. V, we find that from substandard A to St. V—in other words, children who cannot work—some 60,000 leave school every year, 60,000 children who roam the streets. One asks oneself, why it is that so many children leave school? First of all, I think it is because in many cases both parents work, with the result that there is nobody at home to see that these children go to school. There is no control; they become undisciplined; they form gangs and are subjected to bad influences; they develop bad habits and the next thing is that they get into trouble. It is from the ranks from those children that you get the skolly element. We now have our cadet training camps to cope with the more grown-up ones. As we have said before in this House, we think that this is a very good idea. We will probably pass a Bill now to punish those who carry dangerous weapons but that will only look after those who have already fallen into bad habits. What we should do is to prevent children from developing bad habits or ciminal tendencies. We must get to the root of the whole trouble before they develop these tendencies. One of the reasons for this state of affairs is that they are not kept at school long enough. They leave school far too young to roam the streets and get into trouble. One asks oneself why they leave school at such an early age. I suppose the first reason is the economic position of the Coloured man. As soon as the Coloured boy is old enough to work, then in many cases he is sent out to work in order to supplement the family income. Both the parents have to work in many cases and the children are left to their own devices. Sir, there are too many Coloured people who do not realize the value of schooling for their children. They do not realize that it is most important to put their children at school. I think that is something which one finds amongst people who are underdeveloped. I remember that in my young days there were many white parents too who did not realize the value of schooling. There were many who adopted the attitude that if a man could read and write he must be regarded as educated. The Coloured people are still at that stage and they do not appreciate the value of schooling, and that is why they do not make any real attempt to send their children to school. The solution to the problem is compulsory schooling. I think children should be compelled to go to school, and everything should be done to assist them. They should be given free books and we should give them all the facilities that we can. One realizes that there are some difficulties. The Minister has told us that the first difficulty is the lack of school buildings, but that is a difficulty which can be overcome. I do not see why we should not have sufficient school buildings within a reasonable period for these children to be able to go to school. Of course, the biggest trouble to-day is that we do not have sufficient teachers to teach these children. The reason for that is, of course, that we do not train a sufficient number of them. The other reason is that there are not sufficient children who go into the higher standards, from where they can take up a teaching course. One must see to it that there are sufficient children who go up to the higher standards, from where they may go into the teacher’s profession.

Another reason, of course, is that the inducement for them to become teachers or to go into the higher standards is not sufficient. The salaries of the Coloured teachers are too low. The result is that they do not take up the teaching profession. The report says on page 18:

The supply is not sufficient and it is not keeping pace with what is necessary. Therefore I say again that every effort should be made to see to it that the encouragement, that the inducement is there to attract more Coloured people to train as teachers.

Then there is the loss of personnel. There is also a reason for this. Other avenues are now being opened to Coloured people, according to the report, which is of course quite correct. On page 18 it says:

Therefore we have to do everything we can to see that the inducements are there to encourage Coloured people to go in for the teaching profession.

A third reason why we do not have sufficient teachers is the fact that we are losing teachers. So many of them leave the country and go overseas, where they get better salaries. In a recent article in the Sunday Times it is reported that:

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow up what was said by the hon. member for Gardens, except to tell him this. He complained that there was a shortage of school accommodation. But the hon. member overlooks the fact that during the past few years pumerous schools had to be substituted for schools situated in White areas. If one now examines the estimates of the past few years so as to ascertain the amounts voted for school buildings, it astonishes one that the hon. member can still complain about this matter.

I have a few matters which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, but first of all I want to congratulate the Department on the instructive and comprehensive annual report it has published.

I have a problem in my constituency which is the problem of the Boland and the Western Cape. If one really wants to see this problem and form an idea of its magnitude, one need only travel through the Boland towns on a Saturday: Wellington, Paarl, Stellenbosch, Kuils River, etc. The problem is Coloured drinking premises situated in White residential areas. I am not referring to bottle stores now. I am referring to on-consumption premises. In a town like Wellington there are four such bars in the hands of Whites. The Whites are prepared to move the bottle stores to the Coloured residential areas, but from the nature of the case cannot obtain permission to do so. The fact of the matter is that the Coloured Development Corporation is assisting Coloureds to establish drinking premises in their own areas. The slow rate at which this is taking place, however, means that it will take at least a century to remove these drinking premises from the White residential areas. According to the Department’s report only 24 drinking premises have been established in Coloured residential areas with the assistance of the C.D.C. By talking to the communities as such, to the municipalities concerned, and to the liquor dealers, I have come to the conclusion that there is only one way of solving this matter and that is to give the White man the temporary right to move his drinking premises for Coloureds to the Coloured residential areas.

For how long?

As a layman I should say for 10 years; it may be for seven years. This matter can still be worked out.

Then he will remain there.

No, he may not remain there; this must happen conditionally. These people are prepared to erect the buildings there. The problem of the C.D.C. is to find the right people to take over the liquor trade. Even though they have the money, they do not have the right people for the job. They do not have people to whom big money can be entrusted. The condition should be that for that period—it may even be five years only—the Whites should train the Coloureds so as to enable them to take over the drinking premises eventually under the protection of the C.D.C. I think that this is the only way in which active steps can be taken soon. I just want to say that this position is benefiting no one. This state of affairs which is developing is benefiting no one. It benefits neither the Whites nor the Coloureds. I think that the sooner we take steps in this regard the better it will be for us. I repeat: Neither the Coloureds nor the C.D.C. have the necessary capital, and even if the Government were to be prepared to provide the capital for the removal of the standing bars, the on-consumption premises, to the Coloured residential areas, the Coloureds to run them are not available as yet.

I think that the following agreement should be made with these people. After the expiry of the agreed period the person should be paid out for the building which he had erected there, but not for the liquor licence. I believe that Whites who are holders of these liquor licences, will jump at this opportunity. If a fixed period is laid down for them in this regard, the number of White people will increase during that period. Therefore a man will not lose his livelihood, because after the expiry of that number of years he may legitimately relinquish his right in the Coloured residential area.

Another matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister, is pensions which are paid to Coloureds. The Department is concerned, and that concern is expressed in this annual report. The Department admits that malpractices do occur. There is concern among the Whites and there are many complaints that social pensions are being abused. The major form of abuse is that these pensions are conducive to idleness. The fact of the matter is that the standard of living of the bottom layer of the Coloured population is very low. If one member of the family has an income, it is definitely conducive to idleness. There used to be committees in every magisterial district which granted pensions in collaboration with the magistrate. I think that this kind of committee should be reintroduced. They will be able to assist the officials to a large extent. I do not think that it is quite fair to place the onus on an official in a regional office to decide who should and who should not receive a pension. I believe that the hon. the Minister should, for some time at least, establish committees to assist those people to eliminate these malpractices. Many people feel that there is large-scale abuse of these pensions. Even the Secretary for Coloured Affairs who obtains the information from his officials, expresses his concern in this report about the fact that malpractices do occur. I repeat that I think that the solution is to be found in the reintroduction of these district committees to lend a hand in this matter.

For Whites as well?

Yes, for the time being it must be Whites who serve on them. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member for Malmesbury said here interested me a great deal, and I want to agree with him to a very large extent. I want to begin by saying that the old established decent Coloured farm-hands in the Western Province are really drinking themselves to death. If we do not do something, these people will go to rack and ruin completely. I know what I am talking about; I grew up with these people. I know them, and the way they are going on at present, I can say that the rate of hard drinking among them has never been higher.

How about stopping the tot system?

It may be that the tot system is teaching the people to drink, but it is not true that the farmers intoxicate their workers by means of this tot system. They get drunk because they no longer want to work on Saturdays and then get drunk in the towns on Saturday mornings. The hon. member for Malmesbury was correct in what he said. On a Saturday morning one can drive to any town such as Wellington, Stellenbosch, Porterville, Malmesbury, Moorreesburg, and virtually every single Coloured in town is drunk.

You are becoming a Nationalist now.

No, I am still sober, but certain people are not always sober. It is a fact that our Coloured people are going to drink themselves to death if we do not help them. The troubles on Saturdays start on the on-consumption premises, in the bars. It was an interesting suggestion from the hon. member for Malmesbury that White initiative should move Coloured on-consumption premises closer to Coloured residential areas.

Why White initiative?

I do not now want to go into that matter in detail. I only have ten minutes at my disposal. I have good reason for saying that it should be White initiative. I do not want to speak ill of the Coloureds, but many Coloureds are not qualified to hold a liquor licence, which is a dangerous business. In bygone days Whites could hold 49 per cent of the shares in a Coloured business within a Coloured area, but at present this is not possible. Perhaps the solution which the hon. member for Malmesbury is seeking is to be found in this very direction, namely that Whites should be able once again to have 49 per cent of the capital and especially of the management rights of on-consumption premises in Coloured residential areas. Off-consumption is not the big problem. We should be careful, because these people are destroying themselves with liquor.

The hon. member also spoke about old-age pensions. The hon. the Minister may perhaps not be aware of the abuses which do occur. After all, he cannot know everything. I have noticed the following phenomenon in the areas which I know well. As people’s old-age pensions increase, so the pensioner’s liquor purchases increase. Hon. members can ask anyone who knows the Western Province. I wonder whether the Minister should not give consideration to creating the necessary machinery in certain areas for ensuring that certain people would not receive the full amount in cash, but that a porition of their pensions would be paid to them in the form of coupons perhaps with which he would be able to buy food and clothes. The old practice under which a White man often used to draw a Coloured’s pension on his behalf, no longer exists. Many of the people are too old to work and perhaps also too old to walk, but on the 27th of the month, on pension day, he walks to town very heartily and returns with a large “parcel”. Then he walks jauntily! I am now speaking about things of which I have knowledge, not about things I have heard. I see these occurrences almost every day. I invite the hon. the Minister to come and visit me and he will see that what I am saying here now is the truth.

The whole pattern in the Western Province has changed. In bygone days the farm-hands worked from Monday morning to Saturday afternoon, and often to Saturday evening. But just like public servants, they now also stop working on Friday afternoon already. On Saturdays most of the Coloureds on the farm are drunk. This is not the exception to the rule, it is not encountered on a farm here and perhaps on another farm far away. This happens on every farm. On most Saturdays most of the Coloureds of the Boland are drunk. I say that this is a dangerous situation which is developing.

I now want to refer to another dangerous situation which is developing here in the Boland. I am sorry that I have to have to say this, but it is the truth. As a result of the Government’s policy that the Bantu have to come here without their wives, a third class is now being bred here. Coloured women of the weakest character allow themselves to be bought by Bantu money and live with the Bantu. As a result of that the Western Province is being bred black and the numerous illegitimate children are causing a third class to develop here. I do not want to speak ill of anyone here, but the hon. member for Malmesbury, who also knows the circumstances well, knows that what I am saying is the truth. As a result of the fact that Coloured women and Bantu are living together, they are begetting a third class of illegitimate black children here. I therefore say that we shall have to give serious consideration to the future blue-print as regards the Coloureds.

I think that I know the Coloureds. As I have said, I grew up with these people, and I know what is going on. Perhaps the hon. member for Houghton, who is not present here at the moment, also knows the Coloureds. There is, however, a vast difference between the educated Coloured which one encounters in the city and the Coloured on the farm. The latter is also decent, perhaps more so than the Coloured in the city. But the level of civilization of the educated Coloured in the city is much higher than that of the ordinary Coloured farm-hand. The difference is greater than that between the educated Whites and the less educated Whites. This is something which the hon. the Minister should not overlook. The cultural level, educational level and standard of living of the vast majority of Coloureds in this country are still very low, in many cases as low as that of certain Bantu in the Western Province. I think that it is quite true when I say this. Those people are being exploited from all sides and I think that they need our help and sympathetic approach.

I want to plead for, inter alia, the decent Coloured on the farm. When I was a child, it was traditional that although the Coloured wore patched clothes, his clothes were nevertheless neat and he was clean. What do we see to-day when we travel through Paarl, Wellington, Stellenbosch, Malmesbury and those places? The Coloureds look like a lot of scarecrows. Their wives do not clean their clothes, they do not repair them, they look like a lot of rubbish. We find very few Coloured women to-day who keep the clothes of their husbands and children neat. Not so long ago I was talking to a certain woman, and she told me of a Malay wedding which she had attended. The bridegroom was a teacher and he himself had made the furniture for him and his bride with his own hands. She told the bride’s mother, “It is nice to see that you have such a skilled son-in-law”. The mother replied, “Yes Madam, but you must remember that in the old days my people were taught that anyone could fall, but we were taught that if one fell, one had to ensure that one fell on one’s hands so that one could use one’s hands to protect oneself.” I want to ask the Minister whether he is of the opinion that our educational system for the Coloureds is such that it will teach the Coloureds, that if they should fall, to fall on their hands so that they will not injure themselves. I understand that there is a certain Roman Catholic institution in Natal which has the following motto: “Carpentry before Latin”. I say that we should teach the Coloureds trades at school, even though we are going to be criticized for doing so. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to say anything at this early stage, but I regard it as my duty to address a single request to this Committee. We should exercise a great deal of discretion and self-possession in dealing with this major sociological question of excessive drinking. I fully appreciate the firsthand knowledge which hon. members have. I know that the hon. member for Sea Point is a farmer in this part of the world, and that the hon. member for Malmesbury, who also spoke, has knowledge of these conditions. But where one is dealing with the upliftment of a population group one cannot uplift them if one puts forward certain matters in such a blatant way. I only want to ask that when we continue this discussion to-morrow, we should do so with a great deal of sympathy for these people. The hon. member rightly said that these people needed our sympathy, but I think that we must express our sympathy in such a way that we do not humiliate and insult them in a way which will make it very difficult at a later stage to carry out this task of upliftment.

Mr. Chairman, while the hon. member for Sea Point was speaking. I wondered whether he would have spoken like that had the Coloureds still been on the common voters’ roll to-day. In those days he used to be a very careful speaker when he spoke about Coloured affairs.

I do not want to go into the hon. member’s speech because the hon. Minister has already reacted to it. I want to associate myself, however, with the basic point made by the hon. member, and that is the problem of excessive drinking among the Coloured population and the handling of that problem. I want to point out that there are another two major and urgent problems to which we have to devote very serious attention. In the first place I want to refer to crimes committed by loafers. Even members of Parliament in the city have been the victims of such crimes from time to time. The other problem I want to mention, is that of illegitimate births among the Coloured population. I want to link up these very great problems with the great task of the Department of Coloured Affairs in the field of education. It will not get us anywhere to make harsh remarks and to describe this stark problem so graphically. The fact of the matter is that we are dealing here, with one of our population groups who still has a long way to travel on the road of civilization and development.