Clause 2 deals with the circumstances under which mineral rights may be expropriated and certain consequential procedures. Although the hon. the Minister yesterday was frank enough to say that I should talk to the hon. member for Wonderboom and not to him, I will address myself to the hon. the Minister. The position in terms of clause 2 is that the first offer to the owner of mineral rights is an offer which is made by the Administrator of the province with the concurrence of the hon. the Minister of Community Development, but the basis of the offer is the value fixed by the Minister of Mines. There is no discretion vested in the hon. the Minister or in the Administrator. As the Minister will see from clause 2 (1) (a), the value is determined by the Minister of Mines. If the owner or owners cannot be located or cannot be dealt with by direct contact or direct negotiation, the Bill provides that the Administrator may cause a notice to be published in the Gazette indicating what he assesses to be the value of the mineral rights.

Then the clause goes on to say that if there is no acceptance of the offer, the Administrator may expropriate. Sir, I find a difficulty arising in sub-section (4) where it is provided that the provisions of certain sections of the Expropriation Act shall mutatis mutandis apply. The hon. the Minister, in this Bill, has inserted certain sections of the Expropriation Act which deal solely with the method of giving notice and the effect of the notice and matters of that sort. It will be seen that the hon. the Minister in his Bill makes provision that section 7 (2) shall apply only as far as the Expropriation Act is concerned. It seems to me that is a wrong procedure, and I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to what he is doing in fact. The Expropriation Act provides in section 7 (1), as amended in 1968, for what should be done in the absence of compensation being agreed upon, and section 7 (2) which the Minister now wishes to apply, and not 7 (1), provides for what should happen if no application is made to court for a determination of the compensation. Sir, you cannot have 7 (2) applying without 7 (1). They would be contradictory in terms if section 7 (1) which provides for the right to go to court to determine the compensation is eliminated from this Bill. There is a problem of procedure because of the fact that the Bill before us is intended to deprive the owner of mineral rights of the normal procedure of having his compensation determined either by arbitration or by the courts. I believe that the Minister would be well advised to allow section 7 and section 8 of the Expropriation Act to apply to expropriations under these circumstances. I know that the hon. the Minister may have some difficulty at this stage in giving me an answer on this matter, but I propose to move an amendment: To substitute in line 33 the figures 7 and 8 for 7 (2): in other words, that the procedure is that if there is no agreement on compensation, then under the Expropriation Act which applies in other circumstances where the State expropriates for public purposes, there is a right to go to court and, with section 8 being applicable, there is a basis upon which the valuation or the compensation should be determined. I therefore move—

What the hon. member is proposing in that amendment, basically amounts to whether we should permit these people to go to court if they are not satisfied. I just want to point out that the object of this legislation as a whole is to prevent the owners of mineral rights from taking such steps as may either hamper township development or make it too expensive. These are the two major considerations. If we could expropriate and if it were merely a question of our wanting to prevent them from hampering township development, I should have had no objection to the hon. member’s amendment, but the other important question, which is really the important question, is to prevent the owners of mineral rights from taking such steps as may cause the price of plots in a new township to become too expensive. What is the hon. member asking for? He is asking that they should have the right to go to court, and he is asking for ordinary arbitration. Sir, the arbitration process is an expensive one, and if one allows him to go to court, it is an even more expensive process. It may be found later on that the court costs and the arbitration costs come to more than the cost of the land. That is why we decided not to permit that form of arbitration and not to permit these people to go to court. After all, what is involved in this Bill? In practice it is to develop areas in respect of which geologists and everybody are satisfied that township development is more important than mineral development. In other words, when they decide that township development is more important, it goes without saying that there is very little hope of there being any economically exploitable mineral deposits in the soil. If the geologists and the experts of the Department of Mines were to ascertain that there are minerals which can be exploited economically, then it stands to reason, surely, that the exploitation of such minerals would be more important than the development of townships. In such a case the Administrator will not intervene, but if they decide that those minerals cannot be exploited economically, it stands to reason that the establishment of townships is more important. Who is in a better position to ascertain this than are the experts of the Department of Mines? If it were any other form of expropriation, I would be in complete agreement with the hon. member for Green Point, but I have a responsibility and my problem is to try to make plots available as cheaply as possible. In my mind I am completely convinced that we cannot under any circumstances do an injustice to the owners of mineral rights. We cannot do so for the simple reason that, if the Department of Mines—the people who are most anxious to exploit and develop minerals—were to see that there was the slightest possibility of developing those minerals, they would be the last department to advocate the development of townships. That is why, if the interests of the owners of mineral rights are looked after, there can be no better arbitrator than the Department of Mines. Therefore, if we were to accent the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point, we would from a practical point of view be putting into operation machinery which could hardly serve to protect the owners of mineral rights. The only purpose this could serve, would be to push the price of that land, together with the attendant additional costs, higher and higher. Under those circumstances I am not prepared to accept that amendment.

Mr. Chairman, there is a problem in connection with the assessment of value in terms of clause 2, where the Minister may decide on the possible potential value of land. Hon. members are aware that the position in regard to minerals varies from time to time. The hon. the Minister referred to the geologists of the Department of Mines who would assess the value of such an area. However, I must say that, if we were to think back on the history of the Witwatersrand, we would see that in 1890 the ore formations of the Witwatersrand did not really have any value, on account of the fact that there were certain metallurgical problems. At that time people adopted a quite pessimistic attitude to the gold reefs of the Witwatersrand, as it was thought that the ore could not be extracted from the soil. The development and the exploitation of those minerals were only rendered possible through technological development. No mining engineer and no geologist can say to-day what the value of some mining product or other which is nil at present, would be in the future, for the simple reason that the geologist or mining engineer in question is not in a position to assess the future economic development of such a mineral deposit or the demand for such a mineral. I should like to substantiate this with particulars. I am thinking of uranium, for instance. When uranium was discovered in our gold reefs in 1924, people said that this mineral was only of academic value and that it had no economic value. Hon. members are aware of the role which uranium plays in our national economy to-day. I could mention many other cases. For instance, I am thinking of the Murchison Range in the Northern Transvaal. In the time of Oom Paul Kruger and the Transvaal Republic gold was mined there, whereas very little or no gold is being mined there at present. However, at present antimony as a primary product is being mined at the same spot. The same applies to the Witwatersrand, for instance, and I assume that that is the real problem as regards the establishment of townships in that area. To-day, in this atomic age in which we are living, we do not know what the demand or need for osmiridium, one of the by-products of the Witwatersrand ores, will be in the future. For that reason I think that it will sometimes be very difficult for the people of to-day to determine what the value of such a mineralized zone is. That is why it is a fact in the history of the mining industry that any mining company will, for instance, freeze its mineral proposition for a period, until such time as there is a sufficient demand for that particular product which can be mined in that mine. It appears to me as though we are dealing here with an unfair measure as regards those people who hold that mining proposition, in spite of the fact that it is temporarily nonproductive. However, owing to economic conditions it may become productive later on. Here I am thinking, for instance, of many gold mines on the Witwatersrand which are not productive to-day on account of the fact that the gold price is too low and that the gold can therefore not be mined economically. If the gold price is increased one day so that it may be worth-while to process, say, 1.5 or 2.5 dwt., that mine could resume production. I want to conclude by saying that as far as the mineral industry is concerned, we are to a certain extent labouring under a misconception in the sense that it is not possible for one to say at a given juncture that a mine has been worked out or is defunct. One simply cannot think of a mine being exhausted completely. It is economic and political conditions which cause mining activities to be discontinued.

Mr. Chairman, I disagree completely with the hon. member for Etosha. As regards the socio-economic aspects for which provision is being made in this legislation, i.e. to facilitate housing for the community, it would be short-sighted to say that in years to come there might be a possibility of these minerals being exploited profitably. This clause was inserted with a view to those areas where there are, so to speak, no minerals. In most cases we will find that there are no minerals. It deals with the right to the mineral rights of persons who possess mineral rights and have the opportunity of pushing up the price of land to such an extent that it bears no relation to the real value of such land. This is basically the reason for this legislation. This clause makes it very clear that the Departments of Mines and Community Development will act in conjunction with each other. Surely, if the mineral wealth does exist, the Department of Mines will never permit that area to be declared suitable for the establishment of a township. This clause is in the interests of the development we are experiencing in South Africa now. We are experiencing to-day an era of new points of growth all over the Republic. The shortage of residential sites is not a result of the action taken by the local authorities of smaller towns. The potential was provided overnight. I am thinking, for instance, of Newcastle and many other places in South Africa where a need for sites has virtually arisen overnight. That is why it is so essential that the machinery be made available for investigating all manner of possibilities in order that the establishment of townships may be expedited. I find it a pity, though, that provision has not been made for this legislation to be applied in respect of the establishment of industrial areas, particularly as far as our border industry development is concerned.

Order! The hon. member is going too far now.

I am sorry, Sir, if I may not say this, but I suppose that I may just say that townships are directly affected by the question of the location of industrial areas. The key plan for any town …

That is not relevant here.

Then I want to say, and with this I want to conclude, that this clause affords the necessary protection to the owners in that the three departments which will handle this matter, will do so in conjunction with one another. To my mind this is a good clause and it opens the way for housing for our people, which is the underlying principle of this legislation.

I am indebted to this hon. member for Etosha for his contribution. He has had a wide experience in dealing with this question of mineral rights and with the unpredictable. But the Minister himself has made some rather startling statements this afternoon. First of all he said that he was going to expropriate in such a manner as would not increase the price of land. But, surely, what he ought to be concerned with here is to pay the owner of mineral rights a fair and reasonable price for those rights. That ought to be his primary consideration. For him the conflict lies in the fact that the surface rights and the mineral rights are owned by two different people. So, when one of these has to surrender his rights he has, surely, to be paid a fair and equitable amount for that. Another astounding statement statement made by the hon. the Minister is that the geologist of the Department of Mines would indicate whether a particular mineral right has any value. Well, Sir, I am afraid he is claiming for the geologist more than he would claim for himself. After all, why have we invested so much money in Soekor if the geologist can tell us where oil is? I say the hon. the Minister is on two very weak premises if he argues against me on those lines.

What is the difference between the expropriation of mineral rights and the expropriation of a piece of ground required for public purposes? I should Like the hon. the Minister to accept that the procedure should be the same for both. Let me elaborate on this procedure. First of all, an offer will be made equal to a figure determined by the Department of Mines. If that is not acceptable there will be a second figure determined by the Administrator in conjunction with the hon. the Minister and with the hon. Minister of Mines. After that the Administrator can make the final decision. This procedure is not applied to any other expropriations in terms of our law. Of course, there are difficulties which I can appreciate. But the Expropriation Act took cognizance of that. Hence the provision that if agreement cannot be reached the amount shall be determined in terms of section 7 (3) of that Act, i.e. by a magistrate below a certain figure, otherwise by a judge. The Act furthermore provides that the magistrate or judge, as the case may be, may invoke the assistance of not more than two persons who are skilled and experienced in the matter to sit with them as assessors in an advisory capacity. This is not, I submit, an expensive procedure. After all, a man stands to be deprived of his rights, his rights of ownership and, surely, the least he can claim is the adjudication of an independent body. According to what the Minister has said this afternoon, what is his advise to the Administrator to be? His advice will be, “Get these rights as goedkoop’ as you can because I do not want to push up the price of the land”.

I have not a say in the matter at all.

But you said that expropriation in terms of this legislation will take place in such a way as not to push up the price of land. That is what you said. What, then, is his advice to be to the Administrator? His advice will be, “Get it as cheaply as you can. Pay as little as you can because I do not want the land to be too highly priced in the proposed township”. Therefore, I think the hon. Minister should give serious consideration to this. He is already applying the Expropriation Act in a number of clauses of this Bill and I see no reason why the whole of section 7 and 8 of that Act cannot also be applied. We know that the hon. member for Etosha has had a vast experience with minerals in South-West Africa and with the difficulty in determining mineral rights. In the circumstances, the Minister will be well advised to accept this amendment and allow the normal procedure to run its course.

First of all I want to deal with the argument advanced by the hon. member for Etosha. I am in complete agreement with him that it is impossible to say where we are going to find minerals in the future and where we are not going to do so. It is absolutely impossible to say. But the practical implication of this is that in that case we should not establish townships anywhere, that we should not proceed with the establishment of townships at all, because, if we were to establish a township here in the Cape Flats, I do not know whether oil, gold, uranium or a mineral which is yet to be discovered may still be found there. Therefore I say that one cannot argue on those lines. The fact of the matter is that the establishment of townships must proceed and that we must make do with the knowledge we have to-day. After all, we must house people and that is why we must, in the light of the knowledge we have, do what is best. Therefore, while theoretically speaking I agree with the hon. member for Etosha, I want to know, when we come to the practical question of the value of mineral rights, who else I can consult if not the Department of Mines?

Why did the hon. member for Green Point not vote against the Second Reading of this Bill?

I asked for arbitration.

The hon. member is now arguing that we are spending millions through Soekor in our search for oil, and that it is not possible for us to know where oil may be found. But where am I to establish townships? Therefore this is an absurd argument, surely. The thing I should like the hon. member for Green Point to grasp, is that the Administrator has to determine what is more important: mineral development or the establishment of townships on a given piece of land? How does the Administrator arrive at such a conclusion? In the first place, he consults with the Department of Mines. Then that Department investigates the position thoroughly. When can the development of minerals be the more important factor? When minerals can be exploited there on an economic basis. Under those circumstances the exploitation of minerals is more important and a township will not be established. On the other hand, however, the Department of Mines may tell the Administrator that the development of minerals on a specific piece of land is not an economic proposition. And they can only arrive at that conclusion on the strength of the knowledge they have at present and not with the knowledge they might have in ten, twenty, forty, fifty, or even a hundred years’ time. It is, of course, possible that calculations may be changed as a result of knowledge we may still gain. For instance, there is the case of Oklahoma which the hon. member mentioned yesterday. In that city it was only after the city itself had been developed and skyscrapers had already been erected that they discovered that oil could be extracted there. But these are problems which have to be met as and when they arise.

What the hon. member for Green Point wants is that provision should be made here for arbitration, that it should be possible to take the matter to court. But can he imagine the drawn-out process in which this may result? Surely, the courts have already decided on this matter by saying that they are not in a position to determine what the mineral rights on a given piece of land are. That was before this legislation. Now the hon. member wants the courts to decide on the price. But how will the courts do this? They will do so by calling as witnesses all the geologists of the Department of Mines. Similarly, the owner will obtain the services of geologists, perhaps from abroad, to strengthen his case. And yet the hon. member for Etosha, who is a well-known geologist, admits that one cannot determine these things with any degree of certainty. But the hon. member for Green Point wants a drawn-out court case, which is completely impracticable and will push up the price of the land tremendously. I am not at all impressed by the accusation levelled by the hon. member for Green Point who said that I would instruct the Administrator to try to obtain the land as cheaply as possible. As far as I am concerned, I hope he obtains it as cheaply as possible. However, that is no concern of mine. They are advised by the Department of Mines. After all, if mineral rights cannot be exploited economically, I cannot see that such great value can be attached to them. Theoretically the hon. member is right, but in practice his argument does not hold water. Therefore I cannot accept this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to point out that the hon. member for Green Point is basing his argument on a totally wrong premise. His argument is based on the premise that it will be the Administrator’s sole aim to alienate mineral rights. However, if he were to read clause 2 (1) (a) properly, he would see that there are three ways in which the final stage can be reached. The first is for the owner of the mineral rights and the surface owner to agree that the owner of the mineral rights consents to the development of the surface area, and for the owner of the mineral rights to grant that consent without any disposal of or change in rights and without any payment of compensation. What does that mean? It means that the owner of mineral rights remains in full possession and control of his rights. He receives no compensation and his rights are not alienated. That is his first alternative. His second alternative, as determined in the Bill, is that he may, by way of negotiation with the surface owner, come to an agreement and agree on a price, in which process money will change hands and rights will be disposed of as well. Thirdly, if no agreement can be reached, all that remains is the question of alienation. I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister that the procedure proposed by the hon. member for Green Point is a drawn-out and an expensive process. This is a delaying process which, in terms of the establishment of townships, may sometimes cost hundreds of thousands of rands. This will eventually have to be recovered from the person who will buy that site. For that reason the procedure proposed in the Bill is, to my way of thinking, a shortcut for coming to an equitable agreement. The hon. member for Green Point may not know this, but in the Transvaal it is already a requirement that the plans in respect of every new township which is submitted for establishment purposes, must be accompanied by a geological survey report. In some cases it is required that a programme of drillings be launched in order to determine the subterranean structure of the piece of land in question, should there be any dispute in regard to the matter.

Only when it appears that that right is not one which can be developed in the public interest, do these powers of the Administrator come into play. The hon. member for Green Point made a contemptible remark in saying that the hon. the Minister would now offer the lowest compensation possible. In clause 2 (1) (a) it is clearly provided that the Minister of Mines will determine that compensation. He is the person who, in the first place, is best qualified to determine the value of those mineral rights.

In conclusion I just want to say that if we were to look at this matter in terms of time and the future, it will be impossible for us to lay out any townships in the Transvaal. It is my considered opinion that subterranean gold is to be found all over the Transvaal, but it is situated at very great depths. Ten or twenty years ago we would never have been able to think that we would have a Western Deep Level at 12,000 feet, but techniques are improving all the time. This means that in another ten years’ time it will perhaps be possible for us to do development work at depths of 25,000 or 30,000 feet. It is my considered opinion that subterranean gold and coal deposits are to be found practically all over the Transvaal. If that is the case, it will be impossible for us to establish any townships anywhere in the Transvaal. Consequently we cannot tie ourselves down to the needs of the owner of mineral rights in the year 2,000 or 3,000. Where does the hon. member suggest we should live in the meantime? Therefore I shall also reject that amendment, because it is based on a false premise.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

The hon. member for Wonderboom correctly set out the stages to be followed up to an attempt to arrive at an agreement as to compensation. Where that compensation has not been agreed upon this clause 3 becomes operative. This is the clause which says that the compensation for mineral rights expropriated under the last-mentioned section shall on the application of the owner of those rights be determined by the Administrator in consultation with the Minister of Community Development and the Minister of Mines after the consideration of written representations. Now, I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Community Development to consider what is done in his own Department where it is necessary to buy in a property which has changed hands because of the proclamation of a group area. The Minister knows what happens in his own Department. His departmental officials do not fix the value. Valuers are appointed by his Department to inspect the property and to make a price, and if that price is not acceptable as the basic value, then his own Department allows a right of appeal to an independent revision court to revise the value for expropriation or for taking over under the Group Areas Act.

The reason for that is quite obvious. The Minister knows what happened in his own Department where these values are fixed on ministerial consultation with the Administrator. I need only mention one instance to show what injustices can result. When property in the Strand was acquired by his Department from disqualified Coloured persons for something like R10,000, which was the value fixed by his Department as a fair value, it was sold by his Department for R100,000. He knows that happens, and it happens because the valuations are fixed department ally. I believe here we will have the same problem if the value is fixed by the Administrator in consultation with the Minister of Community Development and the Minister of Mines, and under subsection (2) the determination is then final. There can be no review or appeal. I believe it will lead to a great deal of dissatisfaction and there will be great justification for complaint.

I am going to suggest to the hon. the Minister that this is the clause where at least he can accept an amendment of the nature of the one I moved to the previous clause and which he was not prepared to accept then, namely that where we have gone through these procedures and we have got to the stage of making an offer of compensation as determined by the Administrator in consultation with the two Ministers, this subsection (2) should be deleted and that there should be substituted a provision that if the owner or owners of the mineral rights do not accept the compensation determined in terms of subsection (1), then the provisions of sections 7 and 8 of the Expropriation Act of 1965 shall mutatis mutandis apply. I want to move that as an amendment so that the determination shall not be final, but that there should be this right of appeal to a body outside of those directly concerned. I therefore move—

Mr. Chairman, you may think that I am deviating from the principle, but what I am saying is that the principle of this clause should remain, that is to say, the compensation shall be determined by the Administrator, but what I say is that the decision should not be final; that there should be this right under sections 7 and 8. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I believe this is a matter that needs serious consideration. I must apologize that these amendments do not appear on the Order Paper, they were given to the Minister just before lunch. If the hon. the Minister will tell me that he accepts that this is a matter that requires thought and consideration and that he will give it thought and consideration as to whether this should not follow the pattern of the Expropriation Act, then I am not going to press the hon. the Minister for a reply at this stage. If he tells me that this is a matter which needs to be considered and that it is a matter which can be dealt with in the Other Place, I should be grateful to him, because I believe it is something that warrants further consideration by the hon. the Minister and his Department.

Sir, I think we argued this point completely and fully on the previous clause. There I explained why I thought it would be unsound to allow the parties either to go to court or to go to arbitration. I told the hon. member the other day that I would seriously consider this. I have considered it very seriously. I had discussions this morning with the Chamber of Mines, who also brought up this point, and after a very full discussion it was clearly my impression that they agreed that it was most difficult in these circumstances to go to court. You cannot compare these mineral rights with surface rights. In the case of surface rights it is fairly easy to arrive at a valuation. You have your valuators and if they differ then it is easy to go to arbitration. But here you have something completely different. You have to call in geologists and I do not know who else to give evidence. But I give the hon. member the assurance that I will go into the matter again, and if there is the slightest possibility that I can meet him, I will do so in the Other Place.

With the hon. the Minister’s assurance that this matter will be considered and probably be dealt with more fully in the Other Place, I withdraw my amendment with the leave of the Committee.

With leave, amendment withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise one or two matters with the hon. the Deputy Minister for clarification. As the law is at the present moment, a proclamation must apply to specific and separately identified buildings, land or premises. The powers are now changed in regard to the specifications of such buildings, land or premises to what one might term a blanket directive, namely to include all buildings, land and premises in a demarcated area in a proclamation. The right then to occupy in that whole area and not in respect of the individual buildings, becomes restricted in so far as disqualified persons are concerned only to the exemptions under section 26 of the principal Act. Two problems arise, and I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us more information in this regard.

Firstly, does this blanket proclamation now prevent the Minister from giving rights of access to or excluding specific buildings such as a church, a communal centre, etc., which may be used by various racial groups and which may be in a proclaimed area? Will this lead to any difficulties? Let us assume that there is a city hall which is situated in a white group area, but which has been used and is permitted to be used for various purposes by members of other race groups. Does this blanket provision prevent that use continuing as it has been in the past? I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister has considered the matter and that he will be able to give us a reply.

The other problem which arises is whether clause 3 (1) does not conflict with section 26 (3) (a) of the Group Areas Act. Section 26 (3) (a) of the Group Areas Act states the following:

In other words, section 26 (3) (a) of the principal Act seems to envisage that there would be a separate proclamation affecting separate buildings or separate pieces of land. This clause, as it now is, appears to conflict with that provision in that that exclusion will not arise. If the hon. the Deputy Minister can satisfy us that that difficulty will not arise, then of course there is no objection to this clause as it stands.

Mr. Chairman, as regards the first question, the position is very clear. A proclamation is issued proclaiming an area a designated area under section 19 of the principal Act. Subsequent to that proclamation notice has to be given to the individual owners of the different premises that those premises are going to be used for a particular purpose. Therefore the date of the proclamation is not the date on which it is said that the premises should be used only for one purpose or the other. It is only proclaimed a designated area, and subsequent to that the occupier must again be given three months’ notice that those premises should only be used for a particular purpose. The examples of a mosque or a synagogue were mentioned. If a mosque is situated in a certain area and a notice is not served on the society, the people may still have the use of that mosque. Therefore there is no difficulty as far as that is concerned. The problem which the hon. member mentioned in connection with section 26 (3) (a) concerns another kind of area. This section only deals with the particular area mentioned in section 19 of the principal Act, that is a designated area, and it has no bearing whatsoever on section 26 of the principal Act.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 6:

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

This clause is designed to give to the Minister powers to impose conditions regarding visitors to domestic servants and also conditions regarding the visitors of an employee. Both of these classes, namely the domestic servant and the employee, have the legal status to occupy premises in a white group area by virtue of the conditions of section 26 of the principal Act. During the Second Reading debate I asked the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he would indicate what type of regulations he envisaged he would like to apply to domestic servants. I must say that the answer he gave was quite surprising. Let us look at what the hon. the Deputy Minister is seeking to do. Firstly he said that a visitor should not visit a domestic servant while that domestic servant is working.

I mentioned it as a possibility.

Yes, as a possibility. It shows how the hon. the Deputy Minister’s mind is working. My domestic servant is in my service continuously and I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister realized what he was suggesting, namely that he wanted regulations to control servants to that extent. The hon. the Deputy Minister also suggested that visitors should not be allowed to stay overnight. What earthly harm is there if the husband of my non-white employee comes from up-country and spends the night with his wife in my servant’s quarters? Is that such a terrible crime? Is that a matter that should be prohibited? I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to realize that most of the domestic servants who live in, and I now refer particularly to private dwellings, reside permanently at their owners’ residences. Is the hon. the Deputy Minister really serious when he considers bringing in regulations of that kind? Thirdly the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned the question of the duration of these visits. He knows the periods that are permitted. There is a period of 90 days for a bona fide visitor under section 26 of the principal Act. A visitor can come into these areas for 90 days, although he is a disqualified person and stay in these areas. I am puzzled over the attitude of the hon. the Deputy Minister as to what is contemplated by way of these regulations. I think he rather revealed himself when he suggested that a servant should have half a day per week off for recreation. Surely the hon. the Deputy Minister knows that nowadays domestic servants are not kept in the kitchen for 12 hours a day or alternating between the kitchen and their quarters. Servants are given time off during the day and they are not either in the kitchen or the servant’s room. That is the problem that the hon. the Deputy Minister does not see. He does not realize that that is the problem. I mention these matters because of the great difficulties with which the hon. the Deputy Minister is faced in formulating regulations. I believe that if the hon. the Deputy Minister had said to us yesterday that there would be regulations to see that there is no overcrowding in these communal residential areas attached to flats, he would have had almost complete support for regulations of that type. That is the cause of the evil. It is the overcrowding and not when they visit or whom they visit. As I indicated yesterday to the hon. the Deputy Minister, although what he is asking for is a permissive authority, namely the right to make regulations and that it may apply to single dwellings or complexes, I believe that this is so serious a matter that we must specifically and definitely exclude private dwellings, namely single dwellings, from the context of this regulation. Now, why do I say that? I can understand that in a block of flats where there is a communal residential area for servants. there is a necessity for some control by regulation, because there is no single employer who controls those quarters. One finds that one’s servant complains about the conduct of other servants, who may not be as well-behaved as she is. One can realize that where there is communal housing there may be the necessity for regulations. I can see that. I can also understand that you cannot exclude cases where the servants rooms are adjacent to the flats, because the domestic servant of one tenant might commit actions which affects the tenant next door. But I cannot see any reason why there should be any need for regulations which control the domestic servants who are employed in single dwellings. In single dwellings the servants’ quarters form part of the unit or the outbuildings of the dwelling unit. For that reason I move the amendment as it appears on the Order Paper. That servant is under the perpetual and direct control of the employer. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to look at this matter in the way we asked him to. This is an infringement of the exemption provisions of section 26. It is a lessening of the exemption provisions which are contained in the principal Act. I hope the hon. the Minister will see that this is not an unreasonable request. What is more, I hope that the hon. the Minister will see it as a request which should be granted by the Government, so that domestic servants who are employed in single dwellings should be excluded from any of the provisions of this particular clause. I want to ask the hon. members opposite what their feeling would be if, like we all have, they have had faithful servants who have been with them for years and years, and they suddenly find that by Government regulation they are told how they should treat the servants on their farm, their home or in their private dwelling. I am sure that it is unnecessary. It is unnecessary for the vast majority of the employers of domestic servants, because the control is there, they are part of the families and they work as such.

You know the vast majority never commit murder.

Mr. Chairman, that is an extraordinary interjection. Is the hon. the Deputy Minister suggesting that because one employer does not keep proper control, although 99 per cent do, we need regulations? I think it is an extraordinary suggestion. On reflection. I think the hon. the Minister might even want to have that erased from Hansard.

I believe it is not an unreasonable approach. I believe it is a justified approach which will remove any unnecessary and unjustifiable limitations on the rights of these domestic servants.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

The amendment which I have moved is largely consequential on the Minister’s accepting the amendment of the hon. member for Green Point. I agree with all that he has said. As regards the abuse of the domestic servants in rooms. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister has put it very well; it is probably a case of one in 1,000. We are now going to legislate for that one. While we are going to make use of domestic servants of different colours, we naturally must treat them with respect. We must not abuse the trust they have in us. The amendment that I am moving I think puts the amendment made by the Deputy Minister in its true perspective. What we are really against, is the undesirable practices of those visitors that make use of the various rooms of our domestics. Unfortunately there are the shebeens and other practices. But it does not only occur among the Coloureds or the Bantu; it also occurs among the Whites. In large hotels, where Whites are employed as servants, there is a certain amount of abuse. But here we are legislating against Coloureds. In order to test the sincerity of the amendment by the Minister, I should like to move the amendment standing in my name.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand why the hon. the Deputy Minister needs this amendment at all. [Interjections.] No, I am now talking about the legal sense of it; I will come back to the desirability afterwards. In the legal sense there are so many vast powers already possessed by the Police to enter private premises without warrants to arrest for trespass, that I cannot understand why he needs these additional powers at all. That is on the legal side, Sir.

That is a poor show on the legal side.

No, it is not a poor show. This is true. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows perfectly well that the Police are empowered to enter any premises at any time of the day or night without any search warrant to arrest for trespass, if they find on the premises people who are not in legal employment on those premises.

And visitors.

And visitors, but these are not in legal employment, obviously, if they are visitors. So he has these powers already. Believe me, they are more than adequately used. It never ceases to amaze me how Ministers and Deputy Ministers can make amendments to existing legislation and pass regulations, all of which involve the use of vast Police powers, without giving the matter a second thought, without considering the enormous amount of manpower tied up in the implementation of these regulations, not to mention the increase in the number of people hauled off in the police vans to be charged with these minor offences of trespassing. Here we have an extension of existing powers. The Deputy Minister has, to my knowledge anyway, not yet given any explanation as to why he requires these additional powers. Is he dissatisfied with the 1,600 arrests a day for pass and documentary offences in South Africa? Does he think he needs more powers for the Police, more utilization of their valuable time, which should, in fact, be employed in tracking down the real criminals, rather than people who are simply visiting their friends on domestic premises.

Apart from my not understanding the need for this measure, I want to say that I think this is a mean little clause. I am not at all sure whether, if I had been here to listen to the whole of the Second Reading debate, I would not, or in fact, should not, have opposed the Second Reading debate on this particular issue alone.

Why did you not?

Because I was not here till the last moment. I think I will not only oppose the Bill at this stage; I will oppose the Third Reading as well, in order to show my complete disapproval of principle of this clause. It is a mean little clause, Sir.

Order! The hon. member is now making a Second Reading speech.

No, Sir, I am talking about this clause, clause 6.

It does not matter. The principle has been agreed to at the Second Reading stage.

I am sorry, Sir, but I must ask you to allow me to explain my objection to clause 6. This is what we are now discussing. The hon. the Deputy Minister is now including conditions regarding the visitors of a domestic servant. If I cannot discuss that, I cannot discuss the clause at all; because that is all the clause does. It extends, in terms of the proclamation of the State President, section 226 of the principal Act to include the visitors of domestic servants. This is what this clause is all about. What is the effect of this extension? All it does, is to remove any semblance of any right to normal married life of domestic servants to have their husbands, for instance, visit and stay with them.

Now, Sir, I know the hon. the Deputy Minister considers that these are not, as a matter of fact, the superfluous appendages. These are people in employment. They are not unproductively employed, as the hon. the Deputy Minister does seem to think. These people release white women with skills and enable them to go out and contribute to the productive capacity of South Africa. The very fact that there are domestic servants doing these chores, enables white women to go out and do work. Therefore these are not unproductive people themselves and they are not superfluous appendages. Now they are to be forbidden by regulation, as the hon. member for Green Point pointed out, from having their own husbands come and visit them. What is the harm in this? Why does the Government have to regulate every facet of private life in South Africa? Why can they not leave well alone? That is what I want to know.

Because there are people like you in South Africa.

I don’t think that I have really done this country much harm. [Interjections.] If the hon. member broadened his mind and did a bit of travel abroad he might find that my very existence in this House does this country a lot of good. But let us leave that to one side. It is just possible that it is the existence of the hon. the Deputy Minister that might be doing South Africa a lot of harm. He is certainly doing a great deal of harm to the average householder in South Africa by suggesting now that they must make conditions even more difficult for their domestic employees.

The hon. the Deputy Minister may not approve of this, but he may find, as his colleague, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, found when he tried to deprive the electorate of Randburg of their domestic servants, that the people of South Africa—not just liberals like me—but the ordinary South African voter, does not approve of being legislated out of his domestic servants. He does not want it. Even the supporters of this Government in Randburg do not like it.

Order! The hon. member must come back to this clause now.

Yes, I am back to the Bill, Sir. The hon. the Minister is making it more difficult for people to employ domestic servants in terms of this clause. He said himself that because the employer was not able to cope with the demands of domestic servants— they have their friends and husbands visit them and stay overnight—he was taking super powers to stop this from above. As I say, I think this is unnecessary in law. There is more than enough power already given to the Police to arrest trespassers. I think it is a mean little clause that the hon. the Minister is introducing.

Now, Sir, he talked glibly about the half day off per week—“minstens” he said—that employers ought to give their employees. Therefore he said, they can have all their recreation with their friends in their own areas. I wonder if he knows what this half day off per week means. Has he any idea of the time it takes for the average domestic servant to get back to his own area, to catch a bus into town, to take a train out to the township, either to walk a long way or take another bus before he even gets home? In the end, this half day per week boils down to a miserable hour or two spent at home, part of which is devoted, I can assure the hon. the Deputy Minister, to their own domestic chores, to doing shopping for the household and ever having a little bit of normal family life with their husband and children. Now where are these opportunities for ordinary social intercourse on this half day off per week? Does the hon. the Minister not have any idea of the reality of the situation? I would like him to spend one day in the shoes of an ordinary domestic servant in South Africa.

He will get the sack!

I do not think he was one of the gentlemen who took a pride in doing his own washing up, as the Minister of Bantu Administration and the Minister of Health did at one stage. They may know what their capabilities extend to, but as far as I am concerned the hon. the Deputy Minister does not begin to appreciate just what it means to a servant to have to travel back home before she can enjoy any of the ordinary amenities of social life. As I said before, legally the Minister does not need this clause and he does not need it from any other point of view either. I do not believe the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point goes far enough. I think this should apply equally to domestic servants, whether they be in flats or in houses. Most blocks of flats have superintendents who are supposed to keep an eye on the domestic servants in the block, and as far as I am concerned I am going to vote against this clause in toto.

I want to start with what the hon. member for Salt River said. What his amendment amounts to is that the proclamation has to lay down the conditions regarding undesirable or illegal visitors. Now, in the first place, who are illegal visitors? Surely there has to be a definition in the Act for laying down who illegal visitors are. We all know that illegal visitors are people who offend against the Act, but in terms of the Act as it stands such a visitor may remain there for 90 days. One cannot determine the commencement of that period of 90 days, which makes this period virtually unlimited and which makes it impossible to prove that he is there illegally or that he has been there for longer than 90 days. Therefore it will not nay to use the word “illegal” here. “Onwenslik” is a word we do not know: it simply means “undesirable”. Who is “undesirable”? This is a very loose term and a definition will have to be included in the Act to define an undesirable person. Consequently we cannot write it into this legislation and for that reason I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Salt River.

I now come to the hon. member for Green Point. I may say that he was so sweet-spoken and waxed so sentimental that one was practically moved to tears, but I do not know why he became so sentimental and sad. He asked me, in the first place, what kind of regulations I envisaged. Of course, I may say to him that at the moment I do not envisage any regulations, because the Minister of Community Development will be the person who will issue the regulations; that will be in his hands, and not in my hands. What kind of regulations he will issue will be in his hands, but the hon. member asked me what I envisaged. I told him the time might have arrived, for example, when visitors should not stay overnight; it might be unnecessary for them to stay overnight if they lived near by. We may say that they may not come to stay there without a permit. These are the kind of things which may be contained in the regulations, but I am not saying they will. Therefore I do not know why the hon. member elaborated on this matter.

I now come to his amendment. He now wants to restrict this only to servants in flats who receive visitors, but he does not want to extend it to visitors of servants in private dwellings. Let me take as an example the Northern Suburbs of Cape Town. As the hon. member knows, there are very few complexes of flats in the Northern Suburbs but we know that the police have already issued the very warning that conditions in private backyards in those residential areas in particular are such that there is a flocking together of visitors, or so-called visitors, of servants. Yesterday I mentioned an example why we could not accept this amendment either as private dwellings were the very places at which these difficulties arose. Perhaps one private owner does not care how many visitors his servant receives on the premises and there may be a whole congregation of visitors. We even know of cases where a shebeen was kept in the backyard and the owner simply did not care; he put up with it, but it offends the neighbours and it is not a good thing that this should happen. Yesterday I also mentioned to him the example of a domestic servant who said, “I shall be your domestic servant, but if you are unable to accommodate my husband and children here as well, I cannot come to work for you.” And that entire family lived there for more than a year. It is an impossible task to pinpoint the beginning and end of this period of 90 days, and these are the matters about which the police are concerned. That is why they are asking for more effective control. I think I have now elaborated sufficiently on this matter.

I want to say to the hon. member for Houghton that I am of the opinion that this House no longer pays much attention to her stories. We have become tired of these, I may almost call them, nonsensical stories of our cruelty and cold-heartedness which we get from the Progressive Party time after time. She may go on talking; she is like a cicada round our ears and nobody pays any attention any longer to those stale stories of the Progressive Party. We know we have to implement the Act, and to tell us that we are cruel and intolerant achieves nothing. I want to make her understand this very clearly and very well, and I am not going to pay much attention to the unkind remarks she made here this afternoon either. There is no need for me to dwell any longer on what was said by the hon. member for Houghton. I may just say that the police once executed a raid in her own backyard and as from that time she has always been resentful of the police. [Interjections.] At the moment the position is that some domestic servants do not live in separate quarters; they live in rooms in certain houses. The visitors of the servants also come into those houses and there is a mixing of the races. We are very well aware that the hon. member for Houghton wants a mixing of the races in South Africa, but we do not want that. However, I am not going to pay any more attention to her and therefore I am not going to give her a further reply.

You are always personal.

I may just say that we do not envisage restricting bona fide visitors. We only want to be in the position to round up non-bona fide visitors, the people who come there to live and not the people who come there to pay a visit, but those who abuse this section as it stands. I should like to make the position very clear to hon. members so that they may understand what it is about. Subsection (1) of section 26 provides that a disqualified person, one who is not allowed in that group area, may not live or occupy any premises in that group area. Subsection (2) makes provision for certain exceptions and grants certain exemptions; it grants four exemptions. Paragraph (a) mentions a bona fide employee of the State or of a staturory body. They are exempted. Paragraph (b) of subsection (2) refers to bona fide visitors. What they are granted is blank exemption. They may come to that area as bona fide visitors. Paragraph (c) refers to domestic servants; they are exempted and paragraph (d) refers to bona fide patients in hospitals and similar institutions. The domestic servants, however, are only exempted after a proclamation has been issued in respect of them by which they are exempted, and that proclamation states the conditions on which they are exempted. But such exemptions do not affect the visitors as the visitors are exempted by law. In the proclamation we cannot grant the visitors similar exemption as that granted to domestic servants. In their case we have the right in subsection (3) to impose conditions by proclamation, but not in respect of the visitors. Consequently it is now necessary for us to amend this Act in such a way that we may also impose the necessary conditions by proclamation as far as the visitors of domestic servants are concerned. In other words, in future we shall be able to treat domestic servants and visitors alike. This is the only thing we are envisaging. Visitors will still be allowed, but in terms of the regulations the visitor will probably have to have a permit to pay a visit in any group area in which he is a disqualified person.

I just want to react to one or two aspects of the reply of the hon. the Deputy Minister. His reasoning for the non-exclusion of private dwellings is certainly a most extraordinary one. Apparently now regulations are necessary so as to protect a private individual who wishes to employ a servant who may say, “I will only come and work for you if my husband can stay with me”. The Minister says that these regulations can now be used to ensure that the employer can then say, “I am sorry, your husband cannot stay with you and you must come and work without your husband”. Surely that is extraordinary reasoning. Sir, that is not controlling visitors. We on this side of the House are not prepared to accept the reasoning of the hon. the Deputy Minister that this regulation which is represented to us as being necessary to deal with the problem of locations in the sky and that sort of problem, is now apparently to be utilized to deal with vast areas of single residential dwellings, as in the northern areas of Cape Town, for example. That was not the purpose for which the Minister introduced the Bill at the Second Reading. He has not given us any reason why the amendment I have moved should not be accepted. As I indicated during the Second Reading, this amendment is a fundamental one so far as we on this side of the House are concerned.

Amendment proposed by Mr. L. G. Murray put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—38: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bronkhorst, H. I.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

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

Noes—98: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha. L. I.; Botha, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis. A. H.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. I.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. I.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan. R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser. P. C.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. I.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. H. M. Timoney put and negatived (Official Opposition and Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—101: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet. C.; De Wet, M. W.; Diederichs, N.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Haak, J. F. W.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heystek, J.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Morrison, G. de V.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe. S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—39: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill. W. G.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

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

Clause, as printed, accordingly agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

I want to focus attention on a very important aspect in the Fishcor annual report. Let me, incidentally, focus hon. members’ attention on the neat presentation of this annual report, with a photo on its cover of the project which was completed by Fishcor at the Berg River mouth last year. In content this annual report is perhaps the most rewarding of all the annual reports already published by Fishcor. The section of this report to which I specifically want to refer is that dealing with research. According to this an amount of about R444,000 was spent on a few facets of marine research. Firstly, there is maarsbanker/pilchard research; then experimental tuna fishing; then research in connection with shrimp and prawn fisheries; and, fourthly, the cultivation of oysters. In passing I just want to ask the Minister what the difference is between the research which Fishcor is doing here and ordinary marine research. I am not clear about what the difference is. As far as I know Fishcor is not usually concerned with research. Therefore I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could tell me what the difference is.

However, I want to restrict myself to the cultivation of oysters. In this annual report it was announced that the first consignment of oysters from the oyster breeding farms in the Knysna lagoon would be made available this season to lovers of this seafood. This is a very great achievement. Here we have the first results of calculated marine farming in South Africa, if I may use this term. Therefore I do not want to let this opportunity pass without referring to this achievement of Fishcor. It is not clear to me whether we should speak here of an oyster “breeding farm” or an oyster “nursery”. It is a scientific fact that the oyster can change its sex at will. If this could happen in this House the hon. members for Houghton and Wynberg would perhaps, on many days, unexpectedly find themselves in the majority in their battle for the emancipation of women. I have no certainty in this connection. This is a new science which is in the process of developing and time will tell whether one should speak of an oyster “breeding farm” or an oyster “nursery”.

In any case, the breeding of oysters is actually a very old culture. The Romans already knew about the breeding or cultivation of oysters in their day. In Holland this culture dates back to the year 1850. It is also a well-known fact that during the past few years, particularly in America and Japan, good results have been furnished by this facet of marine farming. I think that in America last year the artificial breeding of oysters was already yielding more than 15 million dollars. In South Africa this is not an industry which is only now yielding its first results either; repeated efforts were made in the past to furnish the necessary momentum to this industry. It is a scientific fact or, if I may use the term an historic fact, that on two occasions, i.e. in the year 1673 and subsequently in the year 1676 oysters were brought to Table Bay from our country’s south coast to see whether an oyster breeding farm or nursery could not be started. The first efforts in this connection were not very rewarding. In the year 1894 a second effort was made to import oysters by air to South Africa from abroad. This consignment was planted at the mouth of the Berg River where this beautiful project, which is pictured here on the front page of the Fishcor annual report, was completed. A portion of the consignment, which was brought from abroad, was planted at the Langebaan lagoon. But there no results were forthcoming either. In the year 1913, again, 4,000 indigenous oysters which were collected along our country’s south coast were also brought to this area to be bred artificially. This attempt also evidenced only initial success and subsequently it once more petered out. A long time elapsed after that before another attempt was made. In 1946 the late Mr. H. G. Bright went to Holland to survey the position there, where they were engaged in this artificial cultivation. A little later, in 1948, research was done to determine how suitable the Knysna vicinity would be for such an undertaking. Mr. Willem Dort, a very well-known Hollander, who kept an oyster breeding farm which contained these oysters, was brought to Knysna. He actually began the breeding farm in that vicinity. In 1949 a second attempt was made to import oysters by air and to take them to Knysna. On that occasion about 10,000 oysters were brought from France after the well-known Dr. Koringa had been to select and to collect the oysters for this consignment. They were subsequently brought to an area in the vicinity of Knysna. About 10 per cent of this consignment of oysters died. Since we have such a great variety of oysters in South Africa, one may ask: why endeavour to bring consignments of oysters for cultivation to South Africa from abroad? It is a wellknown fact that the European oyster actually has a much lovelier shape than the South African oyster. It has a soft shell and actually contains more meat than the South African oyster. The European oyster is also more suitable for breeding or cultivation, because it is available for the market within a period of three years after it is planted. On the other hand the South African oyster is only available for the market after the passage of five or six years. That is the reason why repeated endeavours have been made to bring oysters for cultivation to South Africa from abroad.

The next important step in the development pattern of oyster breeding in South Africa took place in 1953. After Fishcor had gained a 50 per cent interest in the Knysna undertaking, a breeding farm or nursery was started in that vicinity. Dr. Koringa, the world-famous expert in this field, then came from Holland to survey the conditions here and to give advice. He spent about six weeks here and his report about what could be done in the Knysna vicinity was an excellent one.

To cut a long story short, I think that with This announcement, which is made in this Fishcor annual report, South Africa has come to the threshold of a situation where new momentum must be given in the future, through the medium of Fishcor, to this particular industry which has now proved that we in South Africa can continue successfully with this oyster cultivation. I now want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister that we should begin immediately with another and similar attempt, i.e. an oyster breeding farm or nursery in the Langebaan Lagoon. Recently a report appeared, under the aegis of the Department of Planning, which investigated all possible facets of future dispensations in respect of this beautiful long lagoon. In the report it was recommended, inter alia, that efforts should be made to begin a fish hatchery in this long lagoon. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, last night I referred to the fact that in 1902 a Select Committee had been appointed by the old Cape Parliament to consider a report and a plan submitted by an engineer, Mr. C. W. Methven. His report was considered in considerable detail by the Select Committee. One of the witnesses called by that Select Committee was another engineer who was chief of the then Public Works Department of the Cape Colony and his name was Mr. W. Westhofen. He made certain criticisms of the plans put forward by Mr. Methven. He said that the Methven plan provided for 5½ acres of water at Kalk Bay at high tide and 4 acres of water at low tide. He maintained that those figures were inaccurate and according to certain depths he had had taken in the harbour area two and an eighth acre would be of one fathom depth, one and three-quarter acres of 1½ fathoms, 1¼ acres of two fathoms, only three-quarters of an acre of 2½ fathoms, which is a reasonable depth, and only a quarter acre of water at the depth of three fathoms. He even maintained that under Mr. Methven’s plan, accommodation would only be provided in the harbour for some 30 boats and he did not believe that that was sufficient for the requirements of the expanding industry. He maintained that unless a harbour was built big enough to accommodate at least 200 boats, no scheme should be proceeded with. He came forward with a plan of his own to the Select Committee. This is the plan I should like to recommend to the Minister and his department for their consideration. It appears in the Select Committee report, volume 2 of 1902. I shall only be too happy to discuss it with the hon. the Minister and his department at an appropriate time. Now, Mr. Westhofen’s plan provided for 8½ acres of water at high tide and 3½ acres of water at low tide. The 3½ acres of water at low tide would provide sufficient berthing accommodation for no fewer than a hundred boats. The gross cost of Mr. Westhofen’s scheme was to be £76,000 whereas the cost of Mr. Methven’s scheme was to be £45,000 at that time. If we exclude however from Westhofen’s scheme the area he proposed should be reclaimed from the seashore, and valuing it as he did, at £2,000 per acre, the toal scheme would have cost £65,000 in those days. Accommodation would have been provided for 220 boats.

Now, to cut a long story short, owing to the financial stringency at the time of the First World War, the smaller harbour proposed by Mr. Methven was built at Kalk Bay and not the one proposed by Mr. Westhofen. This was done in spite of the fact that the Select Committee of 1902 had chosen Mr. Westhofen’s plan in preference to that of Mr. Methven. The foundation stone of the harbour was laid in 1919 by the then Minister of Railways, Mr. Hull. The harbour has not been a success, because there was never enough berthing space, and there is not even now enough deep water to accommodate sufficient small boats at low tide. The first allegation is proved by the fact that in the middle 1930’s, an additional wooden quay in the middle of the harbour had to be provided for additional berthing space.

The question arises whether there are any other sites in False Bay which are more suitable for a harbour for small boats than Kalk Bay. Mr. Methven and Mr. Westhofen, at the turn of the century, were of the opinion that Kalk Bay, although small, was the only suitable site between Simonstown and Muizen-berg for a harbour. In more recent years there have been suggestions, some emanating from the Divisional Council, a local authority with an interest in this area, that Miller’s Point should be converted into a small boat harbour. I want to submit to the hon. the Minister that that area is not at all suitable for the reasons given by Mr. Methven in his criteria for choosing Kalk Bay as the most suitable site. There are, for example, no suitable facilities at Miller’s Point at the moment. There are no slipways, there is no direct Railway communication and even the road communication is very distant from the rest of the Peninsula. Furthermore, there is no quarry stone readily available at Miller’s Point for the building of a harbour. Many engineers with knowledge of the sea and the building of harbours, are of the opinion that it would be completely unsuitable to build a small boat harbour at Miller’s Point. That brings me back to the position at Kalk Bay. Again using Mr. Methven’s criteria for what is the most suitable site for a harbour. I find that Mr. Westhofen’s scheme provided sufficient space for 200 boats. That, I should like to submit, is enough for our requirements in the Peninsula. Secondly, his scheme provided sufficient depth of 3½ acres of water to accommodate at least 100 of those boats at low tide. Thirdly, there are already slipways at Kalk Bay and there are also facilities for nets and gear as well as for the landing of fish. Fourthly, there is an adequate and a direct Railway link to Kalk Bay. Lastly, the existing entrance has proved to be a safe entrance to the harbour and the entrance proposed by Mr. Westhofen is an entrance of a similar type. There is no reason to suppose that it would not be just as safe at all times and at all tides.

The Question is whether the present time is appropriate. I submit the time is appropriate for the building of extensions to Kalk Bay Harbour. First of all, there is a public demand for facilities. Secondly, there is at the moment, ample parking space available within the harbour area. Thirdly, a tunnel is to be built next year through the mountains above Kalk Bay Harbour, which should not only provide the filling for a harbour, but also all the rocks which might be required for a breakwater. A new access to the harbour is being investigated by the City Council at the moment. For all these reasons, I submit that the time has never been more ripe for the Minister and his department to give urgent consideration to this suggestion that the Kalk Bay harbour facilities should be extended and that the plan and the report of Mr. Westhofen of 1902 should be given every consideration. People who have local knowledge, believe that the scheme can be put into effect and will be the most successful one of all of those considered so far.

Finally, I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to give it his personal attention and to ask his department to consider the matter. I hope he will thereafter come to Parliament next year with the first amount placed on the Estimates for the building of a greater Kalk Bay Harbour.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday evening, through the mouth of the hon. the Minister, we gratefully took cognizance of the progress which is being made in respect of the establishment of industries in the border areas at our Bantu homelands. This is basically essential to the implementation of the policy of separate development of this side of the House. We also gratefully took cognizance of the economic boom in South Africa to-day. Figuratively speaking it can be said that, in the economic sphere, and with the establishment of industries in South Africa, we are bursting at the seams. On this occasion I actually want to say, with a tinge of regret, and I do so without any recriminations, that as far as the industrial development in South Africa to-day is concerned, it is a recognized fact that the Orange Free State is actually the Cinderella province in South Africa. Even the fantastic development in respect of gold which took place in the Free State, and which, for almost a decade and a half, made such a gigantic contribution to South Africa’s foreign exchange earnings, could do nothing to bring about greater industrial development in the Free State, and particularly in the Free State gold fields. It is tragically ironic that the gold coffers of South Africa are filled from the Free State soil on a scale unprecedented in the history of South Africa. And yet the Free State is, as of old, the province which has to struggle to make ends meet in almost every sphere. What I have said in respect of the Orange Free State as a whole is amply true in respect of the Free State gold fields, particularly of its key town, Welkom. Hon. members know that Welkom is 21 years old to-day, and yet if the mining industry were to come to a halt, with no more gold to be mined, those approximately 100,000 white inhabitants, who are settled there today, would witness a tragic day. With the technological development in mining to-day, that evil day is perhaps not nearly as far from the door as we may think at this stage. If, when that day dawns, Welkom and its neighbouring towns have no economic leg to stand on other than gold mining alone, you may safely believe that it will be nothing but a disastrous day, not only for that part of the Orange Free State, but also for South Africa as a whole. At present, with a few exceptions, commerce and industry are actually satellites to the gold-centred economy. They are few in number and let me say very honestly and sincerely here this afternoon that when gold breathes its last, the industries which are established there to-day, will also vanish like mist before the morning sun. It can never be said that the town councils of that area, the chambers of commerce and other bodies do not realize the importance of the fact that that area cannot only be established on the gold mining industry, but should also be established on secondary industries. The town councils of that area and the responsible bodies are busy from day to day in order to find incentives for the establishment of industries in that part of the Free State. Here I want to say to the Government’s credit that we cannot do otherwise on this occasion than to express our sincere gratitude as well, especially to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs who took the trouble a few years ago to meet the respective bodies in that area and to discuss their problems with them. In particular I should also like to thank the hon. the Minister of Planning very sincerely for taking the time last year to meet the different bodies there. The fact remains that since physical planning and decentralization of industries have for such a long time been magic words in South Africa, I am compelled to ask when something is going to be done in this connection for the Free State and its gold fields, which need it so bitterly. Since I am touching upon this matter with so much seriousness, it would be clearer to the hon. the Minister and other hon. members of the House if I quoted a few figures about what the position in Welkom is, and about what is at stake for Welkom alone in connection with this important matter. An amount of R600 million, if not more, was invested and spent on mining development in Welkom. On all facets of services such as access roads, rail, air and road transport, buildings, etc., the State has already spent an approximately equal amount. The total valuation of taxable and non-taxable buildings in the town is calculated at more than R100 million. The ratio of taxable to non-taxable assets is R99 million to R24 million, which indicates that the State and private interests have both taken large slices of Welkom. The investments of Welkom’s town council itself amount to about R27 million. With this picture of a town which, in truth, has no other refuge but the fact-declining asset of gold, industrial development is therefore of the greatest importance. I venture to say that industrial development for this area is priority number one. Since we are concerned about this whole set-up, it has become important for me to ask what tangible steps the Government can take to ensure the future position of that area. It is all very well to speak of the physical planning of the country and the decentralization of industries, but how does the gold field region fit into those plans? It is fine that Welkom supplies about 16 per cent of the free world’s gold, but when our labours can no longer sweat the gold out, must that region then be thrown to the wolves in its entirety? The fact that our secondary industries must be enticed to the Free State, and especially to that province’s gold fields, makes a policy of State-supported and State-guided decentralization absolutely essential. I want to state very clearly that it must be done within the framework of the National Party’s policy. That goes without saying.

When we speak of a gold mine it is very difficult to determine and to make an accurate calculation of what the lifespan of such a mine is. However, I may point out to you that a gold mine is a hazardous undertaking. The expectations which are sometimes cherished for such a gold mine are not always realized. In this connection I should like to quote what Mr. Harry Oppenheimer said on occasion in Welkom in 1964:

Since the gold fields have meant so much to the State coffers over the years, and are still going to mean so much in the years ahead, and since the gold fields have meant so much, and are still going to mean so much, to the country in foreign earnings, it would be unfair to that area and its people, when the goose stops laying its golden eggs, to adopt the attitude of “When things were going well, you did a great deal for the country, and now that you can no longer do so, it is all over and done with; go and fight your own battle”. On the same occasion Mr. Oppenheimer said:

I do not want to bore you with the benefits which the town councils of Welkom and the surrounding parts have offered in their efforts to have industries established there. Suffice to say that everything humanly possible is being done to have industries established in that area. The most important question that I want to ask the hon. the Minister this afternoon is what the Government intends to do, especially since it is taking the idea of decentralization even further. For border industries, which are absolutely essential to the implementation of the policy of separate development, certain incentive measures have been established. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am sure that the hon. member for Welkom will excuse me if I do not follow him up in what he has just said. However, I want to follow up on what certain hon. members opposite have said. By way of criticism some of them tried to ridicule and to discredit the policy of the establishment of industries and border industries. In general the criticism was very superficial and very contradictory. The hon. member for Pinetown expressed his concern at what the cost per worker would be. However, he was also concerned about the fact that the tempo of development had decreased over the past year. The hon. member calculated that, to date, it has cost R5,815 per employee in the border industries. He then calculated what it would cost in the future and used precisely the same figures. The hon. member took no cognizance of the diversity of future construction costs. For many different reasons, which I do not want to go into now, I believe this to be a completely wrong estimate. If the hon. member were to have calculated further he would have seen, had he taken the cost for 1968, that the costs had already decreased. The costs are now R5,470 per employee.

What figures are those?

The same figures that the hon. member used. These figures are also in the report. I now pertinently want to ask the hon. member for Pinetown whether he can tell me what it costs per employee in the existing industrial areas within the white heartland. What does it cost to employ a worker there? I challenge him to prove that it costs more in the border areas than in the established industrial areas. I am not saying that it does cost more, but I am saying that even if it did cost more this Government would be prepared to accept this, because for us it means the salvation of white civilization, being a positive step towards the establishment of further separate development and social separation. It also affords the Bantu the opportunity to live within his own homeland, to create growth points there out of his own economic earnings and also to create his own middle class for the absorption of the increase in the Bantu population.

The hon. member for Point once more came along here with his wild accusations. He said that the Government was applying State socialism and that our whole policy was just one big bluff. In the first place I want to tell him that, if he uses the term “State socialism” in that sense, he is bluffing himself that he knows what it means. I want to ask him to read more about State socialism so that he can use the term correctly. But if it is a fact that during that period, from 1960 to 1968, 54,000 Bantu workers were employed in those areas, and that in recent years the tempo was maintained at 5,000 per year, and if one considers this in terms of five persons per family, then 270,000 Bantu have been kept within their homelands; and if that is bluffing I want to tell him that we can safely go on bluffing like this. This is a brilliant way of bluffing the public. I want to tell him that he need not concern himself about his white identity or his survival. He must merely trust the National Party; We shall save him. It will perhaps not take place as quickly as he thinks it should, but what has already taken place is nevertheless an exceptional achievement.

I now also want to refer to the hon. member for Parktown. He said this policy of ours was an ideological policy without any economic foundation. I agree that the policy was inspired by the ideology of separate development, but I say that it actually has an economic basis. The selection of each border industry was made with thorough cognizance of all the economic factors. The establishment of an infrastructure was calculated with thoroughness. [Interjections.] This policy is applicable to industries which are transferable and not location-orientated, and the financial assistance given to those industries is given on a very sound economic basis. I do not think that this policy results in any higher production costs. There may, it is true, be a shift in the emphasis of production costs, but the total costs will finally not be much greater.

Then the hon. member for King William’s Town came along and made a very strange statement. He said that the main reason why the United Party was against border industries was that they were being established alongside an area which would soon become an independent state. Well, if that is his reason then he should have a complaint against the establishment of the Republic of South Africa, against the fact that Pietersburg is situated where it is. Then he must shift the country’s borders, but I do not know what he wants to put in the intervening space. But in the same breath in which he was complaining about industries being established along another country’s borders, he pleaded that the new Iscor be established in the Berlin area. Surely this is altogether contradictory. These are the clumsiest arguments I have ever heard.

While we are speaking about Iscor, I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate the Minister and the Government on the choice of the site for the establishment of the third Iscor, and I just want to refer to the ridiculous statement which was made here by the hon. member for South Coast about an alleged leakage of information. Again, this was merely done in order to look for trouble and to sow suspicion, because to my knowledge there was no leakage. I do not think that the public of South Africa and the business people are that stupid. They could determine where the possible places would be and they possibly went along and speculated at various places, but I do not believe that there was any leakage. [Time expired.]

Listening to the hon. member for Pietersburg trying to justify border industries on economic grounds, makes me think that in view of his background and training he must have been talking with his tongue in his cheek, because if he reads the report on the decentralization of industries and the granting of relief to these industries, it shows up the fallacy of his argument. We also listened to the hon. member for Welkom. We on this side of course have a considerable amount of sympathy with his problem of the dying mines, and if the hon. member had been in the House some years ago he would have known of the pleas made by the former member for Benoni for some form of relief as regards the dying mines. But we now have the Minister of Planning taking a hand in that, he is restricting industry as far as the areas in which the dying mines are located, and industry can only be built up in those areas subject to restrictions in regard to Bantu labour. But he and his party have been hoisted by their own petard, because when you come to Welkom with its possible dying mines and one looks at the map of the Free State, where are you going to create a border industry to assist Welkom? Are you going to bring a large Bantu population nearby, or are you going to group them together? As far as decentralization is concerned, you would have to bring a very large Bantu population within the vicinity of Welkom in order to make it work. I would love to hear from the hon. member for Welkom how he hopes to make this work.

Now I should like to deal with the Western Cape. We are slightly different from the other areas. We have this peculiarity here where we are losing our labour. The hon. member for King William’s Town was complaining about the labour being removed to his area from other areas like the Western Cape and the difficulties they are having there. He asked for something to be done to employ the Bantu there, but we are in the opposite position. The Bantu are being moved out of this area, and what is more, we have the added disadvantage that the Government in its enthusiasm for border industry is encouraging industry to move away from here as well. So we have the two evils. We have the removal of Bantu labour and we have the removal of industries from the Western Cape. It is interesting to read the report of the permanent committee on the location of industry and decentralization. You find that 99 per cent of the report refers to border industries and there is very little mention of the Coloureds. They do mention the subject; I will give them their due, but their Border industrial development points are the East London, King William’s Town, Queenstown, Ladysmith, Colenso, Empangeni, Richard’s Bay, Pietersburg, Tzaneen, Phalaborwa, Brits, Rustenburg, Zeerust and Mafeking. I do not see Welkom mentioned there, but there is nothing at all about the Western Cape. We are of course pleased to hear that the Minister has at last made up his mind on the siting of the third Iscor, at Newcastle. It is probably the best site in the circumstances for internal consumption of steel, but certainly not for export. The position all over the world is that these large steel manufacturing units are now being located at the coast. The Minister comes from the Western Cape and I am surprised that he did not think of the Western Cape or the North-Western Cape as the sites for this industry. It might be argued that there are difficulties in regard to transporting the ore and probably labour, but that could be overcome. If the Japanese can transport ore for thousands of miles and still sell steel at world competitive prices, we in this country could do the same. It would have been a great fillip to the Western Cape or the North-West Cape if we could have some such industry located here. We probably have the largest natural harbour in South Africa at Saldanha Bay. It is waiting for development at a fraction of the cost of Richard’s Bay. They say it lacks fresh water, but the Minister of Water Affairs could overcome that situation. It probably has the most favourable shipbuilding site in the country, but all attempts to establish a first-class shipbuilding industry at Saldanha have been killed at birth.

As I said, in the report of the committee on the decentralization of industry, I was pleased to see that they were assisting those factories which were employing Coloured labour. We in the Western Cape have seen some of our biggest factories moved and shortly we will see one of the largest motor units moving to the north, probably to a border industry. Up to now the Government has done very little to assist the retention of this large industry, which employs some 2,000 Coloureds. We should have some of the assistance referred to in this report, which says that since the Government decided in March, 1965, to extend border industry advantages to other decentralized areas with substantial labour surpluses of racial groups other than Bantu, assistance has been given to two new white undertakings, three new Indian undertakings and one new white undertaking based on Coloured labour. Sir, they are looking at it and I want to make a request to the Minister to go into the question as far as decentralized industry is concerned and to offer to the Western Cape the same facilities that he is offering to the border industries. If the Government is sincere in its policy of moving the Bantu from the Western Cape and moving the Coloureds into the Western Cape, then they must offer us the same facilities that they are offering to border industries.

You will never attract industry for the utilization of Coloured labour unless the Government gives some measure of assistance or encouragement. When you find enormous sums of money some R52 million spent by the I.D.C., on the development of border industries, and you see the pittance spent on the development of industry in the Western Cape, then one gets rather a shock. Added to that are the facilities and the relief handed out to factories that go to the border areas. I think any manufacturer would be foolish to refuse the opportunities afforded by the I.D.C. and the Government; they would be foolish if they did not accept the offers made by the Government. But it not only affects the area concerned; it affects the workers. Workers are displaced. I know of one factory where, if it is moved, something like 100 white families will have to be moved to another area. If one sees the big motor factories being put up outride Pretoria, not in a border area but close to a big Bantu township, and one sees adjacent to the township the houses that are put up for white workers, apparently with Government assistance, one realizes how the Government has lent backwards to assist in moving these industries near to the border areas. Think of the ridiculous situation of declaring Rosslyn a border area. I believe the location is something like 28 miles from the centre of Pretoria. Here an area, which is adjacent to Pretoria, has been created a border industrial area and all sorts of facilities and rebates have been offered to industries established there. This seems to be a shocking state of affairs.

And now you want it in Cape Town.

I would like it in Cape Town, for the Coloureds.

What is the difference?

Well, we would like this shocking state of affairs here too. We would like the same facilities to be offered to industries in Cape Town. We would like to see the same facilities offered to industries within 12 miles of Cape Town or a bit closer. If the Government can hand out these facilities to industrialists at Rosslyn and Brits, then we should be given the same facilities here in Cape Town for the sake of the Coloured population. At the present time large factories in the Cape are moving to the north and I would like to see the Government encourage these industries to remain here. If the same facilities which are made available in border industrial areas are offered to these local industries, then they will remain here. Sir, I was interested to hear the plea made here by the hon. member for Moorreesburg for the establishment of an oyster industry. We are alt pleading for industrial development in the Western Cape. We want to get rid of the Transvaal complex that this Government has. We have planes flying over here direct to South America; they are not even aware of our existence here in the Cape. The trouble is that the Government has a Transvaal complex. They look no further than Pretoria or the Witwatersrand or the border areas. We want them to start looking at the mother city, the home of real mature thought. [Time expired.]

The hon. member, who has now just resumed his seat, apparently suffers from a tremendous feeling of inferiority.

A provincial complex.

That is why he referred here to a so-called Transvaal complex which the Government allegedly suffers from. I would say that the hon. member suffers from all kinds of other complexes and is therefore not competent to make this kind of accusation against the Government. In the course of his speech he referred to a great many matters, and he has the right to plead for things which, here in the Western Cape and especially in Cape Town, are of importance to him. But at the beginning of his speech he reproached the hon. the Minister, who was himself a Western Province man, for not having looked sufficiently well after the interests of the Western Cape with the location of the new Iscor. Sir, what has happened here with the location of the third Iscor actually reveals the impartiality and the fair-mindedness of the Minister concerned and of the Government in their handling of these matters. They are not doing it in a spirit of over-eagerness, for the purpose of constantly pocketing benefits for their area. They are trying to serve the country as a whole in a very positive way.

Sir, this afternoon I want to speak about the small industries division of the I.D.C., but before I come to that I should like to make use of the opportunity to congratulate the I.D.C. on its annual report, on its exceptional neatness of presentation and its very useful content. But I notice from the annual report that as far as the small industries division is concerned, only 15 applications were approved this year, six of which were subsequently withdrawn. On the one hand this should cause one concern, although if one takes note of the basis on which this assistance is granted, one sees that assistance to small industries takes place within the framework of the I.D.C. Act which provides that the corporation shall encourage, expedite and continue with industrial development in the Republic, in accordance with sound commercial principles, by the financing of new industries and industrial undertakings, as well as schemes for the extension, better organization, modernization and more efficient implementation of the activities of existing industries and industrial undertakings. If one reads this one realizes that, although only 15 applications were approved, one ought actually to be grateful that this principle is applied because a greater measure of protection is thereby afforded to both those who receive the assistance as well as to the I.D.C.’s interests. But as far as I am concerned, there are two shortcomings which I should like to point out.

The I.D.C. Act provides that assistance be granted in terms of sound commercial principles, and then additional provision is made for “the financing of new industries and industrial undertakings”. My problem is that in practice one finds that, as far as the establishment of new small industries is concerned, assistance has thusfar not been granted. This is a shortcoming, in my opinion. Thusfar the granting of assistance has only been aimed at existing undertakings which needed help, and my plea this afternoon is that in future greater consideration should also be given to the establishment of new industries as far as this particular group is concerned. The second shortcoming to which I want to refer is that only financial assistance is given to small industries. In other words, the undertaking receives assistance in the form of rands and cents, but it does not receive the necessary information about how to spend those rands and cents to the greatest advantage, not only for itself but also in the interest of the country. I want to ask whether the time has not come for consideration to be given, by means of the I.D.C., to the granting of assistance on the three management levels; i.e. that not only money should be provided to extend an industry or to establish it, but that the necessary knowledge should be supplied, to the people who need assistance, on the three management levels, i.e. the financial, the technical and the marketing levels.

In practice one finds that these small industries that we are speaking about are undertakings which are actually under the management of one person. With the best will in the world that one person cannot command all the necessary knowledge to make a success of that undertaking on the three management levels. We are blinded by the financial assistance which we supply and in the meantime we are letting that undertaking go under, not as a result of lack of money, but as a result of lack of knowledge which that undertaking needs in order to be expanded into a large and powerful undertaking on the three management levels. Under these circumstances I wonder whether the hon. the Minister, through the I.D.C., would not give attention to this matter. I do not foresee that this help should only be supplied to borrowers; I foresee that it can be granted to anyone who wants to make use of it. I do not foresee the assistance as a free service, but that people will have to pay for it. It can become a paying undertaking; it need not cost the State anything. The State must merely take the initiative in making the necessary knowledge available and then all will be well. I want to make a very serious plea to the hon. the Minister in this connection.

Sir, I think as soon as the hon. the Minister sees me rising to my feet, he will know which subject it is I wish to discuss with him. The subject, as he probably knows, is the question of the siting of the third Iscor. I want to say right away that Kimberley and the Northern Cape are many things, but they are not bad losers. I would like to wish the Newcastle and Natal people, luck in the selection of the site for the third Iscor. Sir, I have read the Minister’s statement with considerable interest: I have studied it, and I think even the Minister must have had some qualms of conscience when he made the final decision, because I see he did say, after mentioning all the various areas and regions, that so far as the Northern Cape was concerned this area had been considered and that it had the understanding and the sympathy of the Government. Sir, in public work, as you know, sympathy and understanding have no cash value. These are wonderful things; they can be handed out free, but they accomplish nothing. I would like the hon. the Minister to do me the courtesy of explaining to me what he actually means when he says that the amount of R83 million will be spent on a regional development basis, because he also mentions that 1,100 white people will be employed and 3,900 Bantu between Postmasburg and Sishen. I think we are entitled to ask him to explain how he thinks we will accomplish what he had in mind when he said that there would be secondary and tertiary industries accompanying this development between Postmasburg and Sishen. This year, as you know, Sir, is the centenary of the discovery of the first diamond—100 years ago. I do not think that the successive Governments of this country can take any pride in the neglect of the vast region to the west of Kimberley and of which Kimberley is the county capital or the county headquarters, as one might say, and on which the diamond industry was based. When the first diamond was found, Sir Richard Southey said in the old Cape Parliament: “This is the rock on which the foundations of the prosperity of South Africa will be built.” Sir, 100 years have gone by since then. In the Northern Cape we have this tremendous concentration of wealth in the shape of manganese, iron ore, asbestos, etc., and yet after 100 years we have failed to attract the interest of the Government. Here, Sir, I can speak with some authority because I have spent 25 years of my public career and life trying to persuade the Government to establish an iron and steel undertaking at Barkly West. I think the disappointing thing about the Minister’s statement regarding Newcastle, which economically has much to commend it but no more than the northern Cape region has, is the fact that he mentioned— which I think was rather a tragedy—this this decision had been made in terms of Government policy. Sir, when I listen to other speakers, particularly on the Government side, I get the impression that the Government’s policy comes first and that the people who live in these regions come a very bad second. I can say to the hon. member for Welkom that he will whistle for industry, if he expects it at Welkom, on a border industry basis. I see also in this report that the question of population is mentioned. During negotiations in which I have personally taken part, with deputations which I have led to a variety and succession of Ministers, we have always been told that the population of the area is not large enough and that there is no concentration of Bantu. You know, Sir, even in the case of the Vaal River in which the municipality of Kimberley was the first to interest itself by way of a weir, throwing back the Vaal River for a matter of 17 miles, the water has been taken out in the upper reaches and from the watershed of the Rand complex, which really is entitled to its share of the water in the Vaal Dam, and taken over to Pretoria. I am quite sure that, sooner or later, the complex at Brits, which incidentally is quite unjustified, will also receive water from the Vaal River. I can recall 50 years ago when as a small boy I heard about the Kromellen Boog scheme on the Vaal River. But in place of that the Vaal Dam was built; subsequently it was raised; then the Free State goldfields came on the scene and took water out of the Vaal River as well, so much so that eventually the Government built a dam, 30 or 40 years too late although it cannot ever be too late really, at Oppermans Drift, Bloem-hof. So we in the Northern Cape wonder what lies in store for us and what our future really will be. I have been on platforms together with the hon. the Minister and I have had the privilege of entertaining him. He knows what the feeling is of people in the Northern Cape about some form of government sponsored industry to give a fillip to the development which they feel is potentially there. However, we still go on waiting—100 years after the discovery of the foundation stone upon which the prosperity of South Africa was built.

I was in Kimberley on Saturday when the news about the siting of the third Iscor was made public. I want to tell the Minister and to place it on record, that nothing could have been a more shattering disappointment to that community, the triangle Kimberley-Postmasburg-Kuruman, than that news. I believe that the hon. the Minister might apply his mind to reassuring or explaining to these people that they are not entirely the stepchildren of the Republic but that they do share and can expect to share in the prosperity which we believe is coming. I ask the Minister to do this for me and to place on record what his thinking is about the development of this enormously rich region. Much mining has taken place in the Northern Cape. At one time, when the diamond industry in Kimberley appeared to come to an end because of the low value of diamonds, the late Sir Ernest Oppenheimer—tributes were paid here to his son, Harry—put the diamond industry again on a sound basis. Further discoveries have taken place, as the hon. the Minister well knows. Many other discoveries have been made, at Bellsbank, at the Finch, as well as in other parts of the Northern Cape, even into Botswana. To-day will be the last opportunity for me to talk on this subject because it is now a fait accompli as far as steelworks are concerned. [Time expired.]

I do not wish to interfere with the plea of the hon. member for Karoo for industry for Kimberley. We in Natal have been blessed with industrial development and we are very grateful for the fact that we are going to receive the third Iscor. We like to think that we have attracted those industries which we have, on merit.

But I want to deal with two other subjects on this Vote. The first one is the amount of R150,000 placed on the Estimates for combating pollution of our sea by oil or other matter. Now, Sir, we know that the amount allocated last year has been increased by R50,000. We do know that storage facilities are being provided at Durban to store dispersants for use if we should in fact have oil deposits on our coasts or beaches. But what we would like to know from the hon. the Minister is what plans he has for distribution of this dispersant to wherever it might be necessary, and what plans of action he has in mind in case this should be necessary. We must face the fact that there is now a greater possibility of pollution of our sea and our shores by oil because of one factor alone, namely that more and bigger ships are using the sea routes along our coast. We must also accept the fact that this has been affected by the Suez crisis. We might in future lose some of these ships because of a proposed overland middle East pipeline, which might, in fact, lessen the number of ships using the Cape route. But I think this is something in the distant future. What we have to deal with now, is something in the immediate present. We know that the Government is aware of this problem, because we have had certain scares and actual problems to deal with already. I think, too, that we are fortunate that whilst our coastline has to be used by these ships, the design of these ships is improving. The construction of these ships is being improved from day to day and from year to year. We have evidence of this in the fact that the Convention have decided to increase the load lines of these tankers. I also understand that there is a lowering of the insurance rates of these super tankers, which shows that more and more confidence is being placed in the improved building methods which are being employed. Nevertheless, I think it is just as well that we are constantly aware of the threat of pollution of our sea and our beaches by oil. It exists in other countries, too. But I think we must be sure that our defences are kept in a state of constant readiness. I would like the hon. the Minister to outline for us how he intends to cope with such an emergency, should it arise.

The next subject I want to deal with, is the question of the subsidization of the shipbuilding industry. I notice that the amount provided for subsidies has been increased from R600,000 last year to R1,830,000 this year. I think it is not sufficient just to provide increasing amounts for the subsidization of the shipbuilding industry. We want such an industry in this country, but I think we must be realistic about it. The first question I should like to ask the hon. the Minister, is the following. When the Norval Commission reported on the proposed establishment of the shipbuilding industry in South Africa, it reported that it believed the only way of approaching the question of the establishment of this new industry would be by way of forming a consortium. Since that recommendation the shipbuilding industry has, in fact, come into being in South Africa in a larger measure than it has ever existed before. We have seen three companies work together on the construction of certain small vessels, but the consortium recommended by the Norval Commission seems to me to be much further away, or just as far away as it was when we started our investigations into the shipbuilding industry. In my own personal opinion, although we are building at the moment three vessels of 4,500 tons dead weight, of which one has been delivered and another one is about to be delivered, and we are undertaking the construction of a 25,000 ton vessel, I still do not think that the shipbuilding industry is properly on its feet in South Africa. You see, Sir, the shipbuilding industry is a highly competitive one. If South Africa is going to make a success of her shipbuilding industry, she will have to compete successfully with all the other shipbuilding nations of the world. It is going to be necessary to do some basic planning for the shipbuilding industry. I believe personally that, unless we are prepared to form a shipbuilding consortium, we will never get beyond the building of small ships on a profitable basis in this country. We see that already the most go-ahead shipbuilding company in the country is calling for further assistance by the State. I believe that the Minister should apply himself to the provision of further assistance to the shipbuilding companies. I want to refer him to a speech made by Mr. Rattray recently at the launching of a ship in Durban. Mr. Rattray, who is chairman of the Barens Shipbuilding Company, said:

So, I think this is a problem which will have to be faced in this country in the not too distant future. If we are going to make a success of the shipbuilding industry, we must decide what part the State is going to play, not only in providing more and more subsidization, but in providing facilities for the shipbuilding industry. We must also decide whether the shipbuilding industry can continue to exist as a number of small shipyards in the face of the competition which we meet from all parts of the world. I think this is a sign, not only of problems in the shipbuilding industry here in South Africa, which is a very young industry, but they are facing such problems in Britain, where the shipbuilding industry comes down from olden times. Here I see that in one area the Clyde Shipbuilders Consortium alone— here they have formed a consortium on the river Clyde—is asking the Government for a subsidy of £12 million to help them over the problems which they are facing, because they are facing exactly the same problems that our own young shipbuilding industry is facing today. I believe that we have to get down to a more definite basis. I believe we have to decide as regards these companies whether they can, in fact, exist as small units or whether, for the future of the shipbuilding industry and South Africa’s interest in it, these companies should not get together and form a consortium. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, arising out of the announcement by the hon. Minister yesterday that a Commission of Inquiry into the fishing industry would shortly be visiting Walvis Bay, there is another matter which I should like to bring briefly to his attention, in regard to which great dissatisfaction is prevailing in Walvis Bay to-day. It deals with the violation of the territorial waters of Walvis Bay. In the past the patrol boats of the Administration sailed past foreign ships in order to try to apprehend the South African catchers of the factory ships there. The fishermen on the catchers were in some cases brought before the court and this caused great dissatisfaction because the fishermen then alleged that it was not fair that the South African ships should be caught while the foreign ships were allowed to carry on their catching activities in those waters unhindered. They argued: “Why can these foreign ships make catches here, while we are not allowed to do so?” The reply of the Administration was although the patrol boats had the authorization to apprehend the foreign ships as well, they did not have the physical power to apprehend the large foreign ships. Now it is being alleged by a considerable group of established fishermen at Walvis Bay that these catchers were still continuing to encroach on the territorial waters and to make catches where they were not authorized to do so. Of course their complaint is also aimed at the foreign ships. The accusation is being levelled by the South African catchers that the foreign ships are allowed to make catches, that they can make catches unrestrictedly right up to the coast but that only the South African catchers are being sought out and apprehended. This is creating a very unsatifactory state of affairs in Walvis Bay. One word is leading to another among these people. One infringement is leading to another. I therefore want to bring it to the attention of the hon. the Minister that he should instruct this commission to go into this matter so that the necessary steps can be taken to clarify this matter there, and so that the necessary protective measures can be introduced there.

Mr. Chairman, the last two hon. members spoke about ships and shipping and pollution. I am sure they will excuse me if I do not follow them along those lines. I want to come back to the main theme of this debate, which has been a discussion of the hon. the Minister’s policy with regard to the development of the so-called border industrial areas. The hon. member for Pinetown and the hon. member for Pietersburg both mentioned the figures given on page 7 of the report of the Permanent Committee where mention is made of an estimated outlay of more than R314 million in the border areas since 1960 and that this has given employment to a total of 54,000 Bantu. The hon. member for Pinetown quite correctly came to the conclusion mathematically that this works out at an average of R5,815 per Bantu employee. He suggested that this was rather high. The hon. member for Florida who unfortunately is not in the House at the moment took him to task and tried to justify what he accepted as a high cost. The hon. member for Pietersburg also said that it could be accepted as a high cost, but that it was justified in the interests of the country and that it was the policy of the Nationalist Party. The hon. members for Florida and Pinetown are gentlemen who are used to handling figures. They know figures and can interpret figures. But I am afraid that I find that I am terribly confused with the figures that have been presented in this House. (Interjections.] Hon. members need not make such a noise. They will make more noise by the time I am finished with them. I can sympathize with the late Winston Churchill who once said: “Figures can lie and liars can figure.” Year after year I have mentioned in this House the unsatisfactory statistics which are available to us, particularly when it comes to replies to questions. Firstly, of course, there is the coyness of the Government in giving employment figures. Year after year I have asked in this House for the number of Bantu employed in each border area. I have never as yet been given a figure. But we have the total and I want to know how they get that total. How do they arrive at the figure of 54,000? It is always given in round figures. Is it an estimate? Is it an accurate estimate? Can it be relied upon? When we come to the question of investments you will notice that this report very carefully says “An estimated outlay of more than R314 million”. I would suggest that it is a lot more than R314 million. I asked the hon. the Minister on 7th June, 1968, what the total investment in the border areas was. At that stage, and this was the figure up to the end of December, 1967, a year prior to this figure, he gave me figures totalling R381,758,000. That is a lot more than R314 million. That was a full year before this. At that stage the employment figure that was given and which I can only accept, because I am not capable of getting accurate figures, was 49,000. This comes to an average cost per Bantu employed at that date of R7,800. That is a big increase on R5,800. I do not hear any noise from my hon. friends on the other side now. I do not hear any noise at all. I want to ask the hon. the Minister which figures are correct. Are the figures he gave me in reply to my question correct? Or are the figures, quoted in the report of the Permanent Committee for the Location of Industries, correct?

I want to come back to the hon. member for Florida. He spoke of the heavy cost of the infrastructure. “Especially in the first phase”, was the phrase that he used. He went on to say that thereafter it costs less per employee, presumably as development comes and more people are employed. This side of the House has never been against decentralization, particularly where it has been economic. But it has of course been against the uneconomic development of so-called growth points for purely ideological reasons. It has been against the haphazard development of small uneconomic areas all over the place. The late Dr. Verwoerd and the hon. the Minister’s predecessor said that the policy was to establish growth points and that once these growth points were established they were to generate their own development. The hon. member for Florida and the hon. member for Pietersburg referred to the question raised by the hon. member for Durban (Point) about State socialism. I want to quote a statement from a Press release of the Chairman of the Permanent Committee for the Location of Industries, issued on the 2nd May, 1969, where he spoke about speculation in land in the border areas. This statement concludes—

The hon. the Minister once said that private enterprise must not think that they can capitalize on expenditure by the Government in these border areas. I want to know what these statements mean. Do these statements mean that the Government has taken a monopoly on development in the border areas?

Yes.

I am very glad to hear that. Is the hon. member speaking on behalf of his party?

It is an irresponsible outburst.

But I want to hear from the hon. the Minister. Is the hon. member for Brakpan correct when he says that it is the Government’s policy to create a Government monopoly in the border areas? The hon. the Minister shakes his head. I do not know what that means and whether he is shaking his head to me or the hon. Whip who is worrying him over there. Or is the hon. the Minister doing it in despair? I am very serious about this matter. In Hammarsdale industrialists have been precluded since 1960 from developing on their own. They have been specifically told by Government agencies: “Do not develop on this privately owned land, which has been zoned by the Town and Regional Planning Commission for industrial development. You may not develop there. Go across the road or across the river to the land which is owned by the Industrial Development Corporation and which they are developing. You can develop your factory there, but not here.” This is land which was frozen by the Town and Regional Planning Commission in Natal in 1959. The same thing applies in the Cato Ridge area. The same thing applies on the outskirts of Pietermaritzburg, where private individuals are endeavouring to develop in line with Government policy. They are even trying to help the hon. the Minister with his policy in the development of these areas. The Government is refusing them the right to develop.

Which Department is refusing?

The hon. the Minister’s Department as well as the Department of Planning. I have correspondence here from both Departments on this very point. There is another aspect on which I want to ask the hon. the Minister. Are industrialists in the two areas, namely Hammarsdale and Cato Ridge —I leave Pietermaritzburg out of this—still entitled to border industrial concessions? Will any industrialists who wish to establish industries there still get concessions in terms of the Border Industrial Scheme? I also have that on record, namely that they will not be granted concessions, or that it is highly unlikely that they will be. As I have said, the owners’ development has been frozen. Is this hon. Minister and the committee interested in the further development of industries in these areas? Are they interested in carrying out the thoughts of the hon. member for Florida, when he said that if we can get more industries in these areas, they will then become economic, and that the cost of the infrastructure will then be justified? I want to go further. The figures which have been given, and the figure which I quoted earlier, do not include the cost of the supply of power by the Electricity Supply Commission, the construction of additional roads, and the tarring of roads to get to these points. That is not included in these figures. What has therefore been the cost of the border areas? Nobody knows, because one does not know whether one can rely upon these figures.

As I have said, the hon. member for Florida suggested that if we were able to get a larger concentration of industries to these growth points, the cost per employee would drop. This I can go along with. Instead of these being uneconomic points, let us make them economic points. I would like to come back to this question and ask the hon. the Minister: “Does he stand by the policy of the establishment of growth points, which must then generate their own development?” If he does so, the Permanent Committee must be advised that they must withdraw this statement they issued. Private enterprise must be given the opportunity of developing these areas, because it is quite obvious that the Industrial Development Corporation no longer wishes to do so. We have had statements to that effect. These areas must be released. This Minister must use his influence with his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Planning, to allow industrial development in these areas.

In the minute and a half which is left to me, I should like to refer to the hon. member for Pietersburg. I notice that he is not here once again.

You do not have a minute and a half.

Well then, in the half minute I have left, I should like to point out that he made the statement that every one of these growth points was an economic one. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) raised quite a number of objections to border area development. He is continually dabbling in particulars which have to be furnished in regard to this or in regard to that. Apart from the particulars he tried to correlate, the fact remains that it is the policy of the State that the I.D.C. should lend assistance to the border areas, but with the application of the Physical Planning Act by the Department of my colleague, the Minister of Planning, a damper is going to be placed on development in areas which have to rely on Bantu labour other than those which are classified as border areas. Now, this is as far as Bantu labour is concerned. There will therefore be limits. Industrialists will in future be obliged to have recourse to the points where we will in fact allow industries. I am now talking about admissibility as far as this effects the Department of Planning.

Will you throw these areas open to development by private enterprise?

There are no limits as far as this is concerned. I think that what really happened in the case of Hammarsdale is that there are no suitable sites available there. It is full. What really happens is that they reserve certain sites with a view to the expansion of existing industries. Because the area was virtually full, sites were held back and were not allocated. They wanted to keep those sites in case the existing industries should expand. I think that that was a fair approach. My latest information is that at this stage no more industrial sites are available. It is therefore not the policy that private initiative should not be allowed to develop border areas. One cannot, with reference to this, say that that was in fact the case. There has never been anything like that. Now the hon. member is saying …

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must give me a chance now. I cannot speak and listen at the same time. The hon. member stated that my Department was prohibiting industries. That is not true: Perhaps he was referring to one case in regard to the I.D.C., but my Department does not prohibit industries at certain places. That is not our function, nor have we the power to do so. The hon. member is a representative of a constituency in Pietermaritzburg, and industries in that border area have been assisted. Does the hon. member want us to continue to do so?

Yes.

Now he wants it, but he is always sowing suspicion against this policy. The hon. member does not know to what extent this policy of industrial development has helped his own city. I think that I should give him a little information in this regard, because he does not know what is going on there. I think that I must point out to him that, as far as Pietermaritzburg is concerned, four new applications were approved by the Permanent Committee during 1967-’68. Two of them have already been established. Applications for 20 undertakings which undertook expansions were supported by the Committee during the past two years. This is after all a considerable amount of development which has received support there, and which has taken place in his own constituency. But every time he has an opportunity of discussing industrial expansion he opposes this and undermines this policy. I think he should be a bit more realistic when it comes to development in areas like Pietermaritzburg. Considerable assistance has been granted in such areas. But apart from that expansion is still taking place in Pietermaritzburg. To a large extent that area can carry on under its own steam because there are very few industrial premises left in Durban. That is why they are beginning to move in that direction. They will move even further up the Tugela. The city council is now laying out a new area adjoining Eden-vale. This means that for Pietermaritzburg there will be further opportunity for expansion in future.

The hon. member for Umlazi referred to polution of the ocean and problems which have arisen in that connection. I can inform him that we have made considerable progress as far as international agreements are concerned. The Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization, a specialized committee of the U.N., determines routes which these tankers should follow. As far as Natal is concerned, that route lies approximately 18 miles from the coast. This agreement will most probably be ratified later on in the year, but in the meantime the oil companies have already issued instructions to their tankers to follow this route, so that they will keep a considerable distance from the coasts, and so that they will sail where accidents and collisions can be avoided. As far as local counteracting of pollution is concerned, there is close co-operation between Government Departments, local authorities and provincial administrations. At Durban, the three harbours in the Cape, and also in South-West, committees have been established and the necessary counteracting agents are being kept there. There is already an organization which can go into action very quickly in the case of oil pollution. Considerable progress has therefore been made in that field as well.

The hon. member also referred to the shipbuilding industry which has been established in Durban. It is true that the report at the time indicated that they had to form a consortium. Unfortunately they could not succeed in doing so, but recently, with the launching of a ship, it was indicated that this was the appropriate thing to do. We think that unnecessary duplication, additional costs, etc., will result if there is no consortium. All the arguments are in favour of their forming a consortium. They are already, as a consortium, building a few smaller ships. One would like to see that being expanded. It is after all the tendency one finds in the United Kingdom and also in Europe, where even larger undertakings than those in South Africa are amalgamating. I think that it ought to happen here as well.

The hon. member for Omaruru referred to the 12-mile limit and stated that foreign ships were entering this limit. I take it that by that he meant overseas ships. In this connection I can state that the Defence Force is patrolling that area. We have received a considerable number of reports indicating that action had been taken and that ships had been forced out of this 12-mile limit. It happens that they enter the limit, but as soon as they see the aircraft, they leave. I have also received representations from the fishermen there. Today I received representations from the fishing community at Walvis Bay. In these representations they complain that factory ships are entering the 12-mile limit. They request that the patrol boats there should keep a more careful look-out. The position is that the two patrol boats which have now been taken over by the Administration are already worn out with age. They are virtually write-offs. However, we hope to send one of the new ships there in June or July, which will then have been completed, to undertake further patrols there.

The hon. member for Springs referred to the I.D.C. and their small industries section. The assistance they are rendering is not only of a financial nature, but they are already undertaking considerable work in order to make the administration of these undertakings more efficient. They are doing this by way of regular visits to the undertakings in order to advise them as far as management problems are concerned. They are also publishing a regular bulletin in which advice is given, and which is circulated to all the industries supported by them. In addition lectures are held from time to time by the National Development and Management Foundation. These people are being encouraged to attend such lectures. Often there are new developments overseas, and these are studied by the I.D.C. and this knowledge is then conveyed to the smaller industries. As far as exhibitions are concerned, the I.D.C. has proceeded to participate in exhibitions. They have already done so in Lourenço Marques, Swaziland, Port Elizabeth, and recently at the Rand Easter Show. At the Rand Easter Show the I.D.C. arranged a small industries exhibit which enabled these small industrialists to exhibit there. The costs of the exhibition was borne by the I.D.C. itself. In the past, the limit set for a small industry was a total capital of R250,000. However, we feel that this amount is too small and that it must be increased. I can inform the hon. member that the I.D.C. will, at their next meeting, consider increasing this limit to R400,000 or R500,000. I think there is justification for expanding the assistance to small industries so that a larger number can be included within the framework of this assistance. The question is of course whether this service should not be expanded so that it can be made available to industrialists who are not at present receiving assistance from the I.D.C. The Trade Institute is at the moment investigating this aspect. The I.D.C. itself is considering whether they should not expand their own service. I therefore hope that in the near future methods will be found to give more management assistance, not only to the industries of the I.D.C., but also to others that do not receive assistance from them.

The hon. member for Pietersburg referred here to the development of Pietersburg. As a result of border area assistance, Pietersburg has developed considerably. Problems are being experienced in that area in so far as transport is concerned, particularly in regard to the exemption they must obtain from the Road Transport Board so that they can transport their products further. This is an aspect which the Permanent Committee has already taken up with the Department of Transport. Evidence was also given before the Marais Commission in this regard. They were granted permission, for example, to deliver goods as far as Potgietersrust, Zebediela and Tzaneen. But I think the hon. member would like to see that circle being drawn wider. This is an aspect which the Permanent Committee is aware of. They will discuss it with the Railways Administration again. However, we foresee that Pietersburg will develop considerably. According to an estimate made by the I.D.C., an additional 40 morgen of industrial land will of necessity have to be available by 1971 and this will have to be expanded to 560 morgen by 1976. We therefore foresee the need for industrial expansion in the Pietersburg area.

The hon. member for Welkom referred to the possibility of the goldmines in the gold-mining area there closing down. However, this is a matter which will only take place in the distant future. I want to give the hon. member the advice I gave the hon. member for Brakpan in the past. The problem at the time was the gold mines on the West Rand and even on the East Rand which would be closing down. Mention was then made of ghost towns. However, we did not think that a thing like that would happen. I think it can be confirmed here that such towns definitely cannot develop. The hon. member must therefore not anticipate the problem too much. The Government is aware of it, and was also aware of it at the time, and helped to get industries established by the private sector there. But I think the hon. member must not be too hasty about wanting all those industries at this stage already. The white labour will be there when the gold mines begin to close down. One will know when that is going to happen. The infrastructure will also be there, which will make it attractive for industrialists to utilize that white labour which will be unemployed when the gold mines close down. Therefore, it is merely a question of timing, which has to be right in order to do so. In the meantime, I am also aware of the fact that the Welkom area has already had industrial expansion in order to meet the local requirements. The hon. member also discussed the Free State itself. However, I just want to point out that the Free State has also had industrial development, particularly in the Sasolburg area.

As far as the H. F. Verwoerd Dam was concerned, it was the specific policy of the Government that the development should take place on the Free State side of the Orange River. I think we have a major problem as far as the Free State is concerned, i.e. the question as to what should be done with the mine at Jagersfontein which is going to close down Shortly. First we had the problem of Koffiefontein, and now it is Jagersfontein. I think the (problem at Jagersfontein will have to receive attention long before the problem of Welkom will require attention. But as far as assistance to the gold mines there is concerned, there are already certain mines in that area to which assistance is being rendered. The uranimum contracts with certain mines have been extended, precisely in order to help certain areas in that vicinity, which would have been affected as a result of the uneconomically low quality of the mines, to develop and to remain viable. Therefore the hon. member can be assured that the Department of Planning is aware of these problems. In the past the N.R.D.C. assisted with the development there. They are also fully aware of the problem which will arise in the gold mining regions. I think the hon. member can be assured of co-operation in this connection. The Department of Planning as well as the Provincial Administration of the O.F.S. are collaborating closely in as far as that problem is concerned.

The hon. member for Simonstown referred here to the Select Committee of 1902. That report was a very interesting one. The hon. member showed it to me. I am grateful for the fact that he brought it to my attention. I understand that he has also discussed it with an engineer from Fishcor. We shall go into this. Last night I indicated that I was prepared to see whether there should be expansions here which will meet the needs of the small boat owners. We shall give attention to this matter.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg also referred here to the complete Fishcor report. In this report a very good survey of our fishing industry is given. In particular he referred to the experiment which is being undertaken in regard to the cultivation of oysters. This experiment is receiving financial support from Fishcor. The hon. member asked that this experiment be expanded to other regions. He referred in particular to the Saldanha and Langebaan areas. As far as ocean farming is concerned, it has not developed very far in our country. In other parts of the world, development has progressed further. But even there it is not yet very economical. There are only a few places where this kind of undertaking is being tackled successfully. But a report on the improved utilization of our lakes, river mouths and harbours has been drawn up. Certain steps are being taken to acquire some of those areas for this purpose. Once these areas have been acquired I think it will be easier to tackle this kind of farming there. The hon. member referred to the fact that development of this kind could take place at Langebaan. I can only say that the Department has already received an application for development of a similar kind at Langebaan, and that we are supporting it. There are still a few technical problems which have to be solved, but I think it can be expected that there will in fact be development in this connection soon.

The hon. member for Karoo put in a plea here for the development of Kimberley. He expressed his disappointment at the fact that the new Iscor is not going to be established in that area. I can inform the hon. member that the M.P.s for Kimberley, Upington, Gordonia and Namaqualand, together with other organizations in that area, submitted very strong representations to the Government to the effect that development should take place there. If these representations had not been submitted we might not have established precisely what development has already taken place in that area. However, those representations were taken into account, and as a result of them I was able to say that expansions would take place in that area.

The hon. member for Karoo also asked how this is going to be applied. With regard to the development programme of Iscor for the next 10 years an attempt is being made to increase the capital investment in iron ore exploitation and refining from R13 million to R21 million. According to estimates the iron ore export project, and the associated refining process will require an additional spending of R50 million. Provisional planning in regard to manganese ore exploitation indicates a further spending of R10 million, as well as R15 million in respect of water provision for the area. What was being referred to here therefore was R83 million. It is these, Iscor’s activities alone which will result in the employment of an additional number of 1,350 Whites and 4,555 non-Wihites. I want to point out that the economic development programme expects the ore development in that area to grow by 7½ per cent.

These are the additions to Iscor only, then there are also numerous other undertakings, where manganese, lime, diamonds and asbestos are being exploited so that development can take place in that area. The hon. member asked why the development at Brits had to take place. I can also mention that the industrial sites made available at Brits have all been reserved and that the development there is justified. There was a demand for it. The hon. member must not try to create the impression that Kimberley did not have its share of development. During the last number of years Kimberley, as a city, has expanded a great deal. I note that building plans approved for Kimberley in 1967 amounted to more than 3¼ million. Therefore, development is taking place in Kimberley. There were other problems as well as far as Iscor itself is concerned. Iscor needs a great deal of water, and to have located the third Iscor in this area would have meant that water would have had to be drawn from the Vaal River. Water cannot be drawn from this river for Iscor. When the other dams in the Orange River area are completed in 10 years’ time, Kimberley will in fact have the necessary water. The problem was gone into very thoroughly and it was found that the cost of steel per ton would have been considerably higher if Iscor had been situated in that area. It would have been considerably higher than it would cost if Iscor had to be established in Newcastle.

This is a factor which also had to be taken into consideration in determining this. If this were to have been done Iscor would either have had to be subsidized further, or a higher price would have had to be charged for steel. I think the high quality steel which we have available at low prices has enabled us to build up our steel industry, and our steel processing industries are in this way being placed in a position where they are well able to compete with each other.

The hon. member for Salt River put in a plea for the Western Cape. He stated that he did not approve of assistance being granted to Rosslyn in Pretoria since it was near a city, but on the other hand he still wanted the assistance here in Cape Town, even if it is near a city. He therefore has two criteria that he wants to apply. I want to say to the hon. member that he should not create the impression that the Western Cape is coming to a standstill. If we look at the number of new factories which have been registered with the Department of Labour then we see that in 1967 there were 169 new factories, 443 additions and 463 alterations; and in 1968 there were applications here for 172 new factories, 399 additions and 382 alterations. This therefore gives an indication of the industrial expansion which is taking place here in the Western Cape. Therefore, there is no stagnation, which was the impression created here. Just look at the development of Cape Town itself, the building plans which have been approved by the Cape Town Municipality. In 1967 the amount in this respect was R68 million, in 1968 R40 million and for the first three months of this year it was R13 million, which shows a further great increase; and that is only in Cape Town, leaving aside the northern areas and the southern suburbs, and leaving aside the other cities in the Western Cape which are all expanding very rapidly. So. that stagnation does not exist here; basically, the same problem does not exist here. But the hon. member stated that we should grant border area assistance here. But let us see what the position here is.

There is expansion here, but there is no surplus of labour available in the Western Cape. A number of Bantu have already left, but it is a problem for my colleague to get them there. But basically there is no surplus labour problem in the Western Cape; on the contrary, there is a shortage, and for that very reason use is still to a large extent being made of Bantu labour. I can mention that during the past three months only, from November to January, the demand in this area was for more than 12,000 workers, but as far as Coloured labour was concerned, work could only be provided for 1,800 of them, and the rest of the demand had to be met with Bantu labour. I am mentioning this to prove that there is no surplus of Coloured labour here.

The particulars do in fact indicate that there has been a decrease in Bantu labour, but I do not want to burden you with those particulars now. Therefore, there is development here; there is no surplus labour here, and there is no reason to introduce industrial development here in order to meet the existing labour supply. We are making our border area assistance available precisely in order to draw industries to those areas where a surplus of labour exists, or to where the Bantu labour that used to be in the white areas must go, such as the labour here in Cape Town which must be removed. So at this stage there is no reason for that border area assistance to be given.

The hon. member referred to an important matter, viz. the motor industry at Blackheath which is possibly going to move, and he said that nothing is being done about it. I want to tell him that what he said is not correct, because next Friday, towards the end of this week, these people are going to hold consultations again with the Secretary of Industry in order to discuss this problem of the effect this merger of theirs is going to have. This possible removal is not a natural one; it arose as a result of the amalgamation of these two motor manufacturing companies. It is therefore an exceptional position. I was there myself. The Coloured labour there is doing very good work and you can be certain that we on our part will do everything in our power to keep that industry there. We have been engaged in this matter for a long time.

Reference was made to Saldanha and to possible developments there. In this regard I can only say that in so far as the shipbuilding industry is concerned negotiations are still in progress between the interested parties and other shipbuilding undertakings, and they have already made certain altered proposals to the Government. We will form an opinion on these after we have made a market survey of the position. We want to know what the possible costs will be, and what the possibilities are that it can operate successfully. As soon as we have those details, which I think ought to be soon, we will decide finally on the future of the shipbuilding industry at Saldanha.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 28,—Labour, R9,220,000, and S.W.A. Vote 12,—Labour, R70,000:

May I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? As things are developing in South Africa to-day, the labour policy of the Government is becoming perhaps the most important aspect of government in South Africa. Therefore I hope that the Minister will assist the Committee in this debate by giving us a clear and definitive exposition of the Government’s labour policy, the labour policy of the Government particularly as it is designed to meet the one fact of our economic life which some of us have tried to deny or ignore in the past, but which none of us can escape, namely that our prosperity and the continued growth of our economic activity depend on the contribution which can be made to our economic life by every section of the people of South Africa, irrespective of colour. There was a time, for example when we debated clause 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, when Government members seemed to believe that one could wish away the contribution made by the Bantu and other non-Whites to the wealth of South Africa, that one could legislate against their contribution, and that one could protect the standards of the white workers in this country by denying to the non-white workers the opportunity to make their contribution to the economy of South Africa. But there are clear and very welcome signs to-day that the Government Party and the Cabinet are beginning to realize that for South Africa to prosper we have to train, educate and use every section of our population. This was brought home to us quite dramatically by an intelligent amendment moved by Senator Koster, to an Opposition motion In the Minister’s policy in the Other Place on 1st May. Her amendment thanked the Government for training and educating all sections of the people, and for taking adequate steps to meet the manpower shortage in South Africa. She coupled the two thoughts: the training and the education of all population groups in the country and the need to meet the manpower shortage.

What did you do about the matter in your time?

The irrelevance of that interjection is absolutely staggering, and I think I must devote 30 seconds to it. When the United Party came into power in 1933, our problem was not a shortage of manpower, but the economic depression and the unemployment and the surplus manpower as the result of the stupid economic policies followed by the previous Nationalist Party Government. I have never heard such a stupid interjection in this House.

Now let me come back to my theme, because it is important. For our economic growth and for the prosperity we are experiencing today, we depend on the contributions of all sections of the South African population, and we see it in the statistics. We see, for example, in the latest but rather obsolete report of the Department of Labour, the one for 1967, at page 26, that the total number of people employed in the manufacturing industry in South Africa is about 1.2 million, and of those, in round figures, only about 300,000 are white: 25 per cent of the people working in the factories of South Africa are white, and 75 per cent are not white. And it does not matter where they are sited. This is one of the major bases of our prosperity. If one looks at the statistical news releases by the Bureau of Census and Statistics—I have here those for April of this year and I have compared them with those of March of the year before—one finds some very interesting figures indeed. I find that in mining, quarrying, manufacturing, construction, electricity, transport, etc. there were at the end of 1968 about 2¼ million people employed. Of those a little more than ½ million were white, 228,000 were Coloured, 69,000 were Asians and the Bantu were 1.4 million, showing a great preponderance of non-Whites. If one compares these figures with those of the year before, one finds that the number of people of all races employed in these major enterprises increased, as one would expect, but the rate of increase is significant. In the case of the Whites there were 4,000 more people employed. In the case of the Coloureds, who are only about half the number of Whites employed, the increase was 10,000, and in the case of the Asians, of whom there were only 69,000 as compared with ½ million Whites, the increase was 7,000, almost twice as high as that of the Whites, while the Bantu increased by 74,000. Now we may speak about separate development, but the fact remains that as things are to-day the South African economy is one. It means that in that one single economy the Bantu, the Coloured and the Asian are playing an increasingly important part in producing the wealth of South Africa. That is the truth we have to face in South Africa. That is the fact which a labour policy for South Africa, which must include the protection of the standards of living of the white workers and must afford opportunities for increasingly higher standards for the other communities also, must take into account. The Leader of the Opposition has on previous occasions, even during this Session, and especially in his speech on the Budget, stated the policy of the Opposition. One may not agree with it and I am not canvassing that policy at the moment, but I am stating the fact that we do state a policy to meet the situation. But what is the policy of the Government, except to approach the problem haphazardly, on an ad hoc basis, meeting each crisis as it develops, but with no plan and no clear indication to the people of South Africa that this is how we shall meet the situation and how we shall protect the interests of those people who deserve protection and how we will increase the standards of those who need increased standards and how we will avoid conflict and will give prosperity to the greatest number of people? They do not have such a policy; when crises come we have ad hoc decisions. For example, we had the hon. the Minister of Transport in the Railway debate standing up and blustering as always. He told us that he had substituted from 8,000 to 9,000 Bantu for Whites in jobs formerly done by Whites. This was an understatement, Sir. Those of us who have made a study of it are satisfied that there are many more than 8,000 or 9,000 jobs which have been taken away from Whites and given to non-Whites, because they had to be given in order to keep the wheels of transport moving in South Africa; and the Minister said he would do this irrespective of the wishes of the trade unions. Even if the trade unions refused, he would do it in the interests of South Africa, a completely ad hoc policy, but there is no clear indication of what is done to protect the interests of the white workers on the Railways except that the Minister said what we have said to him over the years, namely that if you do this not only will the non-white people benefit and not only will the work of the Railways be continued, but the white workers will be absorbed in higher occupations.

Now the Minister of Transport brags about this achievement, but there is no clear policy. We are told from Nationalist Party platforms that if ever there should be a recession in South Africa, these jobs will go back to the white people. Sir, what a pipe-dream! When these jobs are handed over to non-white people at wages which are about one-third of the wages which white people get in those jobs, what chance will the white man have of getting that job back during a period of depression, when there is a shortage of money and non-Whites will have to be dismissed to be replaced by Whites at wages three times as high as those of the non-Whites? Or is it the policy of the Government to replace the non-Whites in those jobs with Whites at the wages paid to the non-Whites? Sir, we want answers to these questions. We want to know where we stand. We want to know what his policy is, because a policy is urgently necessary. The hon. the Minister himself went down to Dundee during the Newcastle by-election and made a speech there in which he told us some very interesting things. He has modified his speech since then but the essence remains the same. He told us. “that it would be sheer idiocy to hold back South Africa’s development by not allowing non-Whites into trades, said the Minister of Labour and of Coloured Affairs, Mr. Viljoen at Dundee last night”, according to The Star reporter. The Minister afterwards told us that he was referring only to the building industry in Natal. I accept that, but then, of course, I want to say immediately that the Minister chose very strange words and figures and examples if he was limiting himself to the building industry alone. I find, for example, that he complained, “even with 40,000 immigrants a year there are simply not enough white hands to do the work”. Sir, there have never been 40,000 immigrants a year to cope with the building industry; that is the total immigration figure to deal with all the labour requirements of South Africa. But the Minister tells us that when he used these figures he was referring only to the building industry, and I am constrained to accept the Minister’s explanation. He made a bad speech, Sir: he chose his words badly; he was misunderstood, and I am glad that we understand him now. Sir, if it is in the interest of Natal, if it is in the interest of the building industry in Natal, that non-white workers should do work formerly done by Whites, on what possible grounds will it not be in the interests of South Africa if the same situation develops in other industries? Why must we accept that the building industry in Natal is sui generis, that it is something with no parallel anywhere else in South Africa or in any other undertaking in South Africa? Why should it be “sheer idiocy” to deny the inevitable in the case of the building industry in Natal and not in the case of other industries? For what reason must we believe that this was a statement of policy by the Minister which must be confined and limited only to the building industry in Natal? That, Sir, would indeed be sheer idiocy. No, Sir, it was a moment of truth for the hon. the Minister. He said something there which convinces me that fundamentally he is an intelligent man.

Now you are going too far.

This problem is very serious indeed. I see in the Provincial Gazette that of the 15,000 posts for white teachers in the Transvaal, 7,200 had to be advertised at the beginning of the year because so many are filled by temporary people. Sir, this brings home to us more dramatically than anything else how short we are of skilled, trained manpower in South Africa. I believe that the first and the prime duty of a community is to see to the education of its young, and a community that fails to do that does not deserve to exist. That is the crisis, Sir. How is this crisis going to be met? Take an expert like Dr. Jan Marais, a man whose business acumen and economic insight we must all respect. Speaking at the annual congress of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut in Johannesburg in May of this year, he said he foresaw that by the year 2000 industry would contribute 36 per cent of the gross domestic product of South Africa as against 22 per cent to-day, industry most of whose enterprises use labour extensively. Sir, where will the workers come from? Dr. Marais then gave a clue; he told that same meeting that by the year 2000 the earnings of the Bantu people would have risen sevenfold compared to their wages to-day to reach R7,500,000 a year, seven times what it is today, according to Dr. Marais, and he added that this would result from the growing productivity of the African worker in South Africa. This learned and respected Afrikaner businessman has no doubt that the continued prosperity of South Africa will bring continued prosperity also to the Bantu people and make them more productive and make the role that they will play in the economic life of South Africa greater and more important. What is the policy of the Government? The Government is in trouble. They had a policy; they called it job reservation, reserving jobs on the basis of race, not for any economic reasons but purely on the basis of race. They wanted to retain a balance between the races in South Africa in occupations in South Africa. We know that in 1952, for example, 45.1 per cent of the workers in the clothing industry were white. In 1956 the Government introduced job reservation into that industry. Most of the agitation surrounding the introduction of section 77 referred to the clothing industry. They then introduced job reservation and said that the ideal would be to retain the number of white workers in the clothing industry at about 25 per cent and then. Sir, came the exemptions, one after the other, as the Government was forced to face the truth, as stated by the United Party at the time and ever since then; and to-day, Sir, the proportion of white workers in the clothing industry is not 45 per cent; it is not the ideal 25 per cent, it is only 9 per cent and it is still diminishing.

Border industries.

It is the result of the border industry policy to a large extent, as I will show in a minute. But, Sir, what is now the policy of the Government? Are they happy to see the clothing industry go completely black, which is the inevitable tendency all over the world? It is an unpopular occupation and if the white people can find better jobs, they will do better jobs, and the Government by job reservation will not compel the white people to stay in the clothing industry. Sir, that is the fact of the matter. In the transport industry the job of truck driver has been reserved for the Whites but most of those trucks are still driven by non-Whites today. Why? Because the Government does not combine with the job reservation policy a policy of the rate for the job or rather a policy of job evaluation. They still say that the rate for that job is, say, R30 a week and white people can get better work and better-paid work than work at R30 a week, so there are no white people to drive the trucks in spite of the Minister’s job reservation and exemptions have to be given. But what is the policy of the Government? We have to-day the tendency towards the fragmentation of jobs. Jobs are being made simpler. Fragmentation of jobs is used as an excuse to bring non-Whites into jobs previously held by Whites. In the case of painters in the building industry, the job is being fragmented. How? They say that the first coat can be put on by a Bantu but not the second or the third coat. The job is now fragmented into coats.

Only if it is white paint that is put on.

Sir, where will it end; what is the Government’s policy? We find that in some industries employers resist demands for wage increases, and if they resist long enough the white workers drift away because there is a terrific shortage of workers. They drift away from that job into a better-paid job and the employers then come to the Minister and then truthfully say: “We cannot get white workers to do the job; give us examption,” and then they get exemption. What is the policy of the Government? Is there a policy of job evaluation; is there a policy of the rate for the job, or is this process to continue indefinitely?

Sir, I want to be fair. From my reading and from the study I have made of this issue it seems to me that the Government has a new policy but they are nervous to state it. That policy is to encourage at all costs, even at the cost of the existing industrial areas of South Africa, the development of border industry, industries on the borders not of the homelands, but on the borders of the reserves and little locations, away from the existing industrial areas, because there, quietly and with the minimum of fuss, the Colour bar can be broken down, the rate for the job can be broken down, Bantu workers can be trained and put into more and more responsible jobs, quite rightly, but quite wrongly from the point of view that it is being done at rates of pay which in the long run are going to create in South Africa an economy where the black workers work at one level of income and the white workers at another level of income. Unfair competition and conflict are inherent in such a situation, and one dreads to think what the future prospects of South Africa are. Sir, what is the Government’s policy in respect of this?

You are talking nonsense.

The Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, when speaking to the Sabra Youth Congress at the end of March or the 1st of April or thereabouts, announced a scheme for the training of African factory workers in border areas by their employers, who would be subsidized by the State. Every establishment with 20 workers or more would be able to do this. The hon. the Deputy Minister said—

In the border areas! That is good, Sir, but what in the long run is going to be the relationship with these newly trained Bantu workers whose low wage is a major inducement to industrialists not to start new enterprises in Johannesburg and Cape Town but rather in Newcastle or Rosslyn? What is going to be the ultimate relationship between those workers and the white workers of South Africa? Because it must be remembered, Sir, that this is not separate development; this is integration between white factories in white South Africa and Bantu labour in Bantu reserves and in Bantu locations like the one at Rosslyn or like the little black spot next to Newcastle where the new Iscor is to be established …

Dormitory areas.

Yes, black dormitory areas in the white part of South Africa. Sir, do not let us bluff ourselves. Rosslyn is not on the border of a Bantu homeland.

It is a suburb of Pretoria.

It is a suburb of Pretoria with a location nearby. I have read reports that the motor factory there employs Tswana and Pedi and that the porcelain factory there employs Tswanas and South Sotho’s. Whose homeland is it? The Government tell us that their policy is based upon ethnic separation of the Bantu groups, but here in this Rosslyn location you have several of the groups together. Where is the homeland development; where is the theory of separate development; where is the policy? It is a fraud; it is a bluff; it is a shameful bluff upon the people of South Africa and it is time, in the interests of clarity, in the interests of the future development of South Africa, in the interests of future industrial peace in South Africa, in the interests of future racial peace in South Africa, that the Government stated their policy in every aspect and got away from this ad hoc deception upon the people of creating greater opportunities for the Bantu workers of South Africa, which is a good thing, apart from the criticism that I have stated? We find from the latest report of the committee for the location of industry under Professor Rautenbach that they expect that the Bantu will generate from their own areas 35.000 work seekers every year. In the whole of South Africa 58,000 Bantu will come onto the labour market every year. From 1960, when this scheme was started, until 1967, 5,000 Bantu have been placed in border industries every year. The report says that in these first eight years at a direct investment of R314 million, work was given to 54,000 Bantu at a cost of R5,800 per job.

That is to the State.

That is to the State alone. I want to know, if that is the cost, what will it cost and what hope is there of giving to the 58,000 Bantu coming on the labour market every year work in the border areas? What is the policy? What sacrifices are we going to make? Who is going to pay for it? To what extent is the normal development of the existing growth points in South Africa to be limited and to be restricted in the name of this ideology? Let us see what the experts of the Government have to say. I think of Dr. Rieckert, chairman of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council, who told a conference in Johannesburg in late April that in 1904 the urban Bantu were 10.4 per cent of our urban population. In 1960 they had grown to 31.8 per cent. By the year 2000, says Dr. Rieckert, they will be between 60 and 70 per cent of the urban population. What is the policy of the Government in this respect? We are told that this is bad, that it is evil, but it remains the projection of the Government’s experts. If they want to stop it, how will they stop it? Where will these people go? When will they start industrial development on the borders of the homelands to further the policy of separate development in which they believe and get away from the little dormitory at Rosslyn and the 15 or 20 farms that have recently been bought near Newcastle, 39 miles from the nearest homeland and, where Iscor is going to be established?

Why not inside the homelands?

Why not inside the homelands? Why not on the borders of the Transkei? The one political star in the policy of the Nationalist Party Government is the Transkei. As far as I know, not a single border industry has been established on the borders of the Transkei since the Government came into power in 1948. Where is the policy? I make a plea to the Minister of Labour, because he holds a key position in this matter, in this whole problem of race relations in South Africa. He holds a key position in the execution, the implementation of the policy of separate development. Let us have a frank talk. Let him take us into his confidence and tell us what is his policy and where we are going to. Can we under the policy of separate development dispense with the necessity of employing Bantu? Can we make white South Africa, in their terminology, less dependent upon Bantu labour than we are to-day? That is the crux and the test of the success of the policy of separate development. Can we become economically independent of the Black workers of this country? If we cannot, we must be honest and think again. One must admit that the policy of separate development, as expounded by the theorists of the Nationalist Party, is an impossible and an impracticable policy, which requires new thinking and a new approach by all of us in South Africa. But no one can judge …

What about some new thinking from that side of the House?

That you get all the time. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is very clear that we have been listening to-day to someone who is probably the greatest integrationist in the United Party. I think he must change places and come and sit next to the Progressive Party member. That is actually where he belongs.

I do not want to follow up on what the hon. member has said, because my time is limited. There are in fact a few matters which I regard as important and which I want to bring to the attention of the hon. Minister. [Interjections.] This is a serious matter. Apparently the Opposition regards these matters in a very light vein and would very much like to make cheap propaganda. I should like to return to the question of the training of our apprentices. Under the old system it took an apprentice more or less five years to undergo his training. Thanks to the National Party Government an investigation as instituted during 1960 and the National Apprenticeship Board was instructed to revise the system. Consequently certain recommendations were made by the National Apprenticeship Board and the Act was amended in 1963, as far as the training of our apprentices was concerned. The system was tremendously improved. I am not going to refer to all the improvements which were effected by this Act. I can just mention that as a result of this improved system it was found that our contracts of apprenticeship increased from 6,611 in 1963 to 9,090 in 1968. It was also found that as a result of improvements effected to the Act, the total current contracts increased by plus minus 44 per cent between the years 1964 and 1968. It was also proved that as a result of the improved system the educational level of apprentices which were now applying for apprenticeship was higher. I have tried to indicate what improvements have already been effected to his Act. But there are also certain problems. I think this side is prepared to recognize and admit the existence of problems and shortcomings. I should like to bring these to the attention of the hon. Minister, as well as the Department of Labour. I want to congratulate the Department of Labour on this occasion on the excellent work they are doing in this country of ours. I think the Secretary, with his Department and officials, is acting in such a way that we can do nothing else but convey our gratitude to them for the work they are doing. If we were to refer to the so-called obsolete annual report—I think the hon. member for Yeoville is obsolete—I just want to point out that in that year 10,011 new contracts of apprenticeship were registered. Of those 10,011 apprenticeship contracts 8,132 had been entered into with pupils with a Std. VIII or lower qualification. In respect of approximately 1,700 the qualifications were Std. IX or Std. X. Of the mentioned number it is clear that 80 per cent of the apprentices enrolled last year had a Std. VIII or lower qualification. Now I want to accept at once, and I do not think that anyone can deny this, that most of those young boys are Afrikaans-speaking. I think the Opposition will also accept this.

Are they not all South Africans?

I want to tell the hon. member that it really is time he tried to use his commonsense a little, if he still has any left. I just want to refer to the results which were achieved with the qualifying trade tests. In 1964 38.6 per cent of the pupils who did those tests passed. In the metal and engineering industry only 37 per cent passed. In 1967 31.75 per cent passed and in the metal and engineering industry 22.2 per cent. This tendency is disturbing, i.e. that the number of passes among our apprentices is not what it should be. I refer to the school qualifications of our apprentices, and I indicated the number of passes in trade tests. The first shortcoming which I would like to bring to the attention of the National Apprenticeship Council in particular is that we have no prescribed books and trade set works in Afrikaans. Is it fair that that Afrikaans-speaking child should learn that trade in which he must equip himself in a foreign language? I want to ask that something should be done so that we can get the necessary Afrikaans prescribed books for those pupils. I may just mention that 90 to 95 per cent of all the prescribed works are in English. I think it is unfair that a child should have to serve his apprenticeship, through the medium of a foreign language.

There is a second point which also gives rise to concern. This is that the number of contracts of apprenticeship which were cancelled increased from 1,246 in 1964 to 2,023 in 1967. Is it not possible that an inquiry can be instituted into the reason for this increase?

There is a third shortcoming which causes me concern, and I wanted to ask once again whether an investigation cannot be instituted in order to determine whether the duration of apprenticeship training of bricklayers, electro-mechanicians, and instrument mechanics should be the same. We know that there are certain trade tests which they can take, but I nevertheless think that this matter should be investigated again.

Sir, there is another matter I want to refer to. Mention is so often made of our high productivity, and I want to make an appeal in this connection to-day. We have a small percentage of workers in this country, and now I am not talking about the jobless, but about those who no longer want to work. They may perhaps amount to 1 per cent. We get them in the factories. They live off their fellow employees. They live off the owner. They subsequently live off the Trade Union and then live off the State when they want workmen’s compensation benefits. To-day I want to request the co-operation of Trade Unions in this connection, so that we can in some way or other take steps against these people, so that they will also contribute their due share in this country. This must be done so that they will also contribute their share as far as the labour market is concerned. I know that this is not a popular statement I am now making, but there is a small percentage, even if it is only 1 per cent, who are displaying this tendency. We need their labour.

There is one last point I want to raise. We in this country are enjoying prosperity and tremendous industrial peace and industrial quiet. We bestow academic and scientific awards for achievements in those fields. We do the same in the Defence Force and the Police. Now I wonder whether it is not time we made similar awards to our labour leaders for their contribution to our continuing industrial peace and quiet in this country. I think that if we had not had responsible trade union leaders in this country we would not have had this industrial peace and quiet. I think we should also create a place for them so that we can bestow the necessary awards on them.

I also want to refer briefly to what the hon. member for Yeoville said. It was once quite clear that as far as they were concerned there was only one way the manpower shortage could be solved and that was, as I stated previously, to throw open the sluice gates and flood the labour market with black labour. It matters not what will become of the Whites and the Coloureds in this country. That is what hon. members want. They are the greatest champions of integration. Now they want to put a scare into the white worker by saying that he will have no guarantee of protection. The hon. member for Yeoville referred to what the hon. the Minister of Transport said here. Can that hon. member or any other hon. member on the opposite side to day show us one white person who is worse off than he was in the past, wherever he may have been working? I say that they are pedalling, but they are too ashamed to admit that they support the policy of the Progressive Party. Only when they have the courage to admit that will they be telling the truth. We know that we have manpower problems, but I think that this Government and this Minister is quite capable of solving the future problems as well.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, endeavoured to reply to the points raised by the hon. member for Yeoville, at the very end of his speech. However, he did not give any indication whatsoever to prove his accusation that this side of the House does not have the interests of the white worker at heart. Indeed, the hon. member for Yeoville clearly stated that we on this side of the House wished to see the position of the white worker safeguarded. We wish to see greater productivity amongst all the racial groups in South Africa, and not merely in one racial group. He did not in any way defend the actions of the present Government in regard to what he called “defending the white worker”. Ths hon. member for Yeoville clearly illustrated that job reservation is failing hopelessly. The number of exemptions which have to be granted, indicates that it is merely used from time to time to suit political ends. We on this side of the House believe that a grave danger exists, as far as the security of the white worker is concerned, where we are establishing industries in areas where the same work can be done at a far lower rate of pay by non-Whites. The hon. member who has just spoken, failed to appreciate this point, which was a major point made by the hon. member for Yeoville.

However, he also dealt with the question of the Apprenticeship Act. Here the hon. member tended to be relatively easy on the hon. the Minister and on the Government. But when one takes into account the serious situation in regard to the shortage of apprentices in the various trades, one soon realizes that this is a vitally important problem which is facing South Africa. We have a developing and growing economy. However, if one looks at the number of contracts that are in operation one sees that, for instance, in 1966 there were 11,285 new contracts registered while in 1967 there were only 10,011 new contracts registered during those two years. This is to meet a growing economy. We have a shrinking number of apprentices entering the various trades. If one looks at the building trade, for instance, there is a steady decline in the number of apprentices qualifying for the building industry. If one looks at the tables that are included in the latest report of the Department of Labour, one can only be alarmed at the situation as far as apprenticeships are concerned in South Africa. I believe that it is time for the hon. the Minister to ask for a full investigation by the Apprenticeship Board into the present system under the Apprenticeship Act and also the present system of apprenticeship. There is obviously a great deal to be done in this regard. The hon. member referred to the question of the academic qualifications of prospective apprentices. I served for some time on a juvenile affairs board. There one was shocked from time to time to find how inadequately equipped these people were academically to face the task of entering into apprenticeship which, in many instances, due to the advance of technology, requires a higher standard of education.

There is another aspect of the Minister’s Vote which I should like to raise in the Committee. This too, I believe, is an answer to the hon. member who has spoken before me and who indicated that we on this side of the House do not have the interest of the white worker at heart. We indeed have the interest of all workers at heart. I should like to deal with the question of the social security measures which are provided for in terms of our labour legislation. First of all, I want to deal with the Workmen’s Compensation Act. This is an Act which, incidentally, was placed on the Statute Book by a United Party Government. The Minister replied to a question on Tuesday, 18th March, when I asked him various questions concerning the fund which showed that the assets of the fund now stand at over R20½ million. The hon. the Minister then indicated that there was a possibility of reviewing the awards made prior to the amending Act of 1967. Here I make a special appeal to the hon. the Minister to give this matter his urgent attention. I believe it is most unjust that where improvements are made in regard to compensation in terms of the Act, those persons who are already receiving compensation do not receive any increase in their awards. It makes it extremely difficult for these people as they become older to have to exist on a hopelessly inadequate compensation bearing in mind the present day cost of living. Yet, when the amendments were made, such as were made in 1967, there was nothing in the amending legislation to assist those people who already were receiving such compensation.

This leads to the other point, namely the question of unclaimed awards in terms of the Act. The hon. the Minister in reply to another question in the House last week, indicated that there was something like R1½ million in unclaimed awards under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Here I believe an effort must be made to try and assist these people who are entitled to receive these awards, but who for various reasons cannot be contacted. It appears that additional steps are required, whereby the employer should also be made responsible for keeping contact with these people. There have been a number of cases where dependants of persons who have lost their lives in the course of their duties have had a tremendous struggle to exist whereas they were entitled to receive compensation. However, they have lost contact with the Workmen’s Compensation Office and consequently could not receive such compensation. If one refers to the Government Gazette, one sees the large number of African employees who suffer in this way. I believe that the hon. the Minister should give consideration to placing a legal onus on the employer to at least fully inform the employee that he is entitled to such compensation and that he should continue to make inquiries until such time as he gets the compensation. I know of various cases where people were eventually contacted by the assistance of others, sometimes after three or four years. However, during that period of time, the widow and the children of these employees who have lost their lives, suffered severe financial hardships. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will consider finding ways and means of seeing that the amount of unclaimed awards in terms of Workmen’s Compensation is drastically reduced.

The other part of the social security legislation which is administered by this hon. Minister, also requires investigation and that is the Unemployment Insurance Act. If we look at the position of the fund to-day, we find that it has grown by some R19 million over the last five years. It has grown from R114 million to R133 million, which is the latest available figure showing the credit balance of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I believe important adjustments should be made in regard to the payments of benefits in terms of this Act. In terms of the 1962 legislation the payments of benefits have been curtailed considerably. One sees that many of these contributors have made contributions for a large number of years and yet when the time comes for them to claim such contributions, in other words when they have reached the retirement stage, are then discarded. Many are not paid any unemployment benefits as they are not considered as being available for the labour market. Similarly with maternity benefits, the persons should be kept fully informed as to what their rights are and what they are entitled to. In terms of the Act, a woman contributor claiming maternity benefits can claim for a period of 18 weeks prior to the expected date of confinement, and can claim for eight weeks post-natal benefits. However, where the contributor continues in employment for a period within the 18 weeks, she loses the benefits which are due to her. The contributor can then only receive the benefits from that period and eight weeks after the date of confinement. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, this evening the hon. member for Yeoville once again played the same old two-stringed instrument hon. members of the Opposition have been playing all these years, and that is the manpower shortage. They are exploiting the manpower shortage and job reservation in order to make political capital from that. I just want to mention a few factors which will prove that the Government does not adopt a disinterested attitude towards the manpower shortage or towards the shortage of artisans. I can mention to hon. members the methods which are being employed for combating this problem. The following figures prove this. For the 10-year period 1938 to 1947, 36,847 apprentices were registered; for the 10-year period 1948 to 1957 71,338 apprentices were registered and in the 10-year period 1958 to 1968 87,899 apprentices were registered. At the end of 1947, 19,687 apprenticeship contracts were in force, at the end of 1957 27,418 contracts were in force, and at the end of 1968 35,082 were in force. In order to meet and combat the shortage of artisans, the Government amended the Apprenticeship Act in 1951, 1959 and 1963. That was done to meet the problem of a shortage of artisans which had arisen. In addition it had to try to supplement the shortage. The second step taken was the introduction of aptitude tests so that persons may be trained in the correct trades. Hon. members know that previously many people were not trained in the correct trades. Many of the Whites were untrained and to-day there still are many Whites who are untrained. In the third instance qualifying tests were introduced so as to enable people to acquire artisan status sooner. With certain qualifications men are now able to qualify within 2½ years instead of the original period of five years as the position used to be under the old set-up. The fourth step that was taken for combating this position was to increase the salaries of artisans. That was done to attract people to the trades. The hon. member for Yeoville also knows about this. In the fifth place the number of men who did qualifying tests during 1968 was increased to 6,300. Of this number of 6,300 apprentices 2,200 passed the qualifying tests, i.e. 30 per cent. But a very high standard is required of these people and a very high standard is being maintained. Therefore the tests are of such a nature that only the gifted who do extremely well pass the tests. We are obliged to keep these standards high. Thus these 2,200 artisans became available to the labour market a year or two sooner. In the sixth place the standard of education of prospective apprentices has continued to improve. During 1968 3,400 apprentices with standard VIII qualifications were registered and 1,150 with standard IX or X qualifications. The facilities for technical training are being extended continually. We also know from the Education Report what interest the Department of Education is howing in training these people in the right direction by means of vocational guidance, etc. Very important is the new aspect of training, i.e. the group class system, or the so-called “block release”, in terms of which apprentices attend classes for an uninterrupted period of 10 weeks per annum instead of the old arrangement of attending classes on one or two evenings per week.

Most industrialists prescribe this new system as a condition of apprenticeship. In addition there is the training of adults. In terms of the Training of Artisans Act, which this Government also placed on the Statute Book in 1951, adults are being trained at Westlake at present. Up to now 2,842 recruits have been trained and the cost to the State of the training these men have been receiving in this way are approximately R4 million. This means that every person trained in this way costs the State approximately R1,300. If these things do not prove that the Government is fully aware of the problems in connection with our manpower shortage as far as artisans are concerned, then I do not know what else there is we have to do.

I now want to come to the question of sheltered employment and there is one matter in this connection I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. In the first place, it is with a sense of appreciation that I take cognizance of the personal interest shown by the hon. the Minister in sheltered employment and in these people who are physically handicapped. I want to thank him very sincerely on behalf of these people. These sheltered employment factories are too often seen as charitable institutions and the way the Government is looking after these people is too often referred to as charity. This, in fact, is not true. The Government is giving these people the opportunity to retain their human dignity, to do their share as citizens of the Republic of South Africa and to be proud of the fact that they are not dependent on State aid but are able to earn for themselves and in that way retain their self-respect. We should not fail to realize that these people are handicapped persons and that they cannot have the same mental disposition as healthy and normal people. Many of us who are normal, bury our talents, whereas these people with the few talents they have and the ability they have, still earn their own living in spite of their handicaps. The problem is that they are very sensitive people. It is an art to work with these people and one has to have a great deal of patience and sympathy; one must have knowledge of their problem and of the way in which they must be assisted. What is more, these people are not highly trained people. They usually are people who have a low level of training. The instructors who have to assist and guide these people and who have to see to it that there is production so as to make these people feel like worthy human beings are performing a very special task. I believe that these instructors should be accomodated and that their wage structure will be revised. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hercules also dealt with the question of the shortage of apprentices, but I now want to complete my argument in regard to maternity benefits, because I believe that the working wife and the working mother are playing a very important part in meeting the labour shortage that exists in South Africa. They do indeed play a vital role and therefore efforts should be made to assist them in regard to the question of the payment of these maternity benefits. I believe that they should all be able to qualify for a full 26 weeks benefits, provided they meet the other requirement of having been contributors for 18 weeks during the 52 weeks prior to the expected date of confinement. The other aspect is the question of payments to the dependants of deceased contributors. When one looks at the figures one realizes that there is a large number of deceased contributors’ dependants who would be able to claim these benefits if it was brought to their notice that such benefits are due to them. In terms of the legislation it is not possible to claim these benefits unless the claim is made within three years after the death of a contributor. However, there are cases where many of these people are unaware of the fact that these benefits are due to them as dependants of the deceased contributor, and I feel that this should be brought to the notice of these people.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.

Mr. Speaker, I move-—

The hon. member for Green Point unfortunately cannot be here this afternoon and he asked me to deal with the Third Reading of the Bill on our side.

Where is he? At Newlands?

No, he is out of town. At the Second Reading we did not oppose the Bill, on condition that during the Committee Stage certain amendments would be effected in connection with clause 6, which relates to the question of servants’ visitors. Those amendments were not effected; consequently we shall oppose the Third Reading, and I want to explain briefly why we shall vote against the Third Reading.

As the Bill stands, I must say that it is not one that we like. The reasons which the hon. the Minister gave for the introduction of the Bill were highly unsatisfactory, and the Minister himself was very vague about the way in which clause 6 would be applied. It is part of our way of life in South Africa that we have domestic servants, and not only Whites have domestic servants; the more well-to-do non-Whites also keep domestic servants. But as far as the Whites are concerned, one can certainly say that the domestic servant system has a good deal to do with our progressiveness and with our advanced way of life. But quite apart from that, we think there is nothing wrong with the idea of having domestic servants. All of us are, after all, dependent upon one another for a living, and I say quite frankly that people who say that we must give up our servants are talking through their necks.

Who said that?

The hon. the Minister of Community Development.

When did I say that?

I have no desire to put words into the mouth of the hon. the Minister, but we can raise the matter on his Vote. I am convinced he said it. [Interjections.] I am not dealing with the hon. the Minister’s Vote now, otherwise I would have had the proof here. But if the Minister denies it, I shall accept it. [Interjection.] Very well, let us accept it.

What did the Minister say to the Rapportryers at Stellenbosch?

I am very much under the impression that the hon. the Minister said in public that Whites should not keep domestic servants.

Nonsense! I never said that.

Then I accept it, but it is not necessary to react so vehemently. I came under the impression as a result of a speech made by the hon. the Minister, but I am quite prepared to accept it if he says that it is not so.

But what point do you want to make now?

I shall come to my point. In a certain sense all of us are servants the one of the other. Consequently our standpoint has always been that it is ridiculous to single out domestic service and to say that there should be no such thing. But now we have the position that with the acceptance, as the Minister is also doing now, of the system of domestic servants in what we call white residential areas, one finds that there are thousands of non-Whites living in every residential area that is called a white residential area. There is in actual fact no such thing as a white residential area. There are white-owned areas, yes, but there is no such thing as a white residential area in any place in South Africa. If you go to a suburb such as Sea Point, you will find that there are about ten thousand non-Whites living on premises belonging to Whites; if that is wrong, the Government should summon up courage and make a law which prohibits people from having non-white servants. Then he can see whether the public will be satisfied with that or not. And I should very much like to hear from the hon. the Deputy Minister who is in charge of this Bill what his own point of view is about the system of domestic servants as we have it in South Africa to-day; and I hope he will not hide behind the excuse that the non-Whites living in the white areas are there in the capacity of servants. The capacity has nothing to do with the situation. It is unimportant. The fact of the matter is that thousands of non-Whites are living in white areas; and I think the Government will have to decide whether it believes in the concept of residential areas which are white and nothing but white, and then apply it, or accept this fact that each residential area is in effect a mixed residential area, a multi-racial residential area, where the convenience of the non-Whites living there should also be taken into consideration.

The hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Tygerberg complained here about abuses arising out of this system which they accept. The hon. member for Tygerberg spoke as if every servant was a skolly. The hon. the Deputy Minister referred to the police being concerned about crime where there is a concentration of non-Whites. I think this is a very unfair attitude, because crime and skollies are not things which are peculiar to servants and to non-Whites; it occurs daily among Whites in the best residential areas in the country. Neither is noise and disturbance in residential areas limited to non-Whites. Noisy parties and radios which create a nuisance also occur among white residents, in the worst possible degree. But there is provision against that. There is provision for action to be taken against such things. There is legal provision for action to be taken against undue noise and disturbance in any area, and if the hon. the Deputy Minister thinks that there is not enough provision for action to be taken against noise and disturbance in areas, he can introduce legislation affecting all people, both Whites and non-Whites, in order to curb people who are a nuisance to their neighbours. But in this Bill before us servants only are singled out to make their position more difficult.

You are dreaming; you have not read the Bill.

I am dealing with clause 6. Sir, you can take any area— we can again take the example of Sea Point —and you will find that non-White domestic servants have nowhere to go in their leisure hours. Non-White domestic servants cannot go and sit on the beach; they cannot go into a café; they cannot go to a cinema, unless they travel 13 miles to attend a cinema in a Coloured area. The Government’s system prohibits them from doing these things with the result that, under the existing system, they have no choice but to come together in rooms with their friends and to try to amuse themselves there. Consequently it is the social system which we have, which has been forced upon them, which is responsible for what hon. members on that side term abuses. It seems most unfair to us that more stringent restrictions are now to be imposed in this respect as well and that these people are to be penalized because of a position which they have not created. When we asked the hon. the Deputy Minister about the nature of the regulations which he wants to issue in terms of clause 6 he first spoke about a “question of hours” in regard to which regulations may be issued. He also said that there are certain hours which can be regarded as working hours, but, Sir, this does not apply to all households; we know that these hours vary tremendously from one household to another. Mention has been made of the possibility of restricting the numbers by means of the regulations, but if you apply that, then you may land up in the situation, if I may mention a theoretical case, that a servant may receive only two visitors, and what will the situation be if two arrive, only to find a third one there? Then you will have the situation either that one will have to go or that there will be a contravention of the Act. [Interjections.] Why did the hon. the Deputy Minister not explain to us in detail precisely what sort of regulations he has in mind under clause 6?

I did, but you do not listen.

No, the two examples which he mentioned were the question of hours …

I clearly and explicitly spoke about permits.

That is correct, but the hon. the Minister spoke about possible provisions in connection with visiting hours and possible restrictions on the number of visitors. It is because the hon. the Minister cannot give us a satisfactory explanation of bow the clause will be applied and what sort of regulations he is going to make, that we cannot support this Bill. In any case, I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that regulations of this nature will inevitably result in certain grouches in the community spending their time looking at what is going on amongst their neighbours’ non-White servants, and that will undoubtedly give rise to complaints to the Police and an endless series of unpleasantnesses. We are quite justified in assuming and saying that the sort of regulations which the hon. the Deputy Minister has in mind is going to solve nothing, because this is a superficial way of dealing with the problem and in actual fact it has very little to do with the essence of the problem. In any case I want to declare that we are strongly opposed to any further Government control over the everyday movements of people, further interference in the private domestic arrangements of people, and what must inevitably result, more technical offences, more complaints to the Police, more court cases and fuller gaols. The one inevitably follows on the other. And ail this for the sake of a process which is creating more and more problems every day, instead of solving problems.

Finally I want to say that we are completely opposed to the increasing practice on the Government side to grant Ministers the far-reaching power to govern by way of regulation and to promulgate laws in an arbitrary way without consultation with this Parliament. When the Minister gets the power to make a regulation by means of which be can control the lives of others, it means that he is in fact making a law without consulting Parliament. We believe this to be a completely improper and unsound principle. Especially where the daily lives of people are concerned, we on this side of the House cannot accept it, and for these reasons we shall vote against the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, according to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has just said, the Official Opposition is going to oppose the Third Reading of this Bill. I am very glad to hear this and I am certainly going to do the same myself. The Official On-position has stated the reason why it is opposing the Third Reading, having accepted the Second Reading. It opposes the Third Reading because no amendments were agreed to by the hon. the Deputy Minister, during the Committee Stage of the Bill, particularly to clause 6. Clause 6 is the important clause in this Bill. I want to say right out that I am very sorry indeed that I did not oppose the Second Reading of this Bill. I should certainly have done so, but I came in too late to hear the debate. I regret it very much indeed that I did not oppose the Second Reading.

[Inaudible.]

I am not interested in the hon. the Deputy Minister’s personal observations about me at all; I am dealing with this Bill. I would have entertained no illusions, as the Opposition appeared to, that there was any likelihood of the hon. the Deputy Minister accepting any reasonable amendments whatsoever. I have long ago given up hope of this happening in the House, but more particularly would I not have any such hope with this hon. Deputy Minister. I must say I had hoped that the hon. the Deputy Minister, now that he at last has become a bride after being a bridesmaid for such a very long time, might have mellowed a little. I can see of course that my hopes were without any foundation whatsoever. He is exactly as he always has been. I oppose the Third Reading on the same grounds that I opposed clause 6 yesterday in the Committee Stage. I believe that this is a mean little measure which is giving the Government the extended powers to do what it in fact already can do, and that is control any person who is illegally on private premises. I see no reason at all why the Government requires any of these extended powers. It seems to me that in South Africa there is less and less sanctity of one’s private home. The Government is everywhere, this busybody Government which cannot keep its nose out of anything.

Neither can you!

I have to respond to what the Government does.

Order! The hon. member is going too far now.

All right then Sir, this Government. I withdraw the word “busybody”. This Government which cannot resist interfering in every single aspect of life in South Africa. This Government decides who may be employed by whom and even decides by whom employees may be visited on the premises of their employers. The Government is even going so far as to object if an employer allows a woman servant residing on the premises to have her lawfully wedded husband visit her and stay with her for a while. Domestic servants allow a large number of women to go and contribute towards the productive capacity of South Africa, whereas otherwise they would not have been able to. Owing to the long distances between the white suburbs where the domestic servants are employed and the townships where by Government decree, they live, which are many miles away from the city itself the opportunities for such domestic servants who are employed on a full-time basis to enjoy any social intercourse among their own people are strictly limited. Therefore, it is the custom for servants to visit each other on their respective employers’ premises. I should say that this is a pretty harmless activity and it should not be interfered with at all by the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Deputy Minister tells us that permits will be granted. Permits for this sort of thing! Does he envisage people queuing to get permits so that their servants can be allowed to be visited by their families?

That is a visit by appointment.

The situation has become such in South Africa that hundreds of thousands of civil servants in South Africa are already tied up, sitting in offices, in every single city and town of this country …

Order! The hon. member is going far too far.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister told us …

Order! The hon. member is covering much too wide a field. She must come back to the Bill.

May I then just satisfy myself by saying that we already have a permit-ridden society in this country and we are now going to have to get more permits. There is not the manpower available to do all the necessary investigations before these permits which the hon. the Deputy Minister promises us will be issued, can in fact be issued. Therefore, for all the reasons which I mentioned yesterday, because I object to these additional wide powers which the hon. the Deputy Minister is taking unto himself to control the visitors of domestic servants, I shall oppose the Third Reading of this Bill.

The hon. the Minister has admitted that there are major problems in the urban complexes in South Africa to-day. The Minister has now introduced legislation to solve one of these major problems. Our standpoint is that this complex problem cannot be solved by way of this legislation.

I listened very attentively to the hon. member for Tygervallei. He referred to various complaints in the Press about the present state of affairs in our cities. He complained about the situation in the northern suburbs as well as in other areas in the Peninsula. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Maitland has not taken part in this debate, because he is continually complaining about conditions in his constituency, either to local authorities or by way of letters to the Press.

Order! What has this to do with the Bill?

I am speaking about the conditions in the Peninsula.

Yes, but what has the hon. member for Maitland to do with the Bill?

I am sorry that he did not state his views again, Sir.

I am sorry that the hon. member referred to him. [Laughter.]

He complains about conditions in his constituency.

No, we are dealing with the Bill. We are not dealing with the opinions and ideas of the hon. member for Maitland.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that he has not taken part. He knows a great deal about these problems. I think what I can do to-day is to make use of this suitable opportunity to point out to the Government that, in spite of the fact that they have been in power for 21 years, this state of affairs still exists. When they came into power in 1948 they placed a pamphlet such as this one before the electorate.

Yes, but the pamphlet is not under discussion either. We are dealing with a Bill.

Yes, but it is old Pottie’s fault.

Order!

Subsequently, Mr. Speaker, they produced various other pamphlets suggesting that they had the solution to all these complex problems that we have in the cities. They need not say to us in the Opposition benches that we have always opposed this kind of legislation. They ought to convince their own editors that legislation such as is before the House now, is the solution to our problems. I am referring to the political article by Schalk Pienaar in Die Beeld of 17th November, 1968, under the heading “ons red die volk in ’n hysbak” (We save the nation in a lift) as well as the article by Dirk Richard under the heading “Klein apartheid onder die soeklik” (Petty apartheid under scrutiny). This is what Dirk Richard said (translation):

The hon. member cannot read the opinions of all the editors in the country to Parliament. We shall be doing nothing but listening to what the editors wrote.

Everything which I mentioned this afternoon, shows that the Government has no solution to the problems in our cities after 21 years. This justifies the attitude adopted on this side of the House over the years.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke at length on this Bill. He said that they did not like this Bill. Yet they voted for its Second Reading. This is typical of the attitude of the United Party—they are forever sitting on the fence in order to be able to jump off on either side. Of course, they want to go and tell the public outside that they voted for the principle of this legislation, and at the same time tell the more Progressive section of their party that they voted against it. As I said, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout spoke at length on the question of domestic servants. But this legislation is not about domestic servants at all. It has nothing to do with domestic servants, neither about the number of servants people should have, nor about when domestic servants will be allowed. This legislation has nothing whatsoever to do with domestic servants. The hon. member made a strange statement here this afternoon, and I want to draw attention to it. He said that in South Africa there were no longer any white residential areas. What, then, has happened to the United Party’s belief that there should be separate residential areas for the races in South Africa, even if it is voluntary residential segregation? [Interjections.] What has become of it if the hon. member now states that there is no such thing as a white residential area in South Africa any more? However, I have to disillusion the hon. member—such residential areas do in fact exist in South Africa. No persons other than Whites may occupy a white residential area without a permit, that is to say, without exemption. No unqualified person may live in a white residential area without exemption. No non-White may live in a white residential area if he has not been exempted in terms of the Act. That is the position. Whites are the only people who are lawfully entitled to live there.

Any proclamation issued in terms of this legislation will not be issued with the object of prohibiting mutual social intercourse among servants. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout maintains the opposite. But this legislation will not restrict it in any way. This legislation only deals with the visitors. They are the people we want to restrict. They are the people we want to get at, and we do not want to get at the mutual social intercourse between servants, as the hon. member tried to suggest here. It is clear that the hon. member does not know what this Bill is about. The section which is being amended here, provides that there shall be group areas, and that there shall be qualified persons for each group area. But the same article grants exemption to various groups of people, among others to domestic servants and visitors of domestic servants. The exemption of servants is subject to a proclamation, while visitors are not subject to a proclamation. All we envisage with this legislation is that both the case of servants and that of visitors should be regulated by proclamation. Both groups must be dealt with on the same basis. In the same way as we have control over servants at the moment, we can then get control over visitors to those servants as well. In that way we can control the abuses which we are experiencing at present. That is all that this legislation envisages.

I do not think it is necessary for me to reply to the hon. member for Houghton, because she does not speak to this House, but for consumption in the outside world. I flatly refuse to respond to the things which she wants to export to the outside world. I do not think that what she says is relevant. Besides, she does not know the Bill; she did not go to any trouble to find out what it is all about.

As far as the hon. member for Simonstown is concerned, he was far off the mark, and therefore I do not think it is necessary for me to reply to him.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—85: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Brandt, J. W.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; De Jager, P. R.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Herman, Lewis, H. M.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Otto, J. C. Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pieterse, R: J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Van den Heever, D. T. G.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Rensburg. M. C. G. J.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, P. H. Torlage, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—35: Basson. J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Bloomberg, A.; Bronkhorst, H. J.; Connan, J. M.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Jacobs, G. F.; Lindsay, J. E.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

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

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Third Time.

When we adjourned the hon. member for Umbilo, who is rot here now, made two remarks on which I should like to dwell briefly. His first assertion was that there was insufficient information in respect of contributors and payments in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act. I want to point out to the hon. member that this is not the case. In my hand I have a, pamphlet numbered “UF.100”, which reads “Unemployment Insurance Act; Summary of the main provisions as at 1st October, 1968, for the information of contributors”, employers as well as employees. This pamphlet is freely distributed among employers and employees. Therefore I do not believe that the hon. member’s assertion is altogether correct. This pamphlet is also available to the public at all offices of the Department of Labour. It is also a fact that on every contributor’s record card special mention is made, and incidentally this is set out very clearly, of all the benefits, in terms of the Act, to which contributors are entitled, i.e. the ordinary benefits, maternity allowances, illness allowances and the allowances of dependants.

Then the hon. member for Umbilo made a second remark having a bearing on the conditions attaching to payments to dependants of deceased contributors. He objected to the application having to be submitted within three years after the death of the contributor, and he asked for that period to be extended. Unfortunately there I cannot agree with the hon. member either. I think the three years are quite sufficient if one takes into account that any applicant, who qualifies for benefits in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act, can obtain the information at any office of the Department of Labour and, in fact, from any magistrate, and if he merely wanted to take the trouble, the respective labour union to which that worker belongs, would also give him the necessary information.

It is my privilege to represent, in this House, a great number of white workers, and I should like to make use of the opportunity to make a request to the hon. the Minister on behalf of my constituents. On 31.12.1967 the balance of the Workmen’s Compensation Fund was a little more than R20 million. On the same date a payment for the previous year of a little more than R1 million was made to injured workers, and the dependants of deceased workers, in respect of pension benefits. The number of pensioners in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Fund was 4,913 in 1965, 5,149 in 1966 and 5,518 in 1967. The increase of pensions, in terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which are paid in accordance with section 39 (1) of Act No. 30 of 1941, as amended, is a matter which has been raised for many years by the white workers of this country. All pensions are increased from time to time and adapted to prevailing circumstances, but the pension of the injured workman and his dependants still remains constant. It must be borne in mind that the person who is injured cannot resume his normal duties again and cannot carry them out either. The pension which he receives is exclusively based on his salary at the time of the accident. It is also an essential requirement for receipt of such a pension that there should be a permanent labour disability and that this disability should be determined in accordance with certain rules laid down in the legislation concerned. Such an injured person is no longer capable of holding his own in society, as a result of the fact that he was injured, and therefore his way of life is exclusively dependent upon the financial means at his disposal. If a worker is engaged in a certain profession, and as a result of an injury can no longer continue with that profession, he undoubtedly deserves a pension on which he can live. It is also a fact that numerous pensioners under the Workmen’s Compensation Act have large families to support, and it is general knowledge that if an accident strikes down the breadwinner, the family which remains behind is very hard hit because there are then no financial means whatsoever, or else what there is is extremely meagre. Therefore, in my opinion, there is room for revision of the pensions of such persons.

In the light of the fact that the number of pensioners is very small, as I have already indicated. I am convinced that the Workmen’s Compensation Fund ought to be quite capable of carrying any additional financial burdens with ease. If the pension benefits for these injured workers were to be increased, this would, in my opinion, embody no new principle, because the other pensions, such as old age pensions, disability allowances, etc., are revised from time to time, and the necessary funds are, in fact, available. In all fairness to these workers, it is therefore my opinion that my request for increased benefits for these pensioners and their dependants is quite a meritorius one, and therefore I would particularly appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would be so kind as to consider this request favourably. I can give him the assurance that all of us who have faith in him, as do the white workers, would remain sincerely grateful to him if he would comply with my request.

The second request which I should like to make to the hon. the Minister is that he should consider revising all the scales, which are applicable in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act, in respect of the ordinary benefits, the maternity allowances, the illness allowances and the allowances to dependants, because when all is said and done all the allowances were introduced by the present Government, the illness allowance in 1952, the maternity allowance in 1954 and the dependants’ allowance in 1957. The assets of the Unemployment Insurance Fund evidence a continual increase, if we study the statistics, and at the end of 1967 there was a little more than R133 million in the Fund. It is my considered opinion that the scales of payment in respect of all benefits in terms of this Act should be revised. But if, for practical reasons, the Minister does not see his way clear to complying with my request, I want to appeal to him amicably to revise merely the conditions which pertain to the payments to dependants of deceased contributors. On page 8 of this Department of Labour pamphlet, from which I have quoted, these conditions relating to payments to dependants of deceased contributors are stated as follows—

Here I want to request that the hon. the Minister should at least double that period of 26 weeks, if possible, and increase it to 52 weeks. [Time expired.]

Yesterday my colleague the hon. member for Yeoville launched an attack on a broad basis against the Government in respect of its labour policy, or rather, in respect of its lack of a labour policy. We thought it would create an excellent opportunity for hon. members on the other side to react to this. Four of them have since taken part in this debate, but they have run away from this problem, almost as fast as the wings who will be in action at Newlands this afternoon. Not one of them has yet tried, in any way, to reply to the questions which we submitted to them. All we have had from them so far has been their statements that there is labour peace in South Africa.

Of course there is.

Yes, here they are, of course, merely echoing the hon. the Minister, because that is what he is always saying. But now I want to ask how he knows this; how does he determine that there is labour peace? They say that there are no strikes in South Africa. We have labour peace because there are no strikes. But let us analyse this a little. We know, surely, that the vast majority of the workers in our labour force are non-Whites, and we know that in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act a Bantu is not defined as an employee. What he is I really do not know, but he is not an employee, and we know that he cannot be admitted to a trade union. We know that he is not allowed to strike either. Take the mining industry where 90 per cent of the workers are Bantu, as an example. They are not allowed to strike, and now hon. members on that side come along and use the absence of strikes as a norm to prove to me that there is industrial peace. The same situation applies in Russia. They also say that there is labour peace in Russia, but no-one there is allowed to strike.

Would you, under your policy, allow the Bantu to strike in South Africa?

Hon. members on that side say that there is always labour peace in this country, and I am merely stating that in terms of the Government’s own legislation the Bantu dare not strike. If, under these circumstances, we want to use labour peace as a criterion, we might just as well say that there is as much labour peace in South Africa as there is political peace within the Nationalist Party. To judge by the number of resignations of Members of the House of Assembly and the number of suspensions taking place, there is peace within the Nationalist Party. The hon. the Prime Minister told us last year how unanimous they were, and he is telling us the same now.

See how unanimous we are.

Three-quarters of them are not even here this afternoon; that is how unanimous they are! Sir, judging by what I read in Die Beeld, Die Burger and Hoofstad, there is relatively little political peace within that party.

Look how disappointed the United Party members are.

But there is another argument which is overlooked altogether. Sir, strikes usually occur as part of the economic growth process of a country, and when a country begins to develop economically, at the take-off phase, you always have a number of strikes. South Africa also had it in the twenties. In the second place you have strikes when a country matures economically, as is the case with Britain and the United States. We are between these two positions. We are experiencing rapid economic development, and from the nature of the case we are not experiencing strikes at this stage. Japan is a country which could possibly be compared to us. They have a dynamic and almost militant labour and trade union movement. In contrast to that our own trade unions have been caged to such an extent that they have become altogether tame. But even in Japan you do not have strikes. Sir, it therefore has absolutely nothing to do with the Government. This is an altogether inappropriate criterion.

I think that we would achieve much more by coming back to basic principles. In speaking of labour peace, let us not take strikes as a norm, because they are a completely false norm. Let us rather come back to basic principles. Here we have a Ministry of Labour. What is expected of it; why was it established? One could put this in different ways. I should like to put it like this: I would say that, in the first place, every country has an economic growth programme, and one of the primary tasks of a Ministry of Labour is to ensure that there is sufficient manpower available to carry out this economic programme. This is the first criterion by which we must measure labour peace. In the second place, an economic growth programme can only succeed if there is an improvement in productivity. After all, we know that all our estimates in South Africa are based on an annual increase of 2.9 per cent to 3 per cent in national productivity. This can only be achieved if all the human resources in our society are properly developed and deployed and properly utilized. This, I would say, is the second primary task of a Ministry of Labour. In the third place, it must ensure that employment opportunities and working conditions are created which will afford our workers the greatest possible measure of satisfaction in their work. It is against the background of these tasks that we must approach the Ministers’ contribution to labour matters.

Sir, we must remember that South Africa is a multi-racial country, and a further decision we have to take is whether we are faced here with something which is an entity or which is divisible. The Government has decided that education in South Africa is divisible; so, for example, we have white education, Bantu education and Indian education. But as far as labour is concerned, hon. members opposite tell us that it is an entity, because we do not have various Ministers of Labour; we have only one Minister. He is therefore not only Minister of white labour; he is also the Minister of Indian, of Coloured and of Bantu labour, and he must not lose sight of this. It is against this background that I find this hon. Minister’s approach so strange, because earlier this Session he attacked us in general and me in particular in this House, quoting what I had allegedly said. Among other things he severely criticized me for allegedly having said, according to him, “There must be optimum application of the country’s manpower resources”. Sir, what person in his right mind can find fault with that? Is that not his policy; does he not agree with that? But then he was not satisfied with that; he said that I had gone further, and then he wanted to give the knockout blow, the coup de grace, and said that I had said that we must develop the manpower of all our population groups to its full potential. Does he, then, not accept that; is it not his policy? If he does not want to develop the manpower of all our population groups to the full, is he going to discriminate? Is he going to keep some of them back artificially? Is he going to keep them in an inferior position? Is he going to restrict their development? Sir, here is a Government that tells us it stands for apartheid but equality. Where is the equality unless he accepts what I said here? But there are, at least, other people sitting on the Government benches with him who are a little more enlightened. This is probably due to the days they spent at Oxford. I notice that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, who is not present at the moment, is speaking frequently these days. I want to quote what he said, according to a magazine which calls itself The World— I think this was before he had this circus in Ermelo—

This is followed by further quotations, and then the following appears in quotation marks—

And now we come to the important point—

[Time expired.]

I think it only fitting, on account of the importance of the Department of Labour, that I begin by expressing a word of appreciation here to the hon. the Minister, the Secretary of the Department and all the Department’s officials, for the capable and skilful way in which they are administering this Department. Sir, the industrial peace in this country, to which disdainful reference was made a moment ago, is the result of the dedication of the hon. the Minister and his Department; and the way in which he and his Department have in the past few years very capably eliminated levels of friction, has given further permanence to this industrial peace for us, and we are proud of that, despite the disdainful attitude of the hon. member for Hillbrow.

Who takes any notice of him?

This has brought about an increasing measure of support for the National Party’s policy among our people in South Africa, including our great industrialists. This is, of course, the result of the great deal of noise which the hon. member for Yeoville made here yesterday, but I shall refer to that in a moment. I should like to content myself with that word of appreciation to the hon. the Minister and his Department.

Sir, in the first place, the hon. member for Hillbrow referred here with disdain to industrial peace. I want to tell him that that is a gem which we prize most highly. We are very proud of that. Sir, in the time of the United Party Government we did not only have strikes, but we had armed rebellions.

In 1922.

That was the state of affairs in old United Party times. That is why we are proud of this hon. Minister and the Department who are friends of the workers and who see to it that we have industrial peace, because they ensure that the welfare of the worker is in the right hands. We will not come along and ask a renegade like the hon. member for Hillbrow to …

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to say that. The hon. member must withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it, but the hon. member compels one to such utterances. That hon. member must speak about the workers of South Africa with greater respect. He must not refer to them in that disrespectful way. That is my request to him. I challenge the hon. member to come to my constituency! There we will knock him into the middle of next week.

Now I want to deal with the other point which the hon. member for Hillbrow raised here. We have industrial peace in South Africa because the white as well as the nonwhite workers have faith in this Government. The workers of the country, let me tell him, treat the party which those hon. members represent with contempt.

The hon. member for Yeoville had a tremendous amount to say here yesterday afternoon. However, he merely repeated exactly what he said last year in this debate; one could just as well have read last year’s Hansard and one would have known what he was going to say here yesterday. However, the only difference is that he said it with a great deal more noise and with less conviction. I say this because I know that the workers of South Africa think the same about the hon. member for Yeoville’s conduct. That hon. member has probably never seen the inside of a factory. He must wait until he has worked there and then he must think back to the manner in which the workers were treated when the old United Party was in power. Only then can he come along and make the kind of remarks he made yesterday afternoon. The hon. member referred, inter alia, to what the hon. the Minister of Transport said here in the Railways debate about the employment of non-Whites. He distorted this shamefully. The hon. the Minister referred here to national interests and he asked the hon. member what his party would do under such circumstances. The hon. member for Yeoville and his leader, who has just walked out of the door, still owe us a reply to this day. In answer to that the hon. the Minister of Transport said that if national interests required it he would employ non-Whites regardless of whether the trade unions agreed or not. The hon. the Minister asked the hon. member what his party would do if it was in power. He asked whether they would consult with the trade unions. They have not replied yet. I think that the best thing for that hon. member to do would be to sit still and never take part in a labour debate again. I do not want to go into the hon. member’s arguments any further.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

I do not have time for questions. My time is limited. I do not see how any question which they could ask could change my attitude, because I was an industrial worker when they were in power and I know how they treated us.

I want to refer here to a very important matter. This is the question of deafness which occurs among our workers in industries. We are aware of the fact that the year before last the Minister passed legislation here to have industrial diseases recognized and we said at the time that we were very glad of this. It is only a good Government which looks after its workers in that way. Despite all the problems hampering the speedy proclamation of regulations, I feel that we are within our rights to ask for them to be speeded up if possible. I briefly want to refer here to the present state of affairs. I have here a report of Mr. Van der Sandt of the Ear Clinic of the Johannesburg General Hospital. He recently held a lecture in connection with this problem. There he made one claim which is very important. He said (translation)—

This is proof to us of how large a number of our workers are subjected to possible deafness in the execution of their duties. Mr. Van der Sandt went on to say:

This is of the utmost importance—

In other words, if a person loses his hearing as a result of too much noise in his working sphere, nothing can be done about this. That is the reason why I am pleading for those regulations to be issued as speedily as possible. It must be done speedily to ensure the protection of the hearing of those individuals. I want to take the liberty this afternoon of making a friendly appeal to employers to take this matter into account, whether there are regulations or not, and to try to take steps to protect the hearing of their employees. The compensation being paid to employees at present for the loss of hearing is minimal. It is 7 per cent in the case of one ear, where the damage to the ear results in labour disability, and 50 per cent in the case of both ears. But we must remember that if a person has merely lost the use of one ear, and this can happen at a very young age, perhaps soon after he has entered the profession … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to refer in any way to what has been said by that hon. member, except on one point and that is where he tried to indicate that I referred to the workers of South Africa in a disparaging way. I should like him to refer to Hansard, and I challenge him on that score to come and prove to me where I referred to them in a disparaging way. The difficulty with that hon. gentleman and others, is that they want to lead our workers into a fool’s paradise. I am prepared to look at the fundamental issues. Their approach is that you need not look for a solution, all you must find is a slogan. Just say “job reservation” and everything in the garden is roses and the problem has been solved. They never look for a policy, they just try to find a war cry. So we have war cries like “separate development”, “apartheid” and “separate freedoms”, things which only exist in the fertile imaginations of the people who conjure up these remarkable slogans.

I want to return to the issue I have referred to and I want to indicate how that hon. Minister applies his policy of separate but equal development. I want to refer to a development which took place in Cape Town quite recently. One of our well-known banks wanted to engage some two dozen Coloured women for clerical purposes. Now, it so happens that the hon. the Minister of Labour is also the Minister of Coloured Affairs, and I should have imagined that he would have welcomed an opportunity of this kind. At every opportunity he tells us about the wonderful new vistas which are opening for the Coloured people. Did he do so? No, he decided against it and he said that the bank could not engage them. Well, what I want to know is whether he has taken this decision in his capacity as Minister of Coloured Affairs. If so, I think they should certainly demand somebody else who will take better care of their interests, or did he do so in his capacity as Minister of Labour? Did the hon. Minister do it as Minister of white labour, or did he do it as Minister of Coloured Labour? In any case, in which of these capacities did he take this decision? I want to know what is the sequel to this? What did happen to the two dozen Coloured women who were going to get employment? Has he found them alternative employment, employment which is separate but also equal? I ask that, because that is the policy of this party; that is the sort of war cry they put before us.

Now, let us look at another example. For years they have been telling us that job reservation is the solution of the labour problem. They say it is as a result of job reservation, that we have industrial peace in South Africa. Of course, everybody knew this was absolute nonsense, except for a small group of gullible people who took this seriously. But nobody ever put it to the test until during this last recess, Mr. Tom Murray challenged the Government to introduce job reservation. Here we had a remarkable phenomenon. I would have thought that the Minister would welcome this. He is now being asked to implement his own policy. But what reaction did we get? He referred to this as an irresponsible demand. Here are the questions he posed. He asked: Where must I get the thousands and thousands of white workers to take the place of the non-Whites who would be displaced in this way? As though it was necessary, he also posed the second question: What will I do with the thousands upon thousands of non-Whites who will be displaced in this way? Now here is a responsible trade unionist, asking the Government to carry out its own policy, and he is called “irresponsible”. Surely, the answer is that it is an irresponsible policy laid down by an irresponsible government, because it is incapable of implementation. That is the sort of thing with which our people are being led astray.

But I want to ask him this question too, because the Government is strangely reluctant to give us this figure, what percentage of our white workers in South Africa at the moment are protected by job reservation? The best estimate I can make is 3 per cent. I am going to suggest to the hon. the Minister that it is 3 per cent. If he disagrees with this, I am sure he will give me the correct figure. If he does not respond to this, I am going to assume that 3 per cent is the correct figure. If it is in fact 3 per cent, then surely he is only influencing this total situation in a marginal sense. This is the strange situation again, namely that in this little marginal area, where the Government can control it, «they are making this tremendous fuss. They are putting up all sorts of smokescreens. But what is happening in the totality? There is nothing they can do about it. The non-Whites are taking the jobs over every second day. The Government put the telescope to the proverbial blind eye, because there is nothing they can do about it. They say to us that we plead for integration. Mr. Chairman, this is not necessary. Integration is a fact. Who has really given it impetus in this country? This Government. I challenge anybody on that side of the House to disprove my contention that integration has occurred at a faster rate over the last 20 years than ever before in our history. This is going to continue, because this new economic development programme we have that is based on a 5½ per cent growth rate, also has two basic assumptions, namely that white labour will increase at the rate of 3 per cent per year and non-white labour at a rate of 10 per cent per year.

You are glad about that.

No. I am dealing with the basic facts of the South African situation.

But now I want to take this thought further, because my contention also is that this integration, which that hon. member is so concerned about and appears to know so little about, is largely a function of the Government’s own policy. I refer, to border industries. Here they euphemistically tell us that all that we are concerned with is to develop economically depressed areas, and we must decentralize industry. But if that is the case, why do we not site these factories at Oudtshoorn, Vryburg or Ermelo?! That would be an interesting political development, to site a couple of new factories in Ermelo. But they do not go there. They go to the Bantu reserves, to these little black spots that Dr. Verwoerd wanted to remove, but which now serve a very useful purpose near Newcastle and Rosslyn in Pretoria. So we are taking our factories to these points for one reason only, namely because they have black labour. Now clearly it follows from this, and we all know it, that integration in these areas is going to grow apace. It is going to gain new impetus. This whole business of job reservation is a dead duck, because it is going to be quite inconsequential quite soon. Nearly all the jobs will be done by non-Whites, in any case. So, for whom are we going to reserve them? At any rate, of the jobs that are reserved at the moment, I can give hon. members this guarantee, that in 20 years time very few of them will exist. We are dealing with a rapidly changing scene. When General Hertzog was Prime Minister of South Africa, (he said a Black man could not drive a lorry. He verily believed this. Most South Africans believed it at the time. To-day a White man will think lorry driving is a non-white man’s job. That is how dramatically the situation is changing. I am surprised at some of the trade unions who support this border area scheme, and do so so vociferously, because there is no doubt in my own mind that what they are going to end up with, is that all their bargaining power will be completely lost, and they will become powerless. That is the sort of situation that will arise.

But integration in industry will continue even quicker, too, because of another factor. Nearly all the Whites are taken up into the Civil Service. 38 per cent of the economically active Whites in South Africa at the moment work in the Civil Service. Mr. Chairman, we are going to become a nation of pen pushers. All the Whites will be pushing the paper around in the Civil Service, and the non-Whites will be working in the factories. Then we will talk about job reservation to protect them, but it will not be necessary because none of them will be working in the factories. These are some of the issues we want the hon. the Minister to talk to us about. We ask for a new charter, a new approach to this tremendously important issue. But when they meet with us here, they say everything in the garden is rosy. They say we have no manpower problem, when they talk here so that the outside world can hear them. But in their inner councils, what happened early in May this year? They had secret discussions on the bottlenecks in the Civil Service. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman. I always listen attentively to the hon. member for Hillbrow, for the simple reason that know that he has aspirations and that he is called the future leader. But after listening to him to-day I think that his leadership will be in jeopardy if he ventures into the field of labour. The hon. member asked where the happiness and labour peace was among the workers in South Africa. Now I want to ask this question of the hon. member and the entire Opposition: What Western country can they mention where the white worker is better off and happier than in South Africa?

The Whites?

The Whites, yes. Then, in the second place, I want to ask, in what black state in Africa is the worker better off than in South Africa?

Have you already been there? Have you already been to look?

Yes, I have already been to look. In the third place, I want to ask what Coloured population is better off than the Coloured worker in South Africa? In the first place this is proof to me that the worker in South Africa, and I am now speaking of all those in South Africa earning wages and salaries, is better off under the National Party Government than under any other Government. That is why there is labour peace and quiet in South Africa. But I shall furnish a further proof. This is the best proof. In the past 21 years that worker has indicated, at elections and at the polls, that this Government’s policy is the right policy for him. That is why the United Party has been shrinking to such an extent all the time. That is the other proof.

The proof in respect of the black man is that recently, in the Transkei elections, they indicated that they believed in the policy of this Government, including its labour policy, for the development of the black man. These are the proofs, and I should like to hear better proofs than these from the hon. member. There are the proofs for the peace which prevails in the labour market. The hon. member spoke of work reservation, and wanted to imply that it meant nothing and that there was a mere 3 per cent of work reserved for Whites. What does the hon. member mean by this? Hon. members opposite are always speaking about the manpower shortage and pleading that the Bantu should also be given the opportunity to do the work which is reserved for Whites. Now the hon. member for Hillbrow comes along and says that work reservation does not exist. He said that a meagre 3 per cent was reserved for the Whites. He said this in contradiction to what other hon. members opposite had said. Yesterday the hon. member for Yeoville spoke of the manpower shortage and about the supposed lack of a Government labour policy. This is surely nonsense.

You are battling, Flippie.

No. I am not battling. The difference between this side and that side of the House is that when we speak of work reservation and apply this, even though there may be a slight manpower shortage, we know that the United Party’s policy merely seeks a one day solution. I call it a slight manpower shortage because I want to come back to that again. Even if we were to throw open the market, it would be a solution, but this is specifically the difference between us and the United Party.

Are you going to apply work reservation in the border areas?

I shall come to that in a moment. We do merely cater for today and do not merely want a one day solution. The National Party is not prepared to sell the birth right of the descendants of the Whites. We look to the future. That is why we are reserving that work as we classify it and as we see fit. The hon. member mentioned that it was falling away. The hon. the Minister of Transport has already mentioned that certain work is being allotted to non-Whites according to a permit system because there are not sufficient Whites to do the work. It is not impossible that in five or ten years time this work will be reserved for non-Whites. If this Government, or a succeeding Government, is convinced that it is necessary, there is nothing to prevent it happening. Why should it not happen?

Do you then expect the Whites to go back to that work?

That could possibly happen, but I cannot say, just as little as the hon. member for Durban (Point) can, that it would happen. [Interjection.] That is why we are at present doing it with a permit system. This work is reserved for Whites, and it is possible that the work could be given back to Whites. I do not know, just as the hon. member does not.

You have no faith in the Whites.

I have a great deal of faith in the Whites. The hon. member for Hillbrow asked whether the Government did not have an economic growth programme.

I said that you have one.

I am glad that the hon. member said that, because we do not call it an economic growth programme, but a development programme. I claim that there is a slight manpower shortage, and I want to add to that by mentioning that it is actually beneficial to the worker in South Africa.

Like the telephone shortage. Is that also beneficial?

I am confining myself to labour and the hon. member is now jumping around. Notwithstanding this slight manpower shortage, with this development programme we have held out the prospects of a 5 per cent growth rate over ten years. During the first half of this programme we have, despite the manpower shortage, succeeded in maintaining an average growth rate of 6.4 per cent. There was thus sufficient labour to exceed the planned growth by 1.4 per cent. The fact that there is a slight manpower short age is a specific advantage for the worker, because it also enables him, and not only the employers alone, to share in the economic prosperity. Whites and non-Whites can share in it. In looking further at this development programme we note that, in order to keep to the development rate of 5 per cent for a period of ten years, we must develop at a rate lower than 5 per cent in the following five years. However, I accept the fact that this rate will be exceeded and that the average rate will be 5½ per cent for the next five years. Let us accept that, as in the past five years, 30,000 immigrants will enter the country in the next five years. This will then enable us to keep the labour pattern more or less constant. In 1967 the supply on the labour market exceeded the demand by 10,000, and with this development rate of 5 per cent there will be an increase in 1973 and the supply will exceed the demand by 33,000. If a rate of 5½ per cent is taken it will mean that the demand will exceed the supply by 3,000. This means a small difference of 17,000 from 1967 to 1973. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back to the hon. member for Hillbrow in connection with a remark he made here, i.e. the disgraceful comparison he drew between South Africa and Russia. It was said here that here in South Africa we had industrial peace, and then the hon. member said that they also had industrial peace in Russia. Does he want to imply by that that we have a dictatorship in South Africa and that nothing but slavery prevails here? It is not only the hon. member for Houghton who makes speeches for the benefit of the outside world, but hon. members opposite are as guilty of that because they know that as a result of their policy they will not otherthrow the National Party Government, and therefore they are trying to call in the assistance of countries abroad by these means. Hon. members try to do this whenever legislation is introduced here.

You know that is nonsense.

But you have just said so. The hon. member for Yeoville spoke, and after that the hon. member made the remark about Germany. I want to remind the hon. member that when he had to do his duty towards Germany, he conveniently had himself found medically unfit, and then he went about here in South Africa as a knight of the truth.

Order! The hon. member must not be personal.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may the hon. member make a scandalous allegation about the character of the hon. member for Yeoville?

I have told the hon. member that it is inadmissible. The hon. member must withdraw that allegation.

I withdraw, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say that if the hon. member wanted to contribute his share to the war effort, he could have guarded a bridge, but conveniently he went about here as a knight of the truth and caused innocent people to be interned in camps. [Interjections.] At the moment we have industrial peace here in South Africa. I want to know from hon. members opposite whether it is their policy that we should permit black trade unions in South Africa. In a subtle manner the hon. member has given the non-Whites to understand that this Government forbids them to go on strike, but in another way he stimulates the idea in them that at some time or other they must, after all, give expression to their feelings against the so-called injustice which is being done to them. He does that instead of rising to thank the hon. the Minister and the Government for the opportunities for employment which have been created as a result of the policy the National Party has always pursued, i.e. that of South Africa first. We still remember the poverty and the distress in their times. At that time there were no opportunities for employment, not for Whites or for Blacks. Reference was made here to General Hertzog’s words, i.e. when he said that the work of a lorry driver had to remain the work of a white person. That was at the time when Whites did pick and shovel work for three or four shillings a day. Is that the state of affairs the hon. member wants again?

Under what Government did that happen?

Under the United Party Government. I know what I am talking about. Sir. My own father was the victim of their short-sighted policy, i.e. that South Africa had to be used only as a milch-cow for certain countries abroad. I want to tell them that if unrest should develop in the ranks of our workers, I would hold them responsible for it.

But, Sir, I should like to be a little more positive.

Who collaborated with the communists in 1922?

You collaborated with them hand in hand so as to restore Haile Selassie to the throne. Sir, I should like to be positive and refer to Item H of this Vote. Under this Item R550,000 is being provided in respect of the subsidization of sheltered employment factories. These sheltered employment factories are intended for people who suffer from some handicap or other and who cannot compete on the open labour market. I should like to refer to the sheltered employment factories on the Witwatersrand. There are three of them: one for non-Whites and two for Whites. Those for Whites are situated at Springfield and Crown Mines. On the East Rand, where I represent a constituency, we have the problem that it is very difficult for those who qualify for such sheltered employment to reach those factories. In the first place, it is very difficult to obtain accommodation there. In addition it is very difficult for them to get there as a result of the traffic problems with which they have to contend. The parents of these children are not in favour of their children having to board elsewhere or of their having to travel by train or bus. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to establish a factory for handicapped persons on the East Rand as well, a factory which would only make use of sheltered employment. I am asking this for the sake of those parents who would rather have their children live at home, and the handicapped who find it difficult to avail themselves of transport facilities.

I Should also like to refer to another matter, i.e. in regard to our mentally retarded pupils attending special schools. I just want to say that there are about 1,000 such pupils or the East Rand. They are of school age until they reach the age of 16. At the request of their parents, and with the consent of the Department, those children may attend those schools up to the age of 18. But the problem which arises is that 90 per cent of the children who leave those schools, ought to do sheltered work. That in turn means that they have to travel to Johannesburg, which, as I said a moment ago, is of course difficult for them. Usually there are no opportunities for employment for the girls leaving such schools, and they have to stay at home. But our real problem is in respect of the boys, who are eventually going to be the breadwinners and who have no opportunities for employment, except as handymen or something of that nature. On account of the low standard which they were required to pass at school, they cannot be enrolled as apprentices. In such cases their parents have to seek work for them, and this creates major problems for them. Very good work is being done at those schools. I have seen that with my own eyes. A high standard of work is being maintained in welding, panel beating, painting, etc., but all that good work is of no avail because the labour market is completely closed to those children. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible for that good work which is being done at those special schools, to be carried on. Is it not possible to make better use of those boys? Most of those boys have the ability if they are only granted the time and the opportunity to develop the abilities they have. If I think of the final results and the products turned out by those sheltered employment factories, I believe that we can also use the services of those boys profitably. Is it not possible to provide those boys with longer periods of training, even if it takes as much as ten years, so that they may have the necessary skill to enable them to pull their weight and to be economically independent in a country in which there will then be opportunities for employment for them as well? This additional training may be provided at these sheltered employment factories, or, in conjunction with the Minister of National Education, this training may perhaps be provided at the technical colleges. If that cannot be done, it may be possible for those boys to remain at the special schools for longer periods. I believe that, if tests of skill were given to such boys, they would pass those tests. They would then be able to take their rightful place in the industrial world.

Then I should like to say something in regard to the training of apprentices. Mention was made of this yesterday. I believe, and I am convinced of this, that over the past number of years great improvements have taken place in this sphere, especially as a result of the way in which such apprentices attended classes in groups. However, it is true that the classes they attend only cater for the theoretical part of their training. Is it not possible for us to improve their training? Is it not possible for us to shorten their period of training perhaps? Would it not be possible to enable them to attend classes in practical training as well, as is the case as regards their theoretical training? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to join with the hon. member for Hillbrow in saying that, because of the failure of the present Government’s policies of apartheid, job reservation and border industries, this country is enjoying an accelerating economy. There is no question about it. In those areas where one does not find an acceleration in the economy, one knows that restrictions are being applied by the Government. Those are the places where one cannot get labour. During the debate yesterday, I was struck by the fact that the hon. member for Welkom appealed to the Minister of Economic Affairs to start establishing industries in Welkom. He knows quite well what will happen to Welkom if the mines go out of production. The Minister said yesterday that because there was an infrastructure there, there would be no difficulty, but he did not say that he would have to import black labour into Welkom. He did not say anything about that.

They will make it a border area.

Yes, they will start border industries there, and they will use, as a black spot, the compound now used by Welkom goldmines. I do not want to proceed along those lines any further, but I should like to say that because of our expanding industry and the expansion in our economy, certain anomalies have been created. These particularly affect the health of the worker. The Minister knows what provisions there are at the moment to deal with the workers’ health. He has at his disposal the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the Factories and Works Act, the Pneumoconiosis Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act. Strangely enough, when it comes to the health of the worker, the Minister of Health is only third on the list. The Minister of Labour deals with accidents through the Workmen’s Compensation Act. He controls the amounts paid in compensation for illness due to accidents and injury while at work. The Minister of Mines deals with diseases which are associated with the mineworker. Where does the Minister of Health come in? The Minister of Health will only come in if the worker suffers from a concomitant disease. With the rapid expansion of industry, I feel that the time has come for the workers to be given the immediate benefits of any new methods of prevention of disease, any new methods there may be for the detection of disease, and certainly all the benefits we know of for the treatment of diseases. I am sneaking now of the diseases associated with the hazards of industry. There are approximately 2 million workers to-day in industry and on the mines. It does not really matter what the figures are, but these people are being exposed to a great variety of hazards as far as their health is concerned. Some of these hazards we know about. The Minister is already bringing in regulations to combat some of these hazards, but there are also unknown factors. Where we are using new substances in industry to-day, whether they be gases, liquids or solids, and where we are using new types of machinery, I feel that a new assessment must be brought into being when dealing with the worker and his health. It is essential for the worker to receive the earliest possible protection from any of these health hazards. How is it going to be done? I would say firstly that every person who exposes himself to potential hazards must have a carefully set out record of his symptoms, when he goes to a doctor. Such records must be specially kept. In industry today we find a multiplicity of diseases. There are for example inhalation diseases, contact diseases, noise deafness, tensions and exposure to radiation. I should like to say a word about this. This is a relatively new hazard. The Minister probably does not know this, but there are already 65,000 persons in the employ of industries of different kinds, and in the hospitals, who subject themselves daily to the hazards of radiation. I would like to know whether the Minister has taken these matters into consideration. Because of these conditions which are arising, we find the first anomaly coming about. We find that a man who exposes himself to asbestos as a miner, and then suffers from asbestosis, is treated under the Pneumoconiosis Act.

A man who works in a factory and exposes himself to asbestos will come under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Both of these persons will be suffering from the same disease, but they will receive a different rate of compensation and will be treated under different methods, namely one under the Minister of Mines and the other under the Minister of Labour. We find a man with silicosis working in a mine and receiving the benefits of the Pneumoconiosis Act. We find a man with silicosis as a result of his work as a stonemason. He receives compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act although he is in the same position as the man who works in the mine. But the difference is that under the Pneumoconiosis Act the miner is looked after much better than the worker is looked after under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. There are a number of other conditions too. A coal miner for instance will get siderosis of his lungs. He will be treated under the Pneumoconiosis Act. The Bantu who loads the bags of coal in the coalyard may also get siderosis and he will be treated under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, earlier in the debate the hon. member for Hillbrow said that this side of the House only came to light with slogans, such as work reservation, apartheid, etc. I should like to emphasize that the view with which this side of the House approaches such matters is not comprised of mere slogans. It is a broad policy aspect which affects the essence of the entire society in Southern Africa. As a result of the acceptance of the diversity of the population groups in Southern Africa, we in South Africa have placed legislation on the Statute Book accordingly and have succeeded in maintaining industrial peace and better relations among the various population groups in Southern Africa.

Now, there is a matter which I should like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention. I should like to ask him to give attention to this aspect as well. It is true that work reservation and its application only affect a small section of the working population of South Africa. I understand that only about 5 per cent of the workers fall under the work reservation legislation.

Never. Half of them do.

There is one aspect which I should like to bring to the Minister’s attention. I would appreciate it if he would give attention to this matter. During the past few years it has increasingly become the practice of owners of shops, cafés and tearooms to make use of Indians, Coloureds and also Bantu to stand behind counters and serve Whites. This is particularly the case in the smaller places and smaller undertakings. This is causing increasing tension. If timeous attention is not given to this matter, it will lead to friction.

May Whites serve non-Whites?

For this reason I want to ask the Minister to give timeous attention to this, so that we can resolve the matter. If we do not do so, unrest will develop in the future.

What happens if a white person is standing behind the counter?

The hon. member for Hillbrow need not think by any means that it is merely a slogan, because South Africa’s population does, in fact, consist of various peoples. Under the National Party’s policy of separate development, we accept that we shall develop as separate peoples too. The primary responsibility we accept is in respect of the Whites of South Africa in the white areas. In the Bantu, Indian, or Coloured areas, it goes without saying that the primary responsibility is in respect of the Bantu, the Indians and the Coloureds. But in the white community the primary responsibility is in respect of the Whites, just as in Europe, when numerous guest labourers come from other countries and unemployment develops, the governments of the respective countries also give primary attention to the citizens of their own countries. For example, in France the French Government would first give attention to the French and would gradually send some of the guest labourers back to their countries of origin. This is also the policy approach in respect of the entire matter of work reservation, and I want to plead with the Minister that, in respect of the employment of Indians, Coloureds and also Bantu, he will apply work reservation for shops and offices as well as tearooms and cafés.

I will not reply to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana because what he is asking is obviously impossible and I do not think the Minister is going to make any promises in that regard. Being short of labour as we are, where on earth does the hon. member think the Minister will winkle out white workers to serve all the customers in the shops and tearooms and elsewhere instead of being served as they are by non-Whites at present? So I leave that to one side.

I was interested to hear the hon. member for Yeoville ask the hon. the Minister to make a clear statement about the Government’s labour policy. I must say I thought as I listened to him how very nice it would be if the Minister could in fact stand up and give us an unequivocal policy speech, unbedevilled by politics and tailored to the economic needs of the country; a policy which would have nothing whatever to do with spurious protection not required by white workers who are, or should be, fully able to protect themselves by virtue of their own inherent skills; a policy which is based on the efficiency of the worker, irrespective of race or colour, and on the demands of the economy and stabilized by a living wage for every worker in South Africa, again irrespective of race or colour. I must say it would also be nice if the official Opposition would do the same thing; let them stand up and give us an unequivocal labour policy of their own. I do not believe there is any point in listening to speeches pleading for the maximum utilization of all our labour resources if at the same time one knows that the policy of the official Opposition is to support the industrial colour bar, because the two things are mutually contradictory. And I do not believe there is any point in listening to speeches, good as they may be, asking for the rate for the job, when one knows that at the same time the official policy of the United Party is one which includes a minimum wage for the white worker. These two things are also mutually contradictory and, indeed, I can think of nothing that is more likely to put the skids under the white worker than if we have a minimum wage for white workers only, particularly with a reservoir of unemployed non-Whites waiting to take those same jobs at the lower wage rates. This is an absurd policy and I was surprised to see that the hon. member for Yeoville, who understands these things very well, and the hon. member for Hillbrow, have not done something about stopping the Leader of the Opposition from enunciating this new line in labour policy, the minimum wage for white workers. I might say, in passing, that there is no point in gibing at the Government about the freedom from industrial strife and mentioning that this is because workers have no collective bargaining rights if they are Black, and then not being prepared to say outright that one is going to give full collective bargaining rights and the right to strike to black workers.

Having said that, I want to turn to two matters that I want to raise specifically with the hon. the Minister this afternoon. The first is the vital question of wages for unskilled and semi-skilled workers. Now I have long advocated that the wage levels, particularly for unskilled workers who do not enjoy any collective bargaining rights whatsoever, are far too low in the context of rising living costs, and I want to emphasize that I think that the situation will get very much worse now because of the sales tax imposed in the recent Budget. All of us know that the sales tax includes a tax on articles which by no stretch of the imagination can be considered as luxury articles. This means that the cost of living of essentials is going to go up for everybody, and in particular for the person who is at the lower income level and who is unable to cope with these rising costs. I believe it is absolutely essential that the hon. the Minister should get the Wage Board to get cracking immediately and see about revising the wage rates for unskilled workers. A survey which was recently done by Market Research Africa, based on 1968 figures, in the Soweto complex, which houses the vast majority of Bantu workers in Johannesburg, shows that something like 33 per cent of the Soweto families had an income —and this is with two wage-earners—of under R56 a month. R56 a month was last year considered to be the poverty datum line, and that is not taking into account the sales tax and the increased prices of essential commodities. 67 per cent of those families earned R56 and over per month, 30 per cent earned R50 or less, and 20 per cent earned from R75 to R100 a month. I might say that the average wage in manufacturing and construction, according to the official figures of the Bureau of Statistics in 1968, was R46.11 a month. I believe that the Wage Board determinations need upping immediately, and I cite as an example the recent dockworkers’ strike in Durban, which was not due to agitators but due to the fact that the wages were abysmally low from the start. When they were finally raised, which was in fact done just before the strike, at the same time deductions from the workers’ pay-packets were made for tax, and nobody had the good sense to go along and inform the workers that this was likely to take place. Does the Minister not have any public relations officers, or anybody in his department, who is prepared, when a major move is going to take place like this affecting thousands of workers in an essential industry, at least to go along and explain the situation to these people and to inform them that wage increases are coming and have in fact been granted, but that certain deductions are going to be made from the pay-packet of the workers? Instead of which, the strike was allowed to develop and then the Government comes along with a glib explanation that the strike was due to agitators, in an industry where previously the workers had been earning a basic wage of R6 per week for heavy work, plus their board and keep, but all of them have families to look after. Nobody on that side would surely maintain that R6 a week basic wage is a living wage in South Africa to-day.

Then there is also the situation that I saw reported in the Press, where the Wage Board’s views were given that R2.92 a week was considered not unduly low and compared favourably with prescribed wages in other industries. The Wage Board was commenting on the statement that there were certain lampshade workers, who were earning R2.92 a week, and the Wage Board apparently—and I would like to know whether this is true or not—made the statement that it considered that it was not unreasonable and compared favourably with prescribed wages in other industries.

On what date was that?

I am referring to an article in The Despatch of 8th February this year.

It was rectified later.

Well, I did not see the rectification, but I am glad to hear that, because if this is the standard that the Wage Board sets then my heart fails me. But in any case we do know that there are workers earning as little as R6 a week basic wage, and my plea to the Minister to get the Wage Board to review wages at the unskilled levels becomes a very pressing plea indeed. I want to point out that the gap between white wages and nonwhite wages is increasing all the time in South Africa. It is perfectly true that in certain occupations the percentage increase in wages for non-Whites has been higher than the percentage increase granted to white workers. But when one realizes that the basic figure on which the percentage increase is worked out is so tremendously different between white and non-white workers, one realizes that the percentages are very deceptive indeed. It is a dangerous situation where this gap is widening all the time, because it leads to comparative standards and in the long run we are not going to enjoy this industrial peace which hon. members are so very happy to bring forward all the time as an argument in favour of Government policy, I want to point out that there is a fallacy which is rife in South Africa among white people who always like to believe that Africans are happy and content with their lot, and this is the fallacy that non-Whites can live at a lower standard of living than Whites. Sir, they do live at a lower standard of living than Whites, not because they wish to but because their wages make it imperative that they do so. But it does not mean that this is the end of their ambition to improve their working conditions, and sooner or later the sort of thing that happened among the dockworkers in Durban is going to happen elsewhere in South Africa, irrespective of the laws relating to the right of collective bargaining and legal strikes by non-Whites. The way for us to stop this is to improve wages. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Houghton has asked that the hon. the Minister should at some time or other in the course of this debate reply to the hon. member for Yeoville, and I am convinced that he will give a decisive reply. But now the hon. member for Houghton has in actual fact done part of the work I thought the Minister of Labour himself would do. She has, as she has stated from time to time, misgivings about the labour policy of the United Party, i.e. about the question of a “rate for the job”. The hon. member for Yeoville said last night that the policy of job reservation was a bluff; it was eyewash. The hon. member for Hillbrow said it was a “dead duck”. Now I want to make the statement that “the rate for the job” is really the bluff. The hon. member for Houghton also has her misgivings. When the United Party was asked from time to time how they were going to protect the position of the white man with this “rate for the job” policy of theirs, it was said that they would give him a minimum wage. In other words, they are going to make an assessment for a specific race in the field of labour. Surely, this is a bluff, because what is the position going to be if the supply of labour exceeds the demand? Then the effect of the normal economic laws—and they are always talking about economic laws—are going to be that employers will employ non-Whites instead of Whites because a higher minimum wage has been laid down in respect of the latter. Surely, that is really the bluff which we ought to discuss in this debate instead of the job reservation policy of this Government. The mineworkers —and I am referring specifically to them— have always stood by the promise made and the attitude adopted by this Government in respect of job reservation, and in this way they have on several occasions solved their problems in terms of an undertaking given to them by this Government, i.e. that it will not permit non-Whites to take over their work. That is what happened in 1964 when that notorious experiment made by a previous trade union which the mineworkers did not want to accept, caused so many problems. By means of a mediatory committee, which was accepted by the trade union, the Minister eventually succeeded in effecting an agreement. The basis of this agreement was the assurance given to the mineworker that his work was reserved for him. that there would not be a continual infiltration of Bantu to jeopardize his position in the mining industry, and that his own trade union would have the powers to protect his interests in this respect.

Sir, there is another important matter I want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister, and this is with reference to the Budget debate of 11th April, when the hon. member for Carletonville brought a very serious matter to the notice of the hon. the Minister. It concerned industrial unrest which was developing in the mining industry in regard to the position of white samplers, who were being replaced by Bantu samplers, as well as ventilation officers, and also the fact that certain groups in the mining industry proposed to leave certain basic surveying work to Bantu as time went by. The hon. member for Carletonville called attention to the very grave dangers this involved. He pointed out that the security of the Whites was being affected by that; that they felt frustrated under those circumstances. The hon. the Minister subsequently replied in a very positive manner to the representations made by the hon. member for Carletonville, and said that he had already taken certain steps in that regard, after he had had talks with the Mineworkers’ Union, which was eventually also affected by this new labour arrangement. The hon. the Minister went on to say—

Then the hon. the Minister briefly referred to the fact that, in cases where he experienced problems with the Mineworkers’ Union, he had always been able to rely on the co-operation of the Chamber of Mines in the past. He went on to say—

Sir, in pursuance of this undertaking we, on behalf of members representing mineworkers here, want to take the liberty of asking the hon. the Minister to tell us whether some progress has already been made in this regard.

As I still have some time left, I may perhaps just mention how this problem actually arose and developed in my constituency. As far back as the beginning of 1967 a start was made with the integration of Bantu samplers at the Bracken Mine. Samplers from this particular mine came to see me. They did not feel happy about the position. Subsequently I went to the Secretary for Labour. In the customary manner he then ordered an investigation by his labour inspectors, and they arrived at the conclusion that at that stage it was still an experiment only and that it was not an established practice in the mining industry. Subsequent to that the samplers could acquiesce in the fact that the arrangement was not of a permanent nature, but these people nevertheless felt unhappy. At a meeting the hon. the Minister held there at a later stage, he gave these people the assurance that if certain conditions were to develop, he would take steps under the powers he had in this regard. But since last year this position has become more extensive and it has become an established practice in mines in my constituency. It has also been extended to other mines. Once again these people felt that they were not being treated correctly, and that their security was being affected by this. Once again these workers came to see me. My standpoint, as I explained to them, was that they had to straighten out this matter through their trade union. They said that they had in fact done so, and that they had lost their case in their own trade union, i.e. the Underground Mine Officials’ Association. Then I had no alternative but to ask these workers to draft a memorandum and to sign it properly. Subsequently I brought this memorandum to the notice of the hon. the Minister, and the Minister once again caused an investigation to be made. Sir, as you know, the employer’s usual excuse is that he cannot obtain the necessary white workers to do that work. That was the first excuse. But what was found in the course of the second investigation? I shall quote from the report (translation)—

I.e., that they could not obtain Whites to do the work—

Sir, when one reads that in a report, one cannot help suspecting that this specific mining group is merely intent on getting cheap labour by means of the Bantu at the expense of the white worker. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I sympathize with the hon. member for Bethal regarding the problem which confronts him. I am afraid that this is a trend which is just going to continue because white workers are not coming forward for these jobs. That is something that we have experienced in this country for some years and it is no good bluffing ourselves that the position is going to improve; it is going to get worse, and what the Government ought to be doing is to make plans for the re-training of those white workers who remain in jobs which are gradually, willy-nilly, whatever the Government wants to do about it, going to be taken over by non-White workers, because there are not enough white workers to do these jobs; they are not coming forward, and unless we want our goldmining industry to close down altogether, we are going to have to face this situation. Irrespective of the Mines and Works Act this is happening already and it is going to go on happening. What is needed is re-train and re-deploy white workers. That is what the Government should be doing right now.

Sir, this brings me to exactly the same point in respect of another industry and that is the building industry in South Africa. This is very near and dear to the hon. the Minister’s heart, because, as we know, he chose the building industry! in Natal as his example of an industry where it would be “sheer idiocy” to imagine that we can keep that work entirely in the hands of white workers. He tried to limit it to that particular industry in that area, but surely he knows that the same situation obtains in the building industry throughout the whole of South Africa. I presume that he knows of the report which was prepared by the National Institute for Personnel Research of the C.S.I.R. and presented to the National Development Fund for the building industry. Is the hon. the Minister aware of this report? I wonder if he has seen it? Sir, this Committee may not be aware of it and I would like to analyse some of the findings of this C.S.I.R. report on the building industry, not in Natal but in South Africa. I do not need to point out how important this industry is, how basic it is to the development of South Africa. It would appear that the present skilled labour contingent for the building industry is 40,000 skilled workers. What is necessary to keep the industry going at full tilt is a minimum of 2,400 apprentices every year. In fact, what is coming forward every year is a recruitment of 1,000 apprentices. Over the last five or six years, the shortage has been more or less met by immigration. Something like 11,000 skilled artisans have come into South Africa, so the difference between the 2,400 required and the recruitment of 1,000 apprentices has been met more or less. But I want to point out that the estimate of 2,400 per annum is based on figures which are seven years old, and everybody knows what an enormous building boom has been taking place in South Africa over the last seven years. I believe that the figure has been very much under-estimated and that the figure is going to be very much higher than 2,400. Building employers say that many of the recruits who are coming forward are very unsatisfactory; that they are not capable workers; in fact, that they are so bad that they have given up efforts to train them; that they are just not the right sort of recruits. The same situation that is facing the mining industry is therefore facing the building industry, and the hon. the Minister is simply going to have to face the fact, mechanization notwithstanding. Of the 66 firms that were investigated in this survey, 54 stated that they expected to be seriously short of labour in the near future. What is the solution going to be to this problem? Are we going to let the building industry dwindle? Is the whole of South Africa’s economic development going to be hindered because of a policy which was adopted years ago to face a situation that South Africa does not have to face to-day, the situation of white unemployment, the poor white problem? If we could only stop being haunted by the spectre of the poor white problem in South Africa, we might get around to a rational labour policy in this country. Sir, we are not going to have a repetition of the poor white problem in South Africa. We have great resources that require development. We are short of labour everywhere. We are not going to have a recession. What we have to do is to plan for a burgeoning economy, and the only way in which we can do that is to use non-White labour. It is quire absurd to put the whole of industry in this straitjacket because in the 1920s we faced a poor white problem in South Africa. I accept that there are white people in South Africa who are unable, even with the rate for the job, to compete with non-White workers. There are such unfortunate people. Those people must be looked after. They must be given sheltered employment; they must be given assistance by the State. But to put the whole of industry into a straitjacket because of this is quite absurd. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he is going to do something about this situation in the building industry. The sort of solution which has been put forward is, of course, to open the doors of various occupations in the building industry to non-White workers; to set up training centres, because these do not exist in any quantity at all; to take in non-White apprentices into the building industry, not only Coloureds and Indians, but also African building workers because in any case there are not enough Coloureds in any province outside of the Cape to provide the number of apprentices required. Of course, our labour laws have to be amended so that these people can take on jobs presently reserved for White and Coloured workers only. These are the obvious things to be done plus the re-training of Whites in supervisory capacities. All these things can be done by a Government which is determined to tackle the problem from a practical point of view and not just from an ideological point of view. As I say, it is high time that in South Africa we laid the ghost of the poor white problem. It does not exist in South Africa, and I am optimistic enough to believe that we are not going to have to face this situation again.

Sir, there is one final matter that I want to raise with the hon. the Minister, and that is the question raised by the hon. member for Umbilo yesterday, that is, the payment of workmen’s compensation. To-day there is something like R1½ million lying in the fund. This amount is due to workmen who have been injured, but it has not been paid to them simply because they cannot be traced. I do think it is essential that the hon. the Minister should have a law passed, not to make it necessary for his Department to maintain the addresses of registered workers but to make it obligatory for employers to keep a record of the permanent addresses of their workers. This is particularly important because so many of the workers to-day are migrant workers. They are injured, they return home and the employer has no record of their address. When one looks through the last Gazette, which has 58 pages of names of people to whom workmen's compensation is due, one finds that something like 95 per cent of those names are the names of Africans, and these are the people who are least able to do without this compensation. I believe, too, according to a newspaper report, that something like 30,000 or more South African farmers are flouting the Government over the Workmen’s Compensation Act, which was made applicable to all farmers in 1964 and not just farmers using mechanization. I wonder, Sir, what the Minister’s Department is doing to try to rectify this position? Of course, I realize that he is not going to be very popular with the farmers in this House if he does anything about it, but nevertheless I see no reason why farmers should be allowed to escape the law which provides that they must register as farmers, that they must register their workers and that they must pay their dues to the Workmen’s Compensation Fund, just as any other employer of labour has to do.

Indeed, I want to suggest that it is high time in this country that we had a whole survey done of farm labour. This has not been done for very many years in South Africa. Everybody guesses at the sort of wages in kind and cash that farm employees are getting in this country. The estimate is something like R6 per month in board and in housing, and heaven knows what the cash wages are. They probably vary from R6 per month to, I presume, much higher wages in certain farming occupations. I believe that it is high time that we have a survey on farm labour in South Africa, so as to not make it necessary to have restrictions on their mobility. Those restrictions are based on the fact that farmers cannot get labourers to stay with them voluntarily and have to keep the position stabilized by virtue of influx control.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to voice my views in regard to a few ideas expressed here by the hon. member for Houghton. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the industrial peace and the industrial prosperity which has been brought about throughout this country. I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that, if South Africa were to allow the non-Whites to cross her borders freely—not only the non-Whites from other African states, but also those from our neighbouring states, i.e. Lesotho, Botswana and Swaziland—our factories and cities would be inundated. That proves that we are taking good care of our non-Whites in this country. The non-Whites in this country now have a standard of living which is much higher than that of 10, 15 or 20 years ago. This Government is still taking steps every day in order to raise the standard of living of the non-Whites. I agree with what the hon. member for Mayfair said, and I want to repeat this to the hon. member for Houghton, i.e. that no non-Whites of any other country in Africa are better off than our non-Whites.

We live in South Africa.

By way of supplementing what the hon. member for Bethal said, I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister in connection with a matter which was raised here by the hon. member tor Carletonville and to which the Minister replied in part, i.e. the employment of non-Whites instead of Whites as samplers at certain mines.

Under your own Government.

I just want to say that I have sufficient confidence in my Minister to know that he will quash that phenomenon which is now rearing its head. We know the hon. the Minister as a person who acts positively and as a person who is not afraid of taking steps when the identity of the white worker is jeopardized. We are concerned here with the Chamber of Mines. The underhand methods those people use in order to get round that Act, are apparent from the letters the hon. member for Carletonville read out here. Years ago, when I was working on the mines, the minimum qualifications for such a sampler was Std. VIII. In later years the minimum qualifications for samplers were raised to matric. A Std. X certificate is required from a sampler. I have personal experience of that work. It is highly specialized work. As an ex-mineworker I want to say in this House to-day that, if non-Whites were to be employed as samplers on a large scale or in any other way, this would interfere with the peace that prevails at present. I want to appeal to the Minister to take strong action here. He is known as a friend of the worker and not of these people. Neither the hon. member for Houghton, nor the hon. member for Hillbrow is a friend of the workers. When the Chamber of Mines is involved they do not speak about this, but when this happens on the Railways and in factories, they raise the matter. That is why I am grateful to the hon. member for Bethal for having raised this matter, because this is a serious matter. We do not want a repetition of the problems of 1964-’65.

There is another matter I want to raise here, one I have already discussed with the Minister. Just as it is impossible for a country to isolate itself from others, so it is with a business undertaking. In this regard I want to refer specifically to the hairdressing trade, especially in the Western Transvaal. Male and female hairdressers have their own working hours; they do not have fixed business hours. In most cases it is the owner himself who runs the business. I want to plead to-day for uniformity as regards business hours in the hairdressing trade. All of them should open up at the same time in the morning and close at the same time at night. There is a hairdressers’ union for Johannesburg, but not for the Western Transvaal. Another thing I want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister, is that in cases where Bantu are working at hairdressing salons, they get three weeks’ annual leave, whereas white hairdressers only get two weeks. This is something which ought to be remedied.

Then there is the question of apprentices. In this respect ladies’ hairdressing salons are the biggest culprits. I am told that young women who enrol as apprentices in the hairdressing trade, do not receive documents stating that they have been enrolled and registered as apprentices. These people are doing good work, and that is why I am pleading for these young ladies to be enrolled as apprentices and to be furnished with the necessary documents upon the completion of their period of service. I am pleading with the Minister that he should ensure that this is done.

Then I also have a problem in regard to lorry drivers. As hon. members know, the Act of 1968 provides that lorries weighing more than ten tons may only be driven by Whites. This is a good provision and I thank the Minister for it. But we in the Western Transvaal do not have at our disposal a labour source as extensive as that of Johannesburg. This presents us with problems, and that is why I am requesting the Minister to empower the local office of his Department to issue temporary permits in cases where we wish to make use of non-White labour when goods have to be transported over long distances, because it has already happened that lorries belonging to certain large business undertakings have been out of commission for as long as a week, simply because nobody could be found to drive those vehicles. If the hon the Minister would now authorize the officer in charge of the local labour office of his Department to come to our rescue, it would be a very great help to us, especially in my area, Klerksdorp. I find it a pity that the Act of 1968 does not provide that on all national roads of the Republic all lorries weighing more than ten tons must be driven by white persons. That is how I should have liked to see it. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Stilfontein has had various complaints. Towards the end of his speech he rather argued against himself. The business hours of hairdressers is a matter which the department should look into. They have no trade union and probably fall under a wage determination. But hairdressers are not allowed to work excessive hours, and the department has inspectors to check up on this. I am surprised to hear that youngsters who want to learn the trade are not registered as apprentices. If that is so, it is a matter the department should examine.

But I should like to return to the Vote. As the hon. member for Yeoville said, the Department of Labour is one of the most important departments we have in this country. In times of prosperity it is (pushed into the background, while it becomes more important in times of adversity. We are living in a period of prosperity at the moment and our difficulty is to try and meet the consequences of that prosperity. One of the results is that we have a shortage of skilled labour, not only in the artisan ranks, but also in other ranks. We find that immigrants coming to this country are insufficient to meet the shortage. Because we are a young country we have been working on a sort of maintenance basis. We only began to enter the manufacturing stage of industry during the last 10, 15 years, and now we are developing into a manufacturing country. A lot of immigrants coming out to us are highly specialized and hence have not been trained on the broad basis as the South African artisan is trained. In the change from a maintenance type to a manufacturing industry, trade unions have come to recognize this fact, and as a result in a lot of the industrial agreements we have to-day there has been a considerable amount of dilution of labour. Here I do not want to be misunderstood. When I talk about the “dilution of labour” I do not mean saturating skilled trades by Blacks; we have many Whites doing semi-skilled jobs. We see it on the Railways and we see it in a lot of big manufacturing concerns in and around Johannesburg. Meanwhile the highly skilled artisan is rapidly becoming a highly-trained technician, and the artisan, the general worker, who could put his hand to about three or four trades, is disappearing from the scene. In his place we now find the highly skilled technician. If hon. members look at the report which is before them, they will find, in regard to the training of apprentices, that the educational standards of the trainee and the apprentice have risen from Std. V to Std. VI, and now to Std. VIII. There is even the tendency to go further, to matriculation standard. We therefore have a shortage, and we naturally have to keep industry going. The Government feel that they are responsible for labour and that they are the friend of the workman. I should like to remind this House that a true labour unionist has no party affiliations. He deals with the government of the day. I feel that this Government does a considerable amount of harm by prying into the (private affairs of the worker. Trade unionists are very well organized in this country. They have some very brilliant men at the top. But one can destroy the confidence of these unions by the infiltrating of politicians into the unions. If you want to destroy trade unionism in this country, just do that. We have seen this happen in this country, unfortunately to the detriment of the worker. Let us, for example, take the hon. member for Bethal. He quite rightly told the workers concerned in that particular case he mentioned to approach their respective unions. But the unions apparently were not able to help them and so they requested him to go to the Minister. They should put their complaints to their union if they are not happy with conditions and not directly to the Government. Basically, I feel that the labour changes we should have in industry to-day to increase productivity and to make this country the country it should be, should be negotiated between worker and employer. The Government should be kept out. There are laws, such as the Industrial Conciliation Act, which will enable the Government to be the watchdog. However, negotiations should take place between employee and employer. The Minister should not constantly intervene and decree what should be done. If this continues, the whole foundation of trade unionism in this country and the idea of collective bargaining will be destroyed. I say that trade unionism in this country is a responsible structure. As we know, workers fall into different classes and different race groups. The Bantu is not organized into trade unions. We do not allow it, for well known reasons, but the Coloureds are. The Coloureds have their own trade unions. They should still be able to negotiate with their employers. On that basis, we shall be able to build up a manufacturing industry in this country with very high productivity, let us take Japan, for example. Japan is a country which was devastated during the war. They have now become one of the industrial giants of the world. They did not achieve this, as some people think, through sweated labour. They were a country of workers who were prepared to work hard and get down to a job. When one considers the basic wages they receive, one finds that there is not much difference between what they are paying and what we are paying in this country. If we could only recognize the fact that we have an enormous labour force at hand, as well as competitive world markets, we could become a very strong manufacturing country, and a highly prosperous country. We would then need no fears of the gold mines disappearing, because we would have the potential and we would be the real workshop of Africa. The fear in this country of the white man being supplanted by the black man is not a real fear. I think it is brought about by political propaganda from the Government side, because, over the years, the educational standard of the white man has risen. One finds that the average white person to-day is reluctant to go into the trades. One finds that they go into different spheres because they do not want to go into the trades. There is no danger there. I say again: Let the trade unions look after that. Leave it to them. Do not keep asking the Government to change the law. The Industrial Conciliation Act is a very fine Act, but one can wreck it by continually asking the Minister to bring in amendments for the purposes of protection. The Minister is not a trade union. He is only here to see that the law is carried out.

In the few minutes I have left, I should like to refer to the question of vocational guidance of our youngsters in this country. I should like to refer specifically to the large intake of youths in this country into the army. I know that there is a measure of vocational guidance in the army, which is undertaken by the Department of Labour, but I do not think that it is extensive enough. I feel that this type of guidance should be more intensive. Boys go into the army for nine months to a year. We know that the period of training has now been extended. The Department of Labour should take a greater interest in these boys to ensure that they go into the proper avenues of employment when they complete their training.

I should like to deal with an item which, I think, affects all of us. I should like to refer to the underdog in the labour market. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the main spokesman of the Opposition, the hon. member for Yeoville, asked me in his speech for a very definite statement of the Government’s labour policy, with a view to the economic development and also with a view to the extent to which all population groups will be utilized to meet our manpower requirements. The hon. member for Houghton asked the same question. I have no hesitation in acceding to these requests. I gladly do so, because the Government and the National Party have never had to hide behind a national convention, as the United Party has had to do in order to cover up its lack of policy. We are prepared to state our policy, and also to state the problems we are experiencing in implementing it. We are prepared to say what we can do and what we cannot do.

I want to begin with the first question asked by the hon. member for Yeoville. He actually wanted to know to what extent the non-Whites were taking part in our economic activities at present. This is a question which rather surprises me. The Opposition in the Other Place asked me the same question. It is a question which in fact wants to suggest that the Government wants to deny the non-Whites participation in our labour force. It is a question which in fact implies that we do not want the sun to shine on these people. This is an unfortunate suggestion, because I think that no responsible member of the Government and no responsible Nationalist has ever denied the non-Whites a share in our labour force. On the contrary, the non-Whites have received more opportunities in the labour force under this Government during the past 21 years than they had ever had before. To suggest that we are denying the non-Whites any opportunity to perform skilled labour is equally untrue and unfair. Hon. members who are so concerned about this would be interested to know that, according to our manpower survey of 1967, there were 158,000 skilled Whites in this country. According to the United Party there were no skilled non-Whites. On the contrary, according to that same survey there were 21,840 skilled Whites. This is something the hon. member for Houghton was also concerned about.

Do you not mean skilled non-Whites?

I am sorry. Thank you for correcting me. There were 158,000 skilled Whites and 21,800 skilled non-Whites. They include the section about which the hon. member for Houghton was also concerned, namely those in the building industry. I am not going to furnish the figures in that connection. They have been furnished on previous occasions. The numbers of non-Whites in the building industry, whether in the Cape or in Natal, simply go to show once again what opportunities are offered them in that field as well. But in actual fact I regard a question such as this an unfair one, because it may also create the impression outside our borders that we are a government that does not afford the non-Whites those opportunities one would normally want to afford them. This is an unfair picture of South Africa that is presented to the outside world. Apart from these skilled non-Whites in the artisan sphere in the private sector, it is also important to know what the State itself is doing to employ non-Whites in skilled capacities. The other department with which I am concerned, the Department of Coloured Affairs, employs 15,000 Coloureds in skilled posts in its own education service, as professional officers, education planners and inspectors of schools. But apart from that the Departments of Bantu Education and Administration have 26,000 Bantu in educational posts and 4,000 Bantu in professional and technical posts. Why now create the impression outside that we do not want to afford the non-Whites any opportunities to perform skilled labour? Surely this is not a fair picture that is being presented.

I have been asked what our policy is and what success has been achieved. I think that if one wants to measure and test the success of a labour policy in any country in the world, one can use quite a number of norms. One of the best norms or standards against which the success of a labour policy may be tested is the question of labour peace. Even if this is something unpopular with the United Party these days—and one almost gets the impression they want us to have less labour peace, because there have been complaints about it—we are prepared to test our labour policy against our labour peace, one of the recognized norms in the world. But then it will also be a good thing to test the labour policy of the United Party against that same norm. Hon. members, and the hon. member for Yeoville specifically, will be interested to note once again how these two labour policies have worked out. I am not going to mention the figures in respect of the last two years of United Party rule, because there was a shocking succession of strikes. I think I should be fairer to them.

Who were the agitators behind those strikes?

I am going to give the figures in respect of the ten-year period from 1938 to 1947. In that period, under United Party rule, strikes took place which resulted in a loss of l,800,000 shifts. Do hon. members know what the corresponding figure was for the 10 years from 1958 co 1967? Only 130,000 shifts were lost under the National Party regime in 10 years, as against the 1,800,000 shifts that were lost under the United Party with its labour policy. One may ask oneself to what the success of the National Party’s labour policy is attributable. To what is this absence of strikes under our regime to be attributed? I think it is attributable to a few basic reasons. This also provides an answer to what the hon. member is looking for so anxiously. In the first place it answers the question of employment opportunities. When there is unemployment, one must prepare oneself for trouble, strikes and any other form of dissatisfaction, no matter how sound one’s labour policy is. But the position in respect of employment opportunities in this country is one of the very best. In fact, if the position in regard to employment opportunities had not been as good as it is, the United Party would have had nothing to say in these labour debates, because their entire problem is the manpower shortage. If they could not have spoken about that, they would have had no other real point of attack against the Government. But we are not unhappy about that. I find it much easier and I must prefer to give an explanation as regards these labour shortages than to have had to explain to-day why we were having strikes and unemployment in this country. The fact of the matter is that we have so many employment opportunities in this country that in the past month, i.e. April, only .4 per cent of the calculable white manpower was unemployed. This is less than ½ per cent. When one takes the aggregate of the Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics, only .8 per cent of the calculable manpower in this country is unemployed, which is unique in the world. This is attributable to the development plans put into operation by the National Party Government in order to create employment opportunities for Whites and non-Whites in this country.

But one cannot keep a labour force satisfied merely by providing employment opportunities. The labour policy cannot be based on the provision of employment opportunities alone. No, Sir, one must also ensure that those workers are happy. One must see to it that those people also feel that their traditional way of life is secure. In this multiracial country of ours, where one is dealing with various nations, standards of living and needs, it is of the utmost importance to have a policy which takes into account that difference in standards of living, and indeed to such an extent that one prevents those with a low standard of living from undermining those with a high standard of living. This is one of the basic requirements for a sound labour policy and for labour peace in this country. In that respect this Government is certainly doing what is expected of it by the workers.

In the first place we respect the traditional pattern of life in this country. When the workers have to work in factories under the same roof with non-Whites, we see to it, by way of legislation passed by this House, that there is segregation between White and non-White in those workships. This is also the position in shops and offices. It is this segregation which results in the white workers’ feeling that their traditional pattern of life is being safeguarded. These are measures that have been introduced by this Government. When those measures were before this House, they were fought tooth and nail by that side of the House. Consequently one can understand why under their regime 1,800,000 shifts were lost as against 130,000 under ours, because the workers will never be satisfied with a pattern of life such as the United Party wants to force upon them.

Apart from this traditional pattern of life, one must also see to it that the worker gets the wages that he deserves. One must see to it that that man receives decent wages. In this regard we have seen to it that the necessary machinery is there. In the first place there is the machinery of industrial council agreements. They have not been abolished by this Government, as the United Party predicted in this House in 1956 they would be. No, Sir, these industrial councils have been increased from 81 in 1947 to 100 to-day. These industrial councils cover a large mass of the wage and working conditions of our workers. This is where the employers and the trade union people meet round the same table and thrash out their conditions of service. It is as a result of this that those workers feel they can negotiate the wages to which they are entitled with those people. But one cannot simply expect the workers to negotiate if one does not provide the machinery, the trade union organization. In this respect the Government has not destroyed the trade unions, as the United Party also predicted in 1956 we would do. On the contrary, under our Government the trade unions have grown in this country. They are respected. They are not only respected, but also encouraged by this Government.

When we introduced the stop-order system a year or two ago to make it compulsory for the trade unions to have stop orders, what was the attitude of the United Party? Did they support this measure to strengthen the organizing strength of the workers so that they could be in a better position to bargain for their wages? Oh, no. At that time these great champions of the workers fought that measure tooth and nail in this House. [Interjections.] But it is not only in this sphere that we must see to the wages. What about the mass of people that are not organized? Not all the workers are covered by the various trade unions. There are numerous workers who do not belong to trade unions. There are, for example, the Bantu workers, who do not belong to trade unions. In that respect their interests have also been, and are also being, looked after. The Wage Board, which is the instrument that has to look after the unorganized workers, was divided into two parts by this Government. They were instructed to speed up the investigations so that the wage increases for the Bantu and other non-Whites could be granted sooner. As recently as last year 247.000 Bantu received increases to the amount of R6½ million through the agency of the Bantu labour Board. This was done last year alone. I do not intend to give the figures in this connection for the past 10 years. I am only mentioning this one single figure.

But over and above this the workers of a multi-national country such as this, where we have to deal with people with a low standard of living, also want security in the sphere of employment in which they and their forbears always worked happily. They want this. That is why this Government must, over and above the much vaunted “rate for the job” of the United Party, introduce its work reservation. Let me just remind hon. members that the United Party sometimes pretends that the “rate for the job” is their brainchild only and that it will only become law if they come into power. But we do have “the rate for the job”.

Since 1924.

Yes, that is so. The Wage Act and the Industrial Conciliation Act provide that there shall be no discrimination on the grounds of race, colour or belief. In other words, that is the “rate for the job”. But what happened to that “rate for the job” under United Party rule? Did it protect the Whites in the clothing industry here in the Cape? Did it keep the Whites in the building industry here? No, in spite of the much vaunted “rate for the job” the Whites were pushed out of these respective spheres.

There were more Whites in those industries under our regime than under yours, and you know it.

If we had adhered to the United Party’s “rate for the job” without this work reservation, there would not have been one single white person left in the clothing industry in the Cape to-day. Thanks to this work reservation we have been able to retain the few who wanted to remain in this industry. But now we are getting this parrot cry from the United Party. The hon. member for Hillbrow said, “Job reservation is a dead duck”. This is one of their favourite expressions, i.e. that work reservation is stone dead. It is stone dead because, so they say, only 3 per cent of the workers are covered by work reservation. That is so. Statutorily only 3 per cent of the number of workers concerned are covered by work reservation. But surely this is not the full significance of work reservation. Even if only 3 per cent of the calculable number of workers are statutorily covered by work reservation, the significance of work reservation is nevertheless that the entire body of white workers in South Africa knows that it enjoys the statutory and administrative protection of work reservation.

During this Session the hon. member for Houghton asked me some questions with reference to a certain bank in Cape Town which wanted to employ non-Whites. The hon. member wanted to know why this happened. I replied that it had not been done statutorily, but administratively. I just want to tell people such as the hon. member at the back, who says that work reservation is a “dead duck”, that this sounds strange to me. As recently as during the past week his political associates, i.e. the entire management committee of the Johannesburg City Council, came to see me in connection with the Johannesburg bus service and their plans to employ Coloureds on their local bus service. If it is a “dead duck”, why did they come to see me? After all, there are no legislative provisions restricting them in this connection. They may employ non-Whites if they want to do so. There is no work reservation determination for them. They do not even fall under that 3 per cent. If work reservation is a “dead duck”, why then did the management committee come here to see me?

What advice did you give them?

That will be submitted to them in due course when I think fit to do so. If work reservation is a “dead duck”, why did the powerful iron, steel and engineering industry, which employs approximately 400,000 people, apply a work reservation determination on their own after they had had discussions with my Department? The work reservation they are applying now is in all respects work reservation as the Industrial Tribunal would apply it. If work reservation is a “dead duck”, surely they would not have negotiated for eight months to arrive at this agreement, which covers 200,000 Whites and 180,000 nonWhites. No, it is not a “dead duck”. On the contrary. It has never been our intention that work reservation should apply statutorily in respect of all workers. It is still my intention that statutorily it need not be extended much more than 3 per cent at all. However, this is the means by which this Government will maintain its labour pattern in this country in the future. It will be maintained statutorily and administratively.

I now want to refer to administrative action that is taken in this connection. I now come to the question of the samplers at the mines to which the hon. member for Bethal and Stilfontein referred. They do not fall under work reservation, neither do they fall under that 3 per cent. But the hon. member for Bethal complained about this to-day, and put this matter to me last year as well. As a result of that I said during the previous debate on this matter that I had written to the president of the Chamber of Mines. I asked him please to take the necessary steps to rectify these matters, so that we could have the necessary labour peace in the mines. The president went into the matter. A deputation from the Chamber of Mines, together with the representatives of the Underground Officials Union, came to see me on 5th May. When I was told that they would come to see me, I requested the Mineworkers’ Union to come as well. At my own invitation the Mineworkers’ Union also sent a deputation here. I therefore discussed the matter with the various bodies, and stated the problem to them. However, I also put it to them that I thought that in the first place it was the task of the mine-owners and the trade unions to iron out these labour arrangements. In the first place it is their task and their responsibility to do so. The Chamber of Mines submitted proposals with which the Mineworkers’ Union was not satisfied. I then asked the Chamber of Mines to discuss this matter further with the Mineworkers’ Union in Johannesburg, so that a satisfactory arrangement could be arrived at. Only a few days ago the president of the Chamber of Mines told me that the discussions in Johannesburg with the Mineworkers’ Union and also with the Underground Officials Union were in progress. He also said that they were considering one another’s proposals at present. I hope they will reach finality shortly. As I have said in this House before, however, I do not want to bring the Industrial Tribunal into operation unnecessarily. In other words, I do not want to bring the machinery of work reservation, the statutory aspect of work reservation, into operation unnecessarily, because I believe that these matters can be arranged quite satisfactorily outside, as in the case of the engineering industry. But I have no hesitation in saying here that if these bodies fail to arrive at an agreement, I will have no alternative but to bring the statutory machinery into operation.

I do not think that will be necessary.

I do not think so either. I think these people are sensible enough to work out a solution. The mining industry and the trade unions have always done so in the past, and I credit them with enough insight to do so.

Will you apply Schoeman’s policy there?

If the hon. member would go on listening a little longer, he may be able to make a much better speech at his second attempt. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana also complained about the non-Whites working in shops, cafes and other places. This is a matter which is causing irritation in many places. I know it is a difficult situation, also on account of the labour shortage, as the hon. member for Houghton said with relish; she likes nothing better than crowing about that. We appreciate the situation, but we are not going to allow this employment to cause mixed working conditions in the first place, or to cause any displacement of Whites, or to give rise to any public dissatisfaction and discord. For that reason I shall be glad to deal with matters of this nature, but I should like to do it administratively. I have told the hon. member for Lyttleton this before. He also submitted his complaints to me, and we rectified the matter administratively. I would be pleased if you would submit that matter to us as well, so that we can deal with it administratively.

We have this further test for measuring the success of the National Party Government’s labour policy. Our development over these 10 years has simply been staggering. If one only considers the fact that the manufacturing industry, which employs such a large number of workers, both White and non-White, increased its production by 72 per cent during the past 10 years, and if one considers what this means in terms of a demand on the available manpower, and one views it against the fact that the labour pattern in the manufacturing industry remained virtually constant during these 10 years in spite of this increase of 72 per cent in its production, I think it speaks volumes for the success of the labour policy of this Government that it could maintain this pattern according to which the non-Whites are afforded employment opportunities, while at the same time the Whites are protected in those spheres of employment in which they wish to continue. This, I think, is one of the greatest achievements this Government has to its credit.

I now want to dispose of this matter and come to specific things, but I just want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville, who is apparently going to inform us as to their policy once again, that I shall continue to listen with great interest to his exposition of their policy. [Interjections.] I have now given the hon. member the results of our policy. I have given him the cornerstones on which this policy rests, and now I want to tell the United Party that they have no alternative for our policy which could work in South Africa. The United Party has no feasible alternative, because when they tested it in their time this country was afflicted by strikes of such a nature that they literally make those of present-day Britain pale into insignificance. I want to tell the hon. member that we are looking forward with interest to hearing what their labour policy is.

This bring me to the hon. members who raised specific matters. The hon. members for Boksburg and Vanderbijlpark submitted pleas in connection with the training periods of apprentices with which I have a great deal of sympathy. I just want to tell them that our apprenticeship committees are continually investigating this question of the periods to see whether they can be shortened, and these are matters which may safely be submitted to those committees in the various areas. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark furthermore appealed for the apprenticeship literature to be in Afrikaans for the Afrikaans apprentices. As you know, Sir, this is a matter which does not fall under my Department, but I shall nevertheless pass on these representations to the Department of Education, under which this matter falls.

The hon. member for Boksburg submitted a plea in connection with the mentally retarded to the effect that they should also be given a place in those sheltered employment factories. I want to assure him that this is indeed our policy. We are taking as many of them as possible into those factories. I shall return in a moment to the other aspect that was raised. In the meantime there is the hon. member for Umbilo.

The hon. member for Umbilo told me last night that unfortunately he would not be able to be here to-day, but I shall reply in his absence to certain of the matters he raised. He raised the question of the workmen’s compensation pensions. All I want to say to that is that it is a matter which is being investigated by my department at present. The Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner and my department are investigating the entire matter of a change in workmen’s compensation pensions, and proposals will probably be submitted to me shortly. This is also my answer to the hon. member for Uitenhage, who spoke about the same matter. The hon. member for Umbilo also asked for increased benefits in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Act. I am afraid I cannot grant that request, because the position is that the amounts received by way of contributions are unfortunately still insufficient to cover the payments. At present the Unemployment Insurance Fund has to use its interest to pay the beneficiaries. He also asked about the maternity benefits, to which I can only say that unfortunately we do not see our way clear to abolishing the qualifying period, because it is feared that this may give rise to certain abuses.

In connection with sheltered employment the hon. member for Hercules made a moving plea for better working conditions for the instructors and also for the workers. I can only say that the instructors have been granted improvements in accordance with the Public Service pay increases; they receive pay increases whenever the Public Service does. The workers themselves also received pay increases to the tune of R90,000 with effect from 1st April this year.

The hon. member for Boksburg pleaded for a sheltered employment factory at Boksburg. I have a great deal of sympathy as regards this matter, but now we have the position that we have 13 such factories and that there are vacancies in those 13 factories. They were established to accommodate 2,000 sheltered workers, but we have 130 vacancies. There are vacancies for 52 persons in the three factories on the Rand, but some of the people working in these three factories come from the East Rand. Now surely you can appreciate that if we should establish a factory on the East Rand, in Boksburg, or Benoni, which has also been suggested as a site, it would attract some of the people away who are working at the other three factories, which would then have even more vacancies. I think that since these factories are so heavily subsidized by the State— we subsidize them 100 per cent, and the people working in them are not 100 per cent productive—the time has not yet arrived to investigate this matter.

The hon. member for Langlaagte pleaded for the promulgation of the regulations in connection with the provisions of the Factories Act relating to people having hearing problems in factories to be speeded up. I want to give him the same reply as I gave the hon. member for Durban (Central) on a previous occasion, when he also concerned himself with this matter by way of a question. The answer is that our inspectors are working full steam to draw up these regulations, but these are very complicated regulations. These are not things one can simply work out by means of a computor; one needs a good deal more wisdom for that. Our people are working on it full steam, and I may just mention that the provisional draft regulations have been drawn up and are being checked by the law advisers at the moment, but because there are many technical terms involved, this too is a task which cannot simply be completed overnight. But we are working on it as quickly as possible.

The hon. member for Rosettenville was concerned about health aspects. I want to give him the assurance that the Public Health Act also makes provision for the steps that may be taken to prevent industrial diseases, and I want to give him the further assurance that the cooperation between Labour and Health is of the best, and that the problems he raised are very definitely being discussed.

Would the Minister be in favour of an umbrella department to look after the health of those workers who are subject to industrial hazards, a new department perhaps coming between Labour and Mines and Health?

Order! The hon. member is making a speech now.

No, I am not in favour of a new department. We cannot create a new department for every need, but a readjustment may be made, and that is a matter which is receiving our attention.

A new division perhaps?

Yes, duties may even be transferred from one department to another. This is a matter we are working on at present.

Then the hon. member for Houghton wanted to know about the farmers who should fall under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I can assure her that very good progress is being made in this connection. The farmers’ associations are very helpful in informing the farmers, and articles are also being written in the agricultural magazines in order to inform them of the obligations in connection with the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The following figures will show you what good progress is being made. In 1960, 36,000 farmers were registered under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and this number has now increased to 70,000, which certainty proves that the necessary attention is being given to this.

The hon. member for Umbilo and the hon. member for Houghton also referred to the unclaimed moneys under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I have already given detailed replies in this House, and pointed out what steps were being taken. I have the same information here now, but to save time I do not want to repeat it. I just want to give the assurance that we are doing as much as we can by contacting Bantu Commissioners and the Police, and by informing the employers by means of the radio. We are making use of the services of innumerable bodies and persons in order to find these people so that they can be paid. As a last step it is now being considered also to ask newspaper publishers to give assistance by publishing this information. So we are doing what we can.

The hon. member for Stilfontein spoke about an apprenticeship committee and the wage determination in connection with the hairdressing trade there. This question of the hairdressing trade in Stilfontein is a matter he has brought to our notice before, and the Wage Board now intends to extend the investigation it wants into the hairdressing trade so that Stilfontein may also be included. But as regards the apprenticeship committee which does not exist there, I really think this is a matter in which the hon. member should interest himself and should try to establish locally. After all, it is not the task of the Department of Labour to establish a committee there from scratch. Private bodies and persons should do their share in that regard.

I conclude by saying that the labour policy of the National Party Government is such that it can withstand the test of criticism and the test of comparison between us and the United Party at all times, as well as the critical judgment of the workers themselves. We think the best proof of the fact that the labour policy of the National Party is a success is, firstly, that the Labour Party itself has disappeared from this House and secondly, that the United Party in its struggle against us has disappeared from the workers’ constituencies in South Africa. These are the best proofs that this Government and this party indeed enjoy the confidence of the workers. It is essential to me, in any labour policy followed by the Government, that the workers should have confidence in the Government’s handling of their affairs. Sir, the Government will continue with this policy. It is a policy aimed at protecting the White worker in his traditional pattern of life. But at the same time it will also continue to give the non-Whites in this country as many employment opportunities as they can get, and to achieve these two objects at the same time, i.e. to (protect the Whites on the one hand and to give the non-Whites employment opportunities on the other hand, is one of the major tasks of this Government, and in the performance of this task the machinery of work reservation is absolutely indispensable to us. We cannot do this without the machinery of work reservation, because then we will have labour unrest in the country. Because this is the position, I just in conclusion want to express my gratitude to my department for the industrial peace we are enjoying in this country. The hon. member for Hillbrow suggested here that the Bantu in South Africa were not allowed to strike and that that was the reason why we had industrial peace. Apparently he does not know about the strikes of Bantu stevedores that took place in Durban the other day. They went on strike and we did not send them to the moon; they are in this country; they are not even in Russia.

What has become of the situation?

We handled it tactfully, and therefore I conclude with a word of appreciation to the officials who are handling these difficult situations in a way which deserves the appreciation of this entire Parliament and the country. These are the people who are taking the lead in maintaining industrial peace in this country, and I want to express my gratitude to those people. I think they deserve it on behalf of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to express our appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the detailed and courteous way in which he replied to the specific matters affecting the administration of his department, and for the full explanations in connection therewith which he gave to hon. members who had put questions to him. I wish I could say the same about the reply which he gave in regard to the general (policy of the Government. He made two or three statements, but in no real respect did he deal with the questions which were put to him from the side of the Opposition. He completely ignored some important questions affecting the future of our labour pattern in South Africa to the core.

We are glad to hear that it is his and the Government’s (policy to create employment opportunities for the non-Whites. It is interesting to know that there are 21,840 non-White artisans in South Africa as against 158,000 white artisans. But the hon. the Minister must tell us whether it is his (policy to encourage the training of non-white artisans in the face of the opposition of some of the trade unions. While he prides himself on this, what is his attitude towards the motor mechanics who refuse to train non-white artisans in their industry? It will be very interesting, as the Minister prides himself on it that they are becoming artisans—and it is a good thing—to hear what his attitude in this connection is.

There have been discussions.

What progress has been made? Sir, a pertinent question was put to the hon. the Minister by one of our members about the trained non-white young women whom a bank wanted to employ, a bank which the Minister then prohibited to do so. What became of them? The hon. the Minister did not reply to this question. He must not come here and blame us for creating the wrong image abroad if we put these questions and he is unable to reply to our questions. That is why he avoids these pertinent questions. Why does he come along with these generalities, which bring us no nearer to an understanding of the problem of South Africa and the Government’s approach to it? The Minister did not tell us how many skilled Bantu there were in the country. He spoke about 21,840 nonWhites; how many of them are Bantu? We cannot get a reply from him on that. As you know, Sir, there is very little provision in our industrial organization for the training of skilled Bantu artisans.

The Minister had a great deal to say about job reservation. The Minister assures us that theoretically it still remains one of the bases of the Government’s policy. Although it affects only 3 per cent of the people in South Africa, it is potentially there. It need not be statutory; it can be applied administratively; apparently it can also be used as an argument in negotiations with the people concerned. Sir, I have here a particularly interesting document which ought to be compulsory study material for anyone who wants to understand the labour position in South Africa. It is the report of the Industrial Council on the first job reservation order issued in South Africa, namely in the clothing industry. Careful mention was made of the fact that the percentage of Whites steadily decreased in the clothing industry in all provinces. I read here—

This is the trend which had to be checked. The council recommended that all the important spheres of employment in the clothing industry should be reserved 100 per cent for Whites, but it said that the position could be met by exemptions. But what did they really want to achieve? Let me quote from the report itself—

This is the aim; this is the policy—

Just in case the Minister finds solace in this last reservation, what exactly do they mean by it? A few paragraphs later on they say—

I pointed out to the Minister that according to the figures at my disposal the aim at the time was to keep about 25 per cent of the workers in the clothing industry White, and according to the figures I have been able to obtain, it is approximately 9 per cent to-day. It is an inevitable process which is taking place, and the industrial tribunal realized it, because they quoted here with approval what the Wage Board had said about the clothing industry, i.e. the following—

Tribute is paid to the United Party Government which created such a sound state of affairs that it was not necessary for Whites to do this difficult and unpleasant work—

These are the facts which the Minister refuses to see. There are inevitable processes at work which are bringing about changes in the labour pattern in South Africa, and my question was not whether the Minister and the Government accepted the inevitable, and all the Minister could say was that it was the policy of the Government to go along with the inevitable. Put that is not a policy. My question was what the standpoint of the Government was to prevent friction, and particularly what the standpoint of the Minister as Minister of Labour, who is concerned mainly with the white workers, the Coloured workers and the Indian workers in South Africa, was in regard to the policy of the Government to use the border industries to train a large number of Natives on the quiet—almost secretly—as semi-skilled and skilled workers, as announced by the hon. the Deputy Minister. I am not saying it is wrong; I have said that we are in favour of it.

We are not doing it secretly.

What is the policy of the Government to prevent unhealthy competition between those workers who are trained where job reservation is not applicable …

The Wage Board will see to that.

Professor Rautenbach himself admitted in an interview with one of the trade union organizations that the Wage Board was too slow in revising wages in the border industries in order to meet the objections, and the Minister knows that it is true.

That is untrue. We had the clothing industry in the boarder areas investigated.

Yes, and that is all.

And the motor car industry.

No, Sir, that is no answer. I pertinently put the question to the Minister when I opened the debate on this Vote and he could not reply to it, and he should not hide behind the Wage Board’s investigation into one or two matters now. The point is that job reservation does not apply there. The Minister says that that is the main safeguard for the Whites, but those areas are exempted from job reservation. Low wages is one of the attractions offered to industrialists to go to those areas and the Minister knows it. I asked the question: What is going to happen to South Africa if we have two wage levels in South Africa, one for the Whites and one for the Natives, one for the Whites, the Indians and the Coloureds on the one hand and one for the Natives on the other hand? There was no attempt at answering the question. We got no policy whatsoever from him. He had unlimited time to reply to these pertinent questions and he did not say one single word about them. Mr. Chairman, in this debate two members spoke on that side for every one member that spoke on this side, and not one of them tried to reply to these pertinent questions. What is wrong with the Government? We are forced to accept that the position at the moment is that it is still the standpoint of the Minister of Labour in South Africa that it would be stupid to stop the admission of non-Whites into spheres of employment: that he regards the principle of the rate for the job, if not with suspicion, then with very little enthusiasm as an answer to the problems which may lie ahead. [Time expired.]

After the Minister spoke and furnished clear replies to the matters which the previous speaker had raised here, he gave us reason to expect that he would in his next speech put forward a very clear policy which could serve as an alternative. Instead of that he had enigmatic statements; the hon. the Minister replied to him in that respect as well, and everybody came under the impression that there was really nothing substantial in what the hon. member had to say.

But I do not want to go any further into what the hon. member had to say. I want to return to a matter which I regard as being of very treat importance. [Interjection.] That hon. member is already hungry again; that is why he is beginning to make interjections again I want to return to a matter raised by the hon. member for Salt River who spoke about the importance of vocational guidance. Sir, when one has to deal with the problem of a limited supply of manpower one would like to get the very best out of those people. Yet it is a recognized fact that one can only expect the best results from one’s workers when one takes two things into consideration: One must take into account the aptitude of that person, and one must take into account the interest that person displays. We are in fact very pleased to see that the Department of Labour is taking this into account. We think here in particular of the major task the vocational services division is performing in placing people in the avenues of employment for which they have an aptitude and in which they are interested. I need only refer to two of the quarterly journals we receive regularly. “My Career” supplies information in regard to a large number of possible careers which people can choose. Very often one has to deal with a young person who has to choose some career or other for himself. He has a specific aptitude and interest but is quite ignorant in regard to the large variety of occupations he can follow and into which he can fit. In this publication a careful analysis is given of these specific occupations so that a person can be guided in his choice of an occupation in which he can achieve the most success. The same applies to another quarterly published by the Department which we cannot appreciate enough, i.e. Rehabilitation. This is not a publication which is written by the professional officers of the Department as such but very often by the best informed and greatest experts in specific fields. When one reads in this publication how much is being done for people who are either retarded or who have diviated, to ensure their return to the labour market and also under circumstances in which they will be happy can produce the highest productivity they are capable of, one feels that one must convey ones appreciation to the Department for these two specific quarterlies.

I am now thinking of a further service which the professional officers of this Department are rendering. Do you know that during the past year there were more than 8,000 people like this who registered for work. More than 4,000 of these people are persons who were tested by the professional officers of this Department in regard to their interest and their aptitude. We cannot express sufficient appreciation for this great work. I took the trouble to go and look at the battery of tests which are applied and I can assure you that these are applied in a very capable way and that it is a very thorough and comprehensive battery of tests. Here, by way of example I want to refer to two cases where young people came to see me personally and asked for advice. The one had been at university for a year but could make no progress whatsoever. A second was heading the same way. I then took them to the Department of Labour, where those tests were applied to them and it was pointed out to them that they were on the wrong track altogether. I can testify here to-night with great appreciation that both these young people have found themselves and are making a great success of their academic careers. That is why I said that when we think of the fact that 4,000 young people have been tested during the past year, that their aptitude and interest has been pointed out to them, and that interviews have been conducted with them, one feels that these are 4,000 people that form an addition to our labour corps, who know what they want to do and who are doing something for which they know they have the aptitude and the interest. One must admit that they have done our country a great service. I feel it is time that we should take cognizance of this with appreciation, and I want to convey my gratitude to the hon. the Minister, his department and his professional officers for this great task.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville blew off such a head of steam just now that if he had had to get rid of the same amount of hot air in a desert he would most certainly have caused a sand-storm. I do not want to follow up on the hon. member’s arguments, I just want to refer in passing to a matter which was raised here earlier to-day by the hon. member for Rosettenville. This hon. member, and other hon. members, expressed doubts in their speeches in regard to the ability of the Government to meet the trained labour requirements of our country. But what are the true facts? In the first place, the United Party was, after Union, responsible for the fact that there was never any planned thinking in regard to economic expansion for South Africa. Only in 1925, under National Party rule, was any thought given to the establishment of industries for South Africa. After all, we know what the attitude of the United Party was all those years. In the years before 1924, and again prior to 1948, they resigned themselves to the fact that everything should come here from overseas, and they took no interest in the establishment or the expansion of industries. The fact of the matter is that in 1925 only 13 per cent of the Whites of that time were economically active. To-day that figure of 13 per cent has increased to more than 30 per cent. This tremendous increase in the number of white persons who have become economically active under this Government since 1948 is more than gratifying. When one looks to the future and to the projection made by the I.D.C. of our future requirements in this particular field, one notes that by the year 2000 the need for economically active people will be approximately 15 million, and one naturally realizes that these persons cannot all be Whites. I feel myself completely at liberty today to state that I have no doubt in my mind that this Government, which will still be in power then, will see to it that there will be a sufficient supply of manpower available for the purposes of our industrial expansion.

To speak about the Department of Labour is, for these reasons which I have now stated, to speak about one of the most important Departments of the Government. This Department is at the moment concerned with approximately seven million people, White as well as non-White, who are economically active. This is a large number of people, and for this reason it is a very important Department. When one looks at the latest annual report of the Department one is impressed by the success which they have made of their work, not only during the past year, but during the past number of years. Under these circumstances, therefore, when I join the hon. the Minister in conveying my sincere congratulations to his Department, I want to do what he could not do, and express a word of gratitude and appreciation towards him as the leader and foreman who saw to it that things went well in the field of labour, as we have heard this afternoon.

Because labour will become increasingly scarce and expensive, more and more emphasis will in future have to fall on technology. As the emphasis in that direction increases, one must accept that the fear can to an increasing extent arise in the mind of the worker that he will eventually have to make way for the machine. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister what his Department intends doing in this particular context. What does his Department intend doing, so that it can be brought home, in a very subtle way, to the worker, that it will never be possible to replace a man, and him, as a worker with exceptional gifts, with a machine, but that he will in future, under those changing circumstances, play a more important role than he has played in the past. I should like to ascertain from the hon. the Minister whether his Department is giving attention to this matter, and what it envisages in future in this connection.

In this connection, I also want to put in a plea here his afternoon in respect of the facilities for the spending of their leisure time by our workers. Workers operate machines in factories day in and day out, and this must have an influence on their minds. I want to ask now whether the Department cannot do more, and I do not think that the premise can be adopted that the Department should supply these facilities, but that our employers should be encouraged to give more attention to the question of leisure time occupation by our workers. In addition, as regards the position of our workers, I read in the annual report under the heading “Factories—Health and Welfare”—

This point I cannot emphasize strongly enough. But now I also want to ask whether it is not time that factories should not only be inspected for health purposes when there are complaints, but periodically, as a general rule. The conclusion I arrive at from the annual report is that at present inspections are only being carried out when complaints are made. On behalf of our workers I want to advocate that more regular inspections be carried out so as to make certain that the conditions under which workers in factories work will not be prejudicial to their health. There are many factories, inter alia, iron and steel factories, where workers are afforded no protection whatsoever against the elements of nature, particularly not in the winter. I think we owe it to the workers to ensure that they are protected as well as possible in the factories where they are working.

Lastly I want to ask the Minister what the position is in regard to the intrusion of non-Whites as shop assistants, particularly by chain stores. This is a matter which gives rise to a great deal of irritation, and I think it is time the Department gave attention to this matter. The hon. the Minister has already reacted to a plea from the hon. member for Boksburg in regard to children in special schools. My experience is that boys leave the special schools and find it very difficult to enrol as apprentices or as operators. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman I want to revert to the speech of the hon. the Minister. To say the least, the speech of the hon. the Minister was a very disappointing one. It took him half an hour to deliver the speech, but he only referred to isolated aspects of the labour policy of the Nationalist Party. However, throughout his speech he studiously ignored the challenge put to him by the hon. member for Yeoville, a challenge to state in clear and unequivocal terms what the policy of the Nationalist Party is in regard to labour, what the broad basis of it is, and in what direction the labour policy of the Government is leading this country. The challenge was put to the Minister and to this side of the House that South Africa was facing a growing manpower shortage which is growing worse year after year, and which has already been described by the responsible persons as reaching the proportion of a crisis. More and more people say that South Africa’s growing labour crisis has reached the stage where only one clear alternative confronts the Government: either they must allow more and more non-Whites into semi-skilled and skilled positions, or they must state categorically to the country that they favour a slow-down in the economic progress of this country. In other words, intelligent and responsible people are stating more and more that the country is getting to a stage where it will have to face two clear alternatives only: either it must progress economically or retrogress economically. To progress economically only one thing is necessary, i.e. by the increasing use of non-White labour in semi-skilled and skilled positions.

Is that your policy? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister of Transport is putting a question to us. But he knows very well what our policy is; he knows very well that we face the facts of the situation; we face the facts that increasing numbers of non-Whites will have to be used in our economy, and we have stated that it is our policy to do this with proper safeguards for the white workers and the other minority labour groups, i.e. the Coloureds and the Indians.

What safeguards?

We want to know the Government’s policy …

What safeguards?

That was fully stated in the Budget debate. You are putting a very stupid question.

The hon. the Minister of Transport is trying to drag a red herring across my track, but I am not going to allow him to waste my time. I have only 10 minutes. Furthermore, the hon. the Minister knows my answer to his question because he knows that my hon. Leader answered that question in the Budget debate, and if he wants to refresh his memory he should read that debate.

No, he did not.

I am not going to be sidetracked, Mr. Chairman. We want to deal with the labour policy of the Government and the hon. member for Yeoville has already put pertinent questions to the Minister of Labour without any answer being forthcoming. Perhaps the hon. the Minister of Transport will get up and give us these answers.

I am quite prepared to do that. Unlike you, I am not afraid to state my policy. [Interjections.]

You state a policy and then you disregard it left, right and centre.

What does that hon. member know about this matter? He only knows something about sheep …

We have had statements from the hon. the Minister of Labour in general terms. He stated generalities, e.g. that they respect the traditional pattern of South Africa in the labour field. He then went on to say that they stood for separation between White and Black. But do they carry this out? Do the hon. the Minister of Transport and the hon. the Minister of Labour deny that in factories in South Africa to-day, in white factories, 75 per cent of the workers are non-White?

That is a fact we have stated over and over again.

Where then is the separation?

As I say, these are white factories and yet 75 per cent of the workers are non-Whites. Is this their separation?

Is that the best you can do at the moment?

The point we are making in this debate and the challenge we are throwing out to the Government is that they are saying one thing, while the facts of our economic life in South Africa are something quite different. What we are asking the Government is to face up to these facts and to tell us what their policy will be in future.

I am glad the hon. Minister of Transport is in the House. He has been making strong statements that if it is necessary “in belang van die land”, to use non-Whites in positions previously occupied by Whites, he would do so, even against the wishes of the trade unions.

You do not have the courage to say that. That is your trouble.

Would you do the same in the mines?

The hon. the Minister of Transport must please be a little patient. I only have 10 minutes available to me. If I had half an hour I would not have minded these interjections at all. If he wants to get up and talk, I shall give him plenty of questions to answer. The first question I should like to put to the Government, to the hon. the Minister of Transport or to the Minister of Labour, is, what do they mean by this phrase “in die belang van die land” in the national interests? Mr. Chairman, when is it in “die land se belang” that non-Whites should be used to fill positions when Whites cannot be obtained? This is the question I put. It is a pertinent question to which I want an unequivocal answer. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that it is not only when the hon. the Minister for Transport is short of labour that it begins to be “in die land see belang”. Surely, whenever there is a position to be filled and it is not possible to fill it by a white person, in every such situation it is in the country’s interest that other labour forces which are available should be used. And if that is not the Government’s attitude then let us hear from the Government where the dividing line comes. When does the national interest justify the use of non-White labour in positions previously filled by Whites and when does it not?

The other question to which I should like a pertinent answer is whether the Government concedes that there is a growing manpower shortage which is reaching crisis proportions.

That is an exaggeration.

Is that an exaggeration? Well, if it is an exaggeration it is a statement which is being made by many responsible persons and persons who are very knowledgeable.

Who?

I have not the time to quote their names but I can give them to the hon. member if he wants them. He ought to know and there are plenty of members on his own side who know. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Musgrave, as one United Party speaker after another has been doing since yesterday afternoon, now pretends to have no knowledge of what this Government’s labour policy is. The hon. the Minister explained very clearly here this afternoon that it was the standpoint of this Government that we will tolerate no integration whatsoever at any administrative or other level in this country. Nor will we tolerate the development of mixed trade unions in this country. These are two cardinal principles to which this Government adheres and on which the electorate has returned this Government to power at one election after another. The voters in the country are so satisfied with this Government and its labour policy, as well as with the hon. the Minister and the way in which the Department is implementing the policy, that they have been returning us to this House with ever-increasing majorities since 1948. That is also why there is such unprecedented industrial peace in this country. This has already been indicated this afternoon by the hon. the Minister. The most telling and the most tangible proof of the satisfaction of the workers in this country with the labour policy of the Government is to be found in the fact that there is no longer a labour party in this country. In the Western World there is almost no country which does not have a socialist party. In this country there is no longer a labour party. I want to remind you of the fact that in the early twenties the Labour Party was still in power in the Transvaal Provincial Council. Where are the Labourites now? After the war the Labourites were still in power in the Johannesburg City Council. I also recall that after the war, and after 1948, there were no fewer than six Labour M.P.s in these cross benches from which I am speaking to-day. Where are they now? It is because the National Party has, over the years, looked after the interest of the workers in this country so well, and because they know that the workers’ interests are safe in its hands, that there is no longer a single Labour Party member present here in this House. On the Witwatersrand to-day we find the greatest concentration of workers. What is the position there? The hon. member for Yeoville is the main United Party speaker on labour matters. But does that member represent a workers’ constituency? No, he represents a constituency in which the majority of the inhabitants are rich businessmen.

That is untrue.

The hon. member knows that it is true. It is on this side of the House where one finds the members who represent the true workers’ constituencies in this country, such as the hon. members for Brakpan, Langlaagte and Germiston. I can continue in this vein. In addition I just want to point out that in 1943 the National Party had one workers’ constituency on the Rand, and, as you yourself know, Sir, that was Westdene. To-day 68 per cent of the Rand constituencies are represented by the National Party. This is the irrefutable proof of how the National Party is to ever-increasing degree being supported by the workers of this country. That is why I want to say that the Opposition would do better to refrain from putting questions to this Government and trying to imply that this Government’s labour policy is not clear or acceptable to the country.

I come now to the hon. member for Musgrave. He asked what the Government’s policy was. I want to tell him that the Government’s policy is definitely not integration, as was implied here this afternoon by one member after another. The hon. member also stated that they stood for the employment of certain non-Whites in certain avenues of employment, but that the white man would not be ousted because they had certain “safeguards”. I now want to ask that hon. member and also the hon. member for Yeoville, who is their main speaker, what those “safeguards” are. Their reply will be “the rate for the job”. But the hon. member knows just as well as I do that not even half the workers of South Africa are covered by industrial tribunal agreements. Therefore the “rate for the job” is no effective means of protecting the interests of the white worker in South Africa. The hon. member for Houghton also pointed out to him that where a minimum wage has to be paid it will happen that the non-Whites will, because they have a lower standard of living, immediately oust those Whites from certain avenues of employment with their minimum wage. Those “safeguards” which the hon. Opposition spoke about, are not worth the paper they are written on.

I come now to the hon. member for Hillbrow who had a great deal to say here this afternoon on the question of industrial peace. He said that industrial peace was not prevailing in this country, and that statements to this effect were false. As the hon. the Minister remarked. South Africa is far in advance of a country like Britain as far as industrial legislation is concerned and also as far as its industrial peace is concerned. Day after day we read in the newspapers how Harold Wilson and his Labour Party is having to struggle to cope with those continual wild cat strikes and mass strikes with which Britain is afflicted.

On what subhead is the hon. member speaking now?

I am discussing the labour policy of the hon. the Minister.

The hon. member is discussing England’s labour policy now.

I shall return, Mr. Chairman. In this country we probably have such industrial peace as we have never known before in this country. In 1968 there were 56 work stoppages of which 21 could be regarded as strikes in terms of the Act. Only 1.953 workers of all races were involved. In this figure there were 665 Bantu who were involved in only 17 strikes. Thus, only a very small number of strikes have taken place in this country. If this does not testify to a large measure of industrial peace then I do not know what industrial peace is.

Before I conclude I should like to bring another matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister, a matter which was raised by the hon. member for Springs, i.e. the question of the increasing use of Coloured women in the large chain stores and self-service stores. I have here a letter which is only one of a number I received from Johannesburg and from my constituency. Very strong objections are raised here, and there are also requests to the effect that the hon. the Minister should act more strictly in regard to the application of the work reservation section, i.e. section 77, in regard to this matter. Many of the large shops are first introducing Coloureds for the sole purpose of packing commodities and items onto the shelvs, but in due course and on the quiet they are promoted and are occasionally allowed to work with the tills and on the counters. I can assure hon. members that there is an increase in the number of non-Whites which are being appointed in this way. There is a disturbing increase in Johannesburg, and this situation is being increasingly exploited. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister to address a further warning to these self-service stores and chain stores to the effect that he will take deliberate steps to put a stop to this custom.

I want to raise another complaint. The Coloured women working there, fetch their tea from the same canteen as the white women. Strong objections have been raised in this connection as well. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if the matter was not so serious, I would have laughed when an hon. member makes a complaint such as we have just heard. The Government have always complained that the United Party advocates integration, which of course we do not do. However, they practise it regularly. Here we have an example where the chain stores in the Transvaal are employing Coloured women and where the Coloured women fetch their tea at the same cafeteria as the Whites. What a terrible crime. Listening to all the hon. gentlemen who represent mining seats it was interesting to hear the arguments from the hon. members on that side of the House who asked persistently what safeguard we offer the white man. I should like to ask what safeguard does the white man want? He has tradition at his back, he usually has a very good education, the best of training and yet he is afraid, according to these hon. gentlemen, if a few Coloured men, or Bantu should enter trade or industry, the calling or the profession in which the white man is employed. Surely the question is not to ask the Opposition what are the safeguards, but for the Government to say what safeguards do the Whites want. I have still to meet a white man who regards himself as being inferior to any Coloured man, no matter what his trade or his profession or his calling is. Sir, I should say that the type of request we have had from the hon. member who has just left in a great hurry is foolish, silly and stupid, because the country is developing and nobody has denied it. The hon. Minister has accepted the fact that more and more … [Interjections.] If it is not parliamentary, I shall withdraw it and call it a silly request.

Order! The hon. member can withdraw it after dinner. [Laughter.]

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Before the debate was adjourned, I was asking the question what protection the white workers want when black and Coloured workers enter an industry. I think the Minister must give us a fair and straight answer to that. The second question on which we would like an answer, and which the Minister has evaded so far is this. The hon. the Minister of Transport said it is in the national interest to overrule trade unions and that he overrides them. Now we would like to know, and I think we must insist on a reply, whether that is Government policy, and whether that would apply in dealing with the miners in the Transvaal? Because the position is this, as was mentioned earlier, that changes are taking place now with samplers, a job which was formerly done by Whites and is now being done by non-Whites. If this is by agreement with the Underground Workers’ Union and the Mineworkers’ Union, we would have nothing further to say, but what we want to know is whether it is Government policy to ignore the trade unions when, as the Minister of Transport said, it is in the interest of the country to introduce black labour. Now, the point I wish to discuss with the Minister is in regard to the training of Coloured apprentices.

The hon. the Minister knows that Coloured youths are finding it more difficult by the day to be apprenticed in many trades. There is a trend of development taking place in this country which is alarming from the Coloured man’s point of view, namely that if an employer wishes to apprentice a Coloured youth, the white trade unions refuse to train him. I talk of an industry with which I am familiar because I have before me the Newsletter of the Motor Industry Employees’ Union. Apparently in December some discussions took place, and as the result inquiries were directed to the management of the Motor Industry Employees’ Union, the M.I.E.U., to ascertain whether they should train Coloured apprentices. The phraseology which is used in this issue of the newsletter is, as I said, alarming because it says that white workers may complete the training of youths who are already indentured to them, but that that is the end of the run. I would like to ask the Minister the same question I asked him last year and the year before, i.e. what his plans are to make provision for the training of Coloured apprentices in a variety of trades to which they are well suited and which they will fill very well indeed. The Minister has told me in reply from time to time that he had it in mind to establish a technical college or a training school here in the Cape, but I want to put it to him that that is inadequate and that with the number of youths who could be available and who would like to follow a trade, far more energetic steps are required than merely the provision of a trade school or a technical school for training them. There is no question at all about it. The next thing I would like to say is that information has come to me that persons interested in the indenturing of apprentices find great difficulty because there is resistance from the Department to the indenturing of Coloured apprentices on the grounds that the equipment and machinery in the shops to which they are indentured are not adequate nor comply with the type of equipment with which they will meet when they are finally trade-tested at Elandsfontein in the Transvaal. I want the Minister to give some encouragement to Coloured youths and others, and girls as well, to receive proper apprenticeship training so that they can take their place in the industry of the country, something which, as the Minister himself has said earlier, is inevitable. They must share in it. Nobody wishes to exclude them from the sunshine or the prosperity which surrounds us. It is a very important point for the Coloured community. They are anxious and we find that in many places it is difficult, if not impossible, to indenture Coloured youths in any trade or calling.

My final point is that the craft unions, of which we have heard so much from the other side, are getting themselves into the position to-day where they are no longer trade unions but are craftsmen protection societies. [Time expired.]

I want to tell the hon. member for Karoo that it is undoubtedly the desire of this Government that every citizen of this country, White and non-White, should have a place in the sun, and that we not only desire that they should have this, but that we also want to assure them of a livelihood in this country. In the dying moments of this important debate on labour, and because we must regard the Department of Labour to-day as being one of the most important links in this industrial peace which has been developed over the years— this unparalleled industrial development as we know it to-day owes its existence to that industrial peace which this Department has created for us.

Why unparalleled?

Did you ever have anything like this in your time? But the hon. members of the Opposition are jealous of this industrial peace we have in the country to-day, and it is this very industrial peace which has brought about this unparalleled industrial development in our country.

Rubbish!

It is not rubbish, but the truth, and the truth hurts. But I want to ask the Opposition this. Why are they trying to chase up a hare in this debate? [Interjection.]

Order!

Do you want to create friction between the Whites and the non-White workers in the country? Do you want peace? [Interjection.]

Order! The hon. member for Transkei must keep quiet now.

[Interjections.] Let us now accept, in this country to-day, that we will have three types of industrial development in the Republic. We will have the industrial development which we have to-day within our white cities; we will have the industrial development in our border areas; and we will also have the industrial development within the Bantu homelands. Now, do hon. members of the Opposition want the hon. the Minister to submit a super-plan indicating what labour regulations he is going to lay down in these various fields? Is that what they want from him? All the hon. member for Yeoville is doing is to chase up hares here. He wants the hon. the Minister to inform him to-day what conditions he is going to impose and what regulations he is going to lay down as far as wages in the white area, wages in the border areas, and wages in the homelands are concerned. Sir, is it possible for the Minister to announce a thing like that to-day? This Government has seen to it that the necessary machinery has been established, and when that machinery has to be applied, it will be applied.

What machinery?

The machinery of the Wage Board or the machinery of the Industrial Tribunal, in order to introduce work reservation if necessary. The hon. member may not like work reservation or the Industrial Tribunal, but we believe that this is one of the means of effecting industrial peace in our country. The hon. member for Musgrave asked here whether we would not appoint non-Whites if it were in the interests of the country. Sir, if the Minister in conjunction with the trade unions, has ascertained that there are no white workers available, if it is in the interests of the country, then we will do so.

Even in the mines?

As far as the mines are concerned, they are engaged in …

Answer my question.

No, we will appoint the Industrial Tribunal to institute investigations, and if the Industrial Tribunal is satisfied that there is a shortage of white workers in the mines, then the Minister, after he has consulted the Mineworkers’ Union, will make concessions, if doing so is in the interests of the country.

Sir, I want to put in a plea to the hon. the Minister of Labour this evening in regard to a very serious matter. [Interjections.] Yes, we put in pleas to the Minister in regard to matters. The Department of the Minister is today furnishing instruction to various persons in the country, and I now want to refer to a matter, to which the hon. member for Salt River also referred here, i.e. the 26,000 national servicemen who undergo military training every year. I want to ask that a special section be established to give attention to these 26,000 young men. These young men must receive military training just after they have finished their school careers. Many of these young men have not yet decided definitely on what career they want to choose, and my plea is that people who have received the necessary training should be appointed at every military camp in the country in order to furnish guidance to these young people in regard to the choice of a career. Sir, with the manpower shortage in the country we cannot allow a young man to walk the streets looking for work two or three days after he has received his military training. The day he is discharged from the army he must know precisely with whom he is going to work and what career he wants to follow. In this respect the Department of Labour can do South Africa a valuable service. Since these 26,000 young men are being withdrawn from the labour market, I want to advocate that they be guided into the right career as soon as possible, because we cannot afford to have them walking around the streets looking for work for a few days after their discharge. I feel that this is a task which this Department, which has done such wonderful work for us in the past, can successfully tackle. If the Department takes this task upon itself they would be doing the Republic of South Africa a great service.

Sir, when the hon. member for Yeoville started this debate by asking the hon. the Minister of Labour certain specific questions, I believed that this could spark off a very fruitful debate on one of South Africa’s most vital problems, the problem of labour and manpower shortages. Sir, I listened very carefully to hon. members on that side of the House, and I must say that all I heard from them was an evasion of the questions put by the hon. member for Yeoville. When the hon. the Minister got up and said that he was quite prepared to give a statement on Government policy, I really believed that now at last we would get a clear exposition of Government policy in regard to labour and manpower which would clarify the very confused labour pattern that we have in South Africa to-day. But I regret to say that the hon. the Minister’s speech was a masterpiece of evasion, and I must say that he completely begged the question because he made no attempt at all to answer the questions put to him by the hon. member for Yeoville.

I want to react very briefly to a remark made by the hon. member for Mayfair, because I believe he made himself guilty of the oversimplification of the year in admitting that there was only a slight shortage of manpower in South. Africa to-day. I want to say to the hon. member for Mayfair that he should go along firstly to commerce, that he should go along to industry and that he should go along to his own Government departments, and I would suggest, to the Railway Department, and ask them if there is a slight shortage of manpower in South Africa. I want to say, and I say it sincerely, that I believe that not only is there a shortage of manpower in South Africa to-day, but also that South Africa is heading for a major labour and manpower crisis. This was brought home to me very vividly when a short while ago I paged through The Star and found that on one particular day this newspaper had more than ten full pages of staff vacancies covering virtually the whole employment field in South Africa. I found too that even the Receiver of Revenue in desperation had placed a private advertisement calling on part-time assistants to help him to get out last year’s tax forms. Sir, we know that whenever we on this side of the House suggest something in regard to the utilization of South Africa’s total labour force, we are immediately labelled as a party of integrationists.

Of course you are.

But when the father of job reservation, the hon. the Minister of Railways, comes along in this House and tells us quite blandly that he has filled between 8,000 and 9,000 posts with Bantu, posts that were formerly filled by white people, then of course it is not integration. I want to say in all seriousness that the position in regard to labour and manpower is worsening daily and I believe that the time is coming when, whether we like it or not, we will have to up-grade black labour in this country in order to fill the vacancies which cannot be filled by white labour because white workmen are just not there to fill them. Sir, when you listen to hon. members on that side debating this very serious problem of the labour and manpower shortage in South Africa to-day, you cannot help feeling that their thinking has become clouded because of this fear of integration. [Interjections.] Sir, this is quite true, because whenever you use the word, you see signs of fear over there, and this is rather surprising coming from the party that is actually causing integration every day in South Africa. There can be no doubt that the Government will have to make a choice between economic progress or stagnation. If they want economic progress I should like to say that the hon. the Minister and the Government will have to make full use of South Africa’s total labour resources in the interests of South Africa and all its inhabitants. One wonders too when the Government will bow to the inevitable and face up to a simple and very fundamental truth, namely that in South Africa to-day we need every bit of labour at our disposal. Economists will tell us that a developing country must use at least 10 per cent of its total population in the professional and technical spheres if they want to maintain a proper growth rate. This would mean that we in South Africa would have to use more than 50 per cent of our white population, men, women and children in order to maintain this particular growth rate. One wonders when the Government will adopt a more realistic approach and instead of dreaming of countless thousands of immigrants reaching our shores, they should tackle the problem right here in South Africa where it can be solved. We have a large black responsible labour force; a force that will always be with us; a force that, if correctly used with adequate safeguards for every single white worker in South Africa, can play a major part in assisting South Africa to develop its great economic potential. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister, or any member on that side of the House, whether they can deny that industrial colour bars are breaking down daily and that the Government is powerless to stop it or that their much haunted policy of job reservation is out of gear and is just not working? They cannot deny it, because this is happening every day and there is nothing at all the Government can do about it.

The hon. member for Yeoville mentioned the case of the Transvaal clothing industry. I am very glad that he did so, because this Shows that the racial group the hon. the Minister is trying to keep out is getting in anyway through devious routes and with this danger that they are not coming in with the standards and competence of the white worker. Surely, this is a threat for the white worker in South Africa. The hon. the Minister cannot allow it to continue. I should also like to refer to the invidious position the hon. the Minister was placed in regarding the Boilermakers Union. Here we find that this union, failing to get ministerial approval to organize the African labour and pay them the rate for the job, then does the next best thing by asking the hon. the Minister to apply his policy of job reservation and eliminate the 200,000 odd Africans from this particular industry. What is the hon. the Minister’s reaction? His reaction, of course, is that this is impossible; that it cannot be done, because firstly it would cause chaos in the industry and secondly that it would be impossible to place 200,000 Africans in jobs elsewhere. Finally, even if he did, there would be no white workers to fill the gap which would be caused by eliminating these African workers. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, since we heard a great deal to-night about “the rate for the job”, I just want to say that I am convinced that this will stand recorded in Hansard as the weakest “job” the Opposition has ever done as far as the worker is concerned. They waged a war about industrial peace here. They laid down certain criteria for determining that peace. There is one criterion which the Opposition must accept, and that is the polls. The polls will decide which policy is the more acceptable—our policy or their policy, for which they had to call conventions so that they might lay it down.

The hon. member for Hillbrow is probably practising in front of a mirror for his next speech, because he is not here. He had a great deal to say about the criteria for industrial peace, I should like to know what criteria he is going to apply in determining the rate for the job. In determining the rate for the job, is he going to apply the criterion of the standard of civilization of the Whites, or the criterion of the standard of civilization of the Coloureds, the Indians or the Bantu? Why did those members of the Opposition who represent employers’ constituencies not rise and plead that the employer should also have a share in this industrial peace? Why did not one of them rise so as also to encourage the employer to ensure more a lasting industrial peace? They did nothing but criticize the Department of Labour. But the Department of Labour does have its tasks. One of those tasks is legislation. I should like to refer once again to the duty of employers. The employer also has a criterion. His criterion for increased productivity and industrial peace is, in the first place, that he should have healthy employees in his service. In order to have healthy workers in his service, he has to see to it that those workers are examined prior to being taken into service and that they work under healthy conditions. If he did that, it would not be necessary for the Department of Labour to introduce legislation prohibiting certain working conditions. In this regard I want to refer to Act No. 77 of 1967, in terms of which the use of specified substances or materials in certain processes is prohibited. In terms of this Act persons are to be examined before they are employed. All of these provisions have been enacted so as to ensure that workers who are taken into service or are already in service will be healthy. A further criterion for the employer is to have happy employees. Employees must work under pleasant circumstances and must feel at home in their work. They must be fitted into the type of work for which they are best qualified. That is why I want to make an appeal to the employers to facilitate the Department of Labour’s task of consolidating industrial peace further. For his own sake and for the sake of enhancing the productivity of his own undertaking, the employer has to take efficient workers into his service. We know that many employers are already doing a great deal for their workers, i.e. in terms of bursaries and training facilities. I should like to suggest that employers should make a more positive contribution to the training of their workers by awarding bursaries. Another aspect I should also like to mention in this regard, is that an experiment was made in West Germany where, in respect of some of their highly skilled technicians, employers are being encouraged.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the noise on that side of the House is simply impossible. Nobody can hear a word of what that hon. member is saying.

That is not a point of order. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, we know that the Opposition is waging war about industrial peace. We accept that they can wage war about industrial peace, for they cannot wage war about what is being done in the interests of the workers. That is why I am asking that employers should also contribute more towards acquiring the most efficient employees. In West Germany an experiment was made by making a certain number of highly trained employees devote a certain portion of their time to the training of other employees. What is also important to the employer, is to make sure that he has an assured worker, a person who feels happy and is assured of his future, by paying him a wage enabling him to maintain his standard of living. But we heard arguments here about the criteria which are to be applied. As regards the criteria which are to be applied, finality will only be reached at the polls, where it will be decided whose policy will be accepted by the workers.

Mr. Chairman, far from getting a reply from the other side of the House to the questions put from this side so that we can hear what the Government’s policy is in regard to labour, we were somewhat surprised when the member for Umhlatuzana, who is at present leaving the House, in fact made an appeal to the Minister to bring job reservation into restaurants and shops. I could not believe my ears, but the hon. member for Umhlatuzana’s plea was added to by the hon. member for Tunffontein.

That is correct.

That is correct. He asked in fact that job reservation should be brought into the supermarkets as well.

They want their daughters to be waitresses.

I found this quite surprising.

Order! If hon. members must talk, they must please talk more softly.

This was most surprising, because everybody in this House had talked about the shortage of labour, but suddenly those two hon. members wanted to make white people work as waiters and waitresses in shops.

What is wrong with it?

If this is the way the Government protects the white workers of South Africa, I wonder whether the hon. member for Umhlatuzana will broadcast his appeal to the Government so that it becomes loud and clear, that white people must be placed in shops and serve Whites. Let us take this to its logical conclusion. Does he then say that the waiters, particularly the Indian waiters in Natal, must be replaced by Whites? Does he say that? Surely, if Whites are served in an Indian shop, the Indians must be replaced by Whites. Either way there is no logic to his argument, or to the hon. member for Turffontein’s argument in this respect.

Mr. Chairman, let us look at it from another point of view. If they are to be replaced by Whites, what salaries are they to be paid? The same salaries the Coloureds and the Indians are being paid to-day? Is this the future for the white worker of South Africa? Is this what hon. members on that side of the House have in store for the white workers of South Africa? Furthermore, when they are replaced by Whites, what about the increased costs? The prices of those goods will have to be increased if the salaries are increased. Does the hon. member agree with that? Does the hon. member accept it on this basis?

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. Chairman, I have no time to reply to the hon. the Deputy Minister. [Interjections.] The hon. the Deputy Minister has had 21 years to solve the labour problem in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, it was previously ruled that if a member refused to reply to a question, it was unparliamentary for hon. members to say the hon. member was “scared”.

Has anyone said that?

Yes, Sir.

I said that, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member must withdraw it then.

I withdraw.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members on that side have had 21 years to solve the labour problems in South Africa. All they can do, is to make suggestions like the two hon. members I have just mentioned, namely that we must bring job reservation into cafes, tearooms and restaurants.

What is wrong with it?

They now say, what is wrong with it? I should like to ask those hon. members, what is the colour of their domestic servants they brought with them to Cape Town for this Session? If one takes the question to its logical conclusion, those hon. members must employ white domestic servants, because there is no difference between a white domestic servant and a person helping behind a shop counter. But the whole labour policy of this Government is based on a fallacy, a bluff. If the workers of South Africa had been told the truth about the facts in South Africa, this Government would have been out long ago.

Perhaps the hon. the Minister and hon. members on that side of the House have no answer to the labour problem. But the labour problem entails wider aspects. So I am going to put just one little detail to the Minister, which is not a political one. It is one I raised before and which I am now raising again. I would like the hon. the Minister to look into the question of people over the age of 40 who cannot find employment. I have raised this matter with the hon. Ministers of Transport and Economic Affairs, and neither of these Ministers was able to assist. So I should like to put this position to the hon. the Minister. While he cannot solve the labour problems in South Africa, perhaps he might be able, with the help of his colleagues in the Cabinet, to solve this tiny little problem, which nevertheless affects a good number of people in South Africa to-day. Because of the mergers that have been taking place, we find that in any unemployment queue to-day, most of the people are over the age of 40 and 45. Because they are in this age group, they find it impossible to obtain employment. The hon. the Minister of Transport has said that he cannot help. The Minister of Economic Affairs said it was the problem of the hon. the Minister of Labour. Now I have the Minister of Labour here. On behalf of everybody over the age of 40 in South Africa who has not been able to find a job for some considerable time, I am asking the hon. the Minister what are his intentions in this regard. [Interjections.] The lighthearted reception of this suggestion by hon. members opposite is no more than typical of them. When the facts become known to the electorate and they find that we are not so much short of labour in South Africa, but that the Government is short of common sense, I might suggest that some of those hon. members might find themselves in the same unemployment queues. Perhaps then they will be sorry that the Minister of Labour had taken no action in regard to these unemployed people over the age of 40.

In the city of Durban one man has formed a committee and has placed over 200 people in this age group in employment. This is far better than the record of the Government in any other city in South Africa. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that, if one private individual could do this, it is about time the Government did something about it.

Mr. Chairman, before I come to the second Opposition stampede in this debate, I should like to refer to a few of the matters raised here and the pleas put forward. The hon. member for Brakpan asked that we give attention to the ballotees who are called up each year, so that they can be given vocational guidance as well in the military camps. I can give hon. members the assurance that this is being done, but not on the large scale on which we should like to do it, owing to the shortage of professional officers. However, it is in fact being done, and they also receive vocational guidance at school of course.

To the hon. member for Brentwood I want to say that the question of the employers’ contribution to the health of the workers, and in so doing to industrial peace as well, is a matter of great importance. I appreciate his having raised the matter here. It is a matter in respect of which we can encourage employers to a very great extent, because I think that they must play their part in this connection.

I want to ask the hon. member for Turffontein, who also, as did the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, raised the question of non-white employment in restaurants and other places, such as chain stores, to refer these specific matters to my Department, so that we can deal with them administratively.

But what is your policy?

If the hon. member would make less noise and keep his ears open, he will hear it stated very clearly in a moment. The hon. member for Port Natal raised the question of those in their forties. I can just tell him that this is a group of people who are receiving attention from my Department. From time to time we make appeals to employers and other bodies to employ these people. It is not only those in their forties, but even those who are older than 55, who are implicated. We are making it our task to make an appeal to employers to accommodate these people.

Now I come to the second stampede of the Opposition in this debate. This second stampede concerns what we discern in the first part of the debate, i.e. that the true objectives of the United Party have appeared very clearly in these attacks. What they cannot succeed in doing at the polls, i.e. to destroy this apartheid pattern in South Africa, the United Party hopes to effect on the labour front as a result of the manpower shortage in this country. They hope that the shortage of manpower, and specifically white manpower, will force this Government to abandon its entire separate labour pattern. The gist of their entire attack is that they hope the Government will throw open all the doors and allow non-Whites to stream in freely, into skilled and semi-skilled employment of all kinds. That is the objective at which the entire United Party’s hopes, attack and plan is aimed. In this debate it appeared quite clearly. Let me say to the United Party that the shortage of manpower is one of those matters which they over exaggerate to the extreme. A few years ago we established a representative manpower committee in this country. This manpower research committee falls under the auspices of the Department of Education. This manpower committee …

Has never met.

It meets often. What does the hon. member know about it? He has nothing to do with them. He knows nothing about them. Now he wants to come forward with such nonsensical remarks. This manpower committee brought out a report last October which reads, inter alia, as follows—

But this of course does not suit the United Party’s political book. What does suit their book is the major shortage which exists at present, which they can use as a kind of political lever to force the Government to abandon its entire apartheid policy. That is what suits their book. That attitude on the part of the United Party became quite apparent in this debate when members on this side brought up the question of non-Whites who were serving in chain stores, etc. How did that side react? The members on this side who raised that matter were barracked. They were represented as having raised the most ridiculous matter imaginable. When the question of samplers in the mines was raised, what was the reaction on that side? The Mineworkers’ Union was reproached because they had interfered in this question of samplers. That is the attitude of that side. Persons are reproached because they had supposedly gone running to the Minister. That is the complaint which was put forward, i.e. “Why are the mineworkers running to the Minister so that the Minister can interfere in these matters?” Sir, it is quite clear that what the United Party wants is precisely the same as that single Progressive Party member wants, which is that we should throw open the doors to an unrestricted influx of non-Whites into all existing professional and other occupations. [Interjections.]

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Would the hon. the Minister please make it clear to us whether it is his policy to apply the policy of the Minister of Transport, namely to disregard the trade unions if he believes that it is in the interests of the country that non-Whites should work in the mines?

I shall furnish the hon. member with a reply to that in a moment. He need not be afraid that I will avoid those questions. [Interjections.]

Order!

Before I reply to this question, I want to reply to a few other questions put in regard to the border industries. The hon. member for Yeoville was very upset about border industries. This was supposed to be another apartheid measure, which he was concerned about.

It is an integrationistic measure.

No, wait a minute. First listen for a moment. After all, one cannot understand anything if one kicks up a row as the hon. member is now doing. The hon. member put a question in regard to skilled Bantu artisans. Is that not a question the hon. member asked before lunch, or does he no longer know what he asked before lunch?

I asked how many there were.

The hon. member asked me before lunch how many skilled Bantu artisans there were. The hon. member said that I had referred in my reply to the number of skilled non-white artisans, but the hon. member wanted to know how many Bantu skilled artisans there were. I shall now tell the hon. member how many there are. There are 6,000 skilled Bantu artisans in the country, most of whom are in the building industry.

6,000 out of 12,000?

Yes, that is the number. I am now giving you the precise figure, or are you not satisfied that I am furnishing you with the figure? But the hon. member also went on to ask me …

What about the number of Whites?

Must I now repeat my entire speech for your information? Look it up in Hansard now and then we can discuss it again next year. The hon. member for Yeoville put a further question to me. He wanted to know whether we were going to train non-Whites. The reply is: Yes, we are. In fact we are already doing so, as appears from the number that has already been trained, i.e. 6,000. We will train them, but do hon. members know how they are going to be utilized? This is the fundamental difference between us and the United Party. We are going to train them; we are going to train those Bantu artisans but their services are going to be utilized in their own homelands. [Interjections.] It is there that their services will be utilized. Their services will not be utilized in the border industries in those trades in which Whites are being trained as apprentices. Is that clear to hon. members? This is a fundamental difference. This is not United Party policy. Their policy is that we should open the sluice gates so that they can be brought into the country at all times and at all places.

The hon. member for Karoo put a question in regard to the Coloureds. He wanted to know to what extent they are being trained as apprentices, particularly as apprentice mechanics. This is a matter which has all my sympathy. Some time ago I received a deputation from them in this connection. I was in fact able to help them. But the problem is that the white trade union is unwilling to allow Coloureds to enter this industry on a large scale in the Western Cape. But they have no objections to a Coloured apprentice being trained by a Coloured artisan. According to our information there are 340 Coloured mechanics in the Western Cape. I informed the deputation that they should go to those garages where the Coloured artisans were employed. They must enroll their sons there so that they can receive training. However, I cannot ignore the trade union in this regard. This answers the question to what extent I consult and respect the trade unions. But first I want to say something more about border industries.

After all border industries are not situated outside South Africa. The border industries are part of white South Africa.

Is this apartheid?

First of all hon. members must realize now that these border industries are part of white South Africa, and then we will be able to continue discussing this matter intelligently. These border industries are not part of the Bantu homelands. Because they form part of white South Africa, the labour legislation of white South Africa applies to them as well. If the hon. member would understand that now, then we would be making progress with our explanation.

Are you applying it?

Yes, we are applying it.

Where?

There are 18 …

Work reservation?

Now listen. There are 18 wage determinations and industrial tribunal agreements which apply to all border industries in this country.

How many industrial agreements are there?

I said there are 18 industrial tribunal agreements and wage determinations which apply to border areas. From time to time exemption is granted in respect of those industrial tribunal agreements and wage determinations. Now the United Party is saying that this will endanger the white industrialists and the white workers. Have not all the Ministers of Labour of this Government being giving white workers and the country the assurance over the years that unfair competition by those border industries would not be allowed? Is care not being taken to ensure that this does not happen?

Definitely not!

What happened in the clothing industry? We have already carried out two wage board inquiries in regard to the clothing industry in the border areas. The last of the recommendations of these inquiries came into effect towards the end of 1967. The purpose of that was in fact to eliminate unfair competition between the clothing industries in the border areas and the factories in metropolitan areas. In a similar way this Government will deal with any other proof of unfair competition between border industries and metropolitan industries.

Does the wage determination which the hon. the Minister is to apply, also apply to the clothing industry in East London, which is also regarded as a border area?

An industrial tribunal agreement is in force there. In view of this it was possible to grant exemption in that case. [Interjections.] The exemptions have applied throughout the history of labour in our country. Differentiation of wages is after all not something which originated recently with the rise of border industries. Differentiation of wages is as old as our labour legislation. Differentiation of wages, where distinctions are drawn between rural and urban living conditions have been incorporated into our entire labour legislation from the beginning. So this is no new principal. When we come to other industries, precisely the same principle will be applied.

We now come to the question put to me so dramatically by the hon. member for Musgrave, and that is, where and when, with reference to the actions of the Minister of Transport, is it in the interests of the country? This will also serve as a reply to the hon. member for Hillbrow. It was asked when it was in the interest of the country that non-Whites should be afforded opportunities of employment which had previously been made available to Whites only. My reply is that each case will receive attention from the Government on its own merits. Each case will receive attention, but not in the way the United Party, with its imaginary national convention policy, wishes to solve all labour problems. The United Party have this idea that if one holds a national convention and one brings everyone concerned together it will produce a solution to this problem for all concerned. What an illusion! One can only deal with labour problems by tackling them as they occur, individually and according to the merits of the case. In dealing with those merits the trade unions will be thoroughly consulted. Not only will respect be shown for the trade unions, they will also be consulted as I have done with these mining trade unions, and as I have done with all the other trade unions which I have to deal as Minister of Labour. That is precisely what the hon. the Minister of Transport is doing with his Railway trade unions.

That is not what he said.

The hon. member must read the whole of the Minister’s speech, and then he must also take note of what the hon. the Minister subsequently said to the artisans’ association. The respect the hon. the Minister of Transport has for our trade unions is such that it should not be questioned by anybody. According to United Party agitation this Government is opposed to all non-white employment. To my mind this is the most unfair image which could be sent abroad, for I have furnished an abundance of proof that the non-Whites have more opportunities for employment under this Government than they have ever had before. And we are engaged in training them in the various spheres of employment. However, we must first consider the labour pattern, and secondly, the trade unions. We shall continue to do so. Now I want to inform the United Party that they can go to the polls with this labour policy of ours at the next election and ask the voters to judge the National Party on its policy. Then I also want to inform the hon. members of the United Party that they will be judged on their policy. Unfortunately for the United Party the workers are aware of their black record in the field of labour. They will be judged on that black record, but not only will they be judged on that black record of theirs, they will also be judged on their lack of courage in not stating clearly what they mean with this new “labour charter” of theirs. If the United Party wants to know what the result will be, they might as well organize a competition to see whether there is one worker in this country who understands what their labour charter is all about. There is not one worker who will understand anything about it, just as there is no hon. member on that side of the House who understands what their federation plans are all about.

Mr. Chairman, will the hon. the Minister give the House an explanation, as has been requested by the hon. member for Hillbrow, as to what his policy was in regard to the application by a bank in Cape Town to employ 24 coloured girls? What has happened in regard to these girls who were refused appointments?

Order! The hon. member is now making a speech.

Mr. Chairman, that question was of course put by the hon. member for Houghton in this House a short while ago. I gave a quite protracted reply to it, and I want to suggest that the hon. member who, as it seems to me now, is beginning to take an interest in labour matters, should study those replies which have been furnished during the course of the Session.

With this labour policy of the National Party we are prepared to go to the country. I believe the Government has made its contribution towards not only effecting industrial peace in this country, but also ensuring that we have racial harmony. That is the contribution the Department of Labour is making to South Africa’s progress.

Mr. Chairman, may I address the hon. the Minister.

Yes, the hon. member may make a speech.

But, Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?

The hon. the Minister has finished speaking. The hon. member may therefore only do so in a speech.

Mr. Chairman, but surely the hon. member for Sea Point is entitled to ask a question in his speech?

Of course.

Initially I did not really want to ask a question, but arising out of the speeches the hon. the Minister made in the course of the afternoon, I just want to ask whether it is now the intention of the Government to put a stop to Coloureds being employed by chain stores? Is that the intention? The second question I want to ask …

Just don’t make a speech.

Of course, the hon. member may make a speech.

I am entitled to make a speech. [Interjections.]

Order!

The second question I want to ask the hon. the Minister is, what are the views of the Department of Labour at the moment, after consultation with the Department of Coloured Affairs, in regard to the position of Coloureds on farms in the Western Province. According to the Secretary for Coloured Affairs there is, I am told, a tremendous surplus of unemployed Coloureds in Calvinia. Is that the Minister of Labour’s information?

Jack, that is a stupid question.

No, wait a moment, it is not stupid. I shall deal with the hon. member for Moorreesburg in a moment and say how he abuses labour in his diamond and fishing concessions. I just want to ask a few questions before doing so. With reference to the speeches made here, I just want to ask whether the Minister intends to put a stop to the use of Coloured attendants in chain stores or any other shops. My second question is whether the Minister of Labour is aware of the unemployment and the idleness amongst members of the Coloured population in the Western Cape and, particularly, in Calvinia.

Leave Calvinia out of this; it comes under my constituency.

Now we shall get to the truth. Does one find idleness there, and, if so, would the Minister of Labour then consult with the Minister of Coloured Affairs and with the Minister of Police so as to put a stop to it, or is this just a bunch of political lies which are being spread by a political organization which is called the Nationalist Party, purified or otherwise? The Secretary for Coloured Affairs told me that there was surplus Coloured labour in Calvinia. I am now asking the Minister of Police whether there is a surplus of Coloured labour in Calvinia. But he does not say a word. Tell me now. Let us be honest. I now want to know from the Minister of Police whether there is a surplus of Coloured labour in Calvinia and whether there is idleness amongst the Coloureds there. [Interjections.] I should like to know from the Minister whether he would say, firstly, whether he intends putting a stop to Coloureds being employed in chain stores and, secondly, whether there is a surplus of Coloured labour. I am not aware of such idleness, and I shall agree with the Minister if he says that there is none.

The hon. the Minister in his reply said certain things. I would like to ask the Minister, if he has a complain; in regard to non-Whites working in shops as indicated by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, what action does he contemplate?

First of all I want to say to the hon. member for Sea Point that I am rather sorry that he was so short of material for this labour discussion that he was obliged to make under this Vote his speech on Coloured Affairs, which he should have made under the next Vote. I think I shall regard that part of his speech as not having been made, and then he may, in a moment, raise it under the other Vote, where it will be much more relevant. As far as the question in regard to the non-white shop attendants in chain stores is concerned, I want to say this: Firstly, that question does not come directly under my Department, but when it comes to racial friction and complaints in that regard from fellow workers, then it is a matter to which I must attend. I asked my colleagues on this side to bring these cases to the notice of my Department so that we may have them investigated administratively and determine what the facts are in this regard. Is it true that at present non-Whites and Whites are serving behind the same counter? If this is the case, my department has to ascertain this. We must also obtain the views of the workers in question and of their trade union in order to hear whether they wish to comment on the situation. We must obtain an overall opinion on the views held by the white workers in that regard. It is only when I have that report before me that it is possible for us to take action—be it administratively or by way of an inquiry by the Industrial Tribunal. But this is not a matter which I can anticipate before I have all the information at my disposal, and I hope they will be obtained with the help of these specific charges which will be investigated. Only then will it be possible for us to take decisions.

And what about the Coloureds who are unemployed in Calvinia?

That will be a very good topic for a speech under the next Vote.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 29.—Coloured Affairs, R62,740,000, Loan Vote G.—Coloured Affairs. R1,420,000, and S.W.A. Vote 13.—Coloured Affairs, R3,300,000:

May I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? This may well be the last time that I will have the privilege of discussing in this House the Coloured Affairs Vote. In accordance with Government policy, it is anticipated that the first Coloured Persons’ Representative Council of the Republic of South Africa, to give it its full title, will be constituted and will come into being by the end of this year. This Council will thereupon become virtually the mouthpiece of the Coloured citizens of this country. It would seem to me that the Coloured representatives in this House will thereafter become redundant and will no longer carry out the functions for which they were originally elected. In accordance with the legislation which has already been passed, this new Coloured Council will become the substitute for the political representation in Parliament which our Coloured citizens will be losing in the near future. In these circumstances, therefore, I feel that it is perhaps appropriate that I should avail myself of this, perhaps the last, opportunity that I may have in this House of expressing to our Coloured citizens and to the Government my own views on how I see the political future of our Coloured people in this country. I do so in the hope that we may receive from the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs during the course of this debate an encouraging message to our Coloured population on the eve of this new political era for them.

There would be no purpose in my arguing once again the case for the retention of our Coloured people’s common suffrage and political rights which we all know they have enjoyed for well over a century. The arguments in support of this contention have been used by me and others in this House for many years, but all to no purpose. The Government has decided, in its wisdom or otherwise, in pursuance of its policy of separate development, to terminate the Coloured representation in Parliament and in lieu thereof to establish this enlarged Coloured Representative Council to deal with and promote the best interests of the Coloured population. This now has become the law of the land and must be respected. I feel that this year may well be the turning-point in the political future of our Coloured citizens. There are various aspects which lead me to this conclusion. In the first place it must be remembered that for the first time in the history of South Africa every Coloured citizen, man or woman, who is a South African citizen and who is over the age of 21 years and who is not subject to the disqualifications mentioned in the Act, will have the right to be registered as a voter on the Coloured voters’ list. Indeed, it is now compulsory for every Coloured South African citizen falling in the category I have mentioned to have himself or herself registered as a voter on this separate Coloured list. Secondly, it is the first time in the history of South Africa that Coloured women throughout the Republic will be given the vote in a political body. This has never happened before, and it is surely, I suggest, a progressive step in the right direction. Then again, for the first time in the history of our country. Coloured persons in the Transvaal and the Free State have been accorded the vote. In the past only a limited number of Coloured men resident in the Cape Province and Natal could qualify as voters. The fact that there is now no differentiation between our Coloured people living in one province as opposed to those living in another province is also. I suggest, a step in the right direction. This first Coloured Representative Council, consisting of 60 members of whom 40 will be elected by the Coloured people themselves and 20 nominated by the Government of the day, will be duly established before the end of this year.

The general functions of this Council at present will be limited, but nonetheless I feel they are wide enough to make a good start and an impact on the future relations between the Council and the Government. This Council has the power to advise the Government in regard to all matters affecting the economic, social, educational and political interests of the Coloured people of the Republic. This Council has the power to make representations to the Government in regard to any planning calculated in the opinion of the Council to promote the best interests of the Coloured population. Generally it is intended that this Council will serve as a link and as a means of contact and of consultation between the Government and the Coloured people. I repeat, and these are the words that were given to us not only in the statute itself, but also by the Ministers who spoke in the name of the Government, that this Council will serve as a link and as a means of contact and consultation between the Government and the Coloured people. The Act envisages specifically that the Council will deal with certain important functions in so far as they affect our Coloured citizens. These functions will include matters of finance, of education, of local government, of community welfare and pensions and of rural areas and settlements for the Coloured people.

From what I have stated, it would appear that already the Council will be entrusted with many important functions. We have had the assurance from the hon. the Minister of Coloured affairs and from other Government speakers, including the hon. the Minister’s predecessor in office, that in due course it is the intention of the Government to entrust to this Council further considerable administrative powers in various fields affecting our Coloured population. In this regard I was glad to read a statement made by the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs a short while ago that it was the Government’s intention to allow this new council to take over a large portion of the administration of the funds presently spent by the Department of Coloured Affairs. This in itself will entail a special responsibility on the part of this new Council. From the Estimates presently before us, it would appear that this amounts to many millions of rands, and according to the Government’s decision the major portion of this budget which we have before us to-day dealing with the various services to our Coloured citizens will be transferred to the care and to the administration of this new Council. All in all, therefore, it would appear to me that even from its inception the Council will have very important functions to carry out, and these functions, I suggest, are likely to increase as time goes on if the Government implements its undertakings in this respect. As I see it, therefore, this new Council will virtually become now the mouthpiece of the entire Coloured population and will provide a much-needed forum for our Coloured citizens. I do not for a single moment wish to imply—and I want to emphasize it—that this Council will have the legislative powers or the influence of Parliament. Nor do I suggest that this council is an adequate substitute for the political representation in Parliament which our Coloured citizens will be losing in the near future. But I do feel—and this is the message which I would like to convey to our Coloured people—that this council may well become a vital stepping-stone towards our Coloured citizens recovering for themselves their lost political rights as citizens of this country. I know that there are many Coloured people who feel bitter about the way in which they have had to suffer over the last 20 years. I know this from personal talks which I have had with many of their leaders. These people claim that over these past 20 years they have been treated indifferently and, may I say, almost callously in many respects, and they have suffered a great deal. They have pointed out how they have been steadily deprived of their political rights which they had every reason to believe had been vouchsafed to them by the white leaders of the South African nation. They pointed out how year after year by the implementation of various forms of petty apartheid, they have had inflicted upon them discriminatory laws which have only brought about a great deal of resentment and a great deal of bitterness. I must confess that I can readily appreciate this feeling because I know how I would have felt if I had been one of those unfortunate people. Indeed, it would have been most unnatural if our Coloured people had reacted differently.

I mention the feeling of resentment and almost bitterness which prevails in the minds of a large section of the Coloured people for a particular purpose; I do so because this is the situation with which the new Coloured Council will be faced: On the one hand a large section of the Coloured people will have this feeling of utter frustration and resentment, and on the other hand—and this is important—they will have the opportunity, through their own statutory body, of bringing an end to this frustration and to this spirit of helplessness which has dogged their people since 1948. This is an opportunity which is now being created for them. Sir, I hope most sincerely that the Coloured people will rise to the occasion. I hope that they will wholeheartedly accept the challenge which is now being offered to them by the creation of this new statutory body; that they will apply themselves by every constitutional means to bring to an end this terrible frustration and this terrible helplessness now confronting our Coloured citizens. I would appeal to them not to enter into this new era in any spirit of bitterness or emnity or revenge. They must make every effort to narrow the gulf between the Whites and the Coloureds in our country. They must enter this new era, for them, in a spirit of goodwill and with a determination to make the most of the opportunity which is being created for them to handle and administer their own affairs in the best interests of their own people. They must do everything to ensure that this new self-governing body will conduct its affairs with the greatest dignity; that it will grow from strength to strength so that its voice will be heard throughout the length and breadth of the Republic and particularly in the political forums of the Whites in the country. Sir, I would appeal to the Coloured people to look to the future with confidence and not to live in the past. I would urge them to realize that this policy of separate development, under which this Council has been created has now become the law of the land and must be respected whether or not this policy is supported by them in principle, or indeed whether it is supported by many of their white friends. It has now become the law and they have to submit to the law and respect the law. I would appeal to our Coloured leaders to close their ranks and to eliminate the personal petty differences and jealousies that have hitherto existed among them and to go forward in a spirit of cooperation and goodwill to make a success of this new self-governing body. I would appeal to them to make every endeavour to ensure that this council will build a new unity among our Coloured citizens and that it will become a responsible channel through which Coloured opinion will be routed to the council chambers of their fellow white citizens in South Africa. By these determined means the Coloureds will have a chance themselves—I repeat, themselves—of righting the wrongs which have been done to them over the years, and of proving their ability to take care of their own affairs.

Sir, we all know of the statement made a short while ago by the hon. the Prime Minister on the subject of race relations in South Africa. When dealing with our Coloured citizens the hon. the Prime Minister declared, to quote his own words, “that they constitute a problem which our children must solve”. I am sure that this opinion expressed so bluntly and frankly by the hon. the Prime Minister was an honest one in the present circumstances, but I am also sure that if our Coloured citizens had been regarded as part of our white population, as was so frequently urged over the years by so many of us in this House, this unfortunate position of abandoning responsibility for them to posterity would not have arisen. However, it has now been made clear by the hon. the Prime Minister that future generations will have to determine and solve the so-called problem of our Coloured people. Sir, to my mind, quite frankly and honestly, the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister is an additional reason for a determined effort on the part of our Coloured people to act in a statesman-like manner so as to pave the way for an acceptable solution to the invidious position into which they have been forced. This new Coloured Representative Council may well be the responsible channel through which future generations may find a solution to the problem of co-existence which at present seems to confound our legislators. For all these reasons, therefore, I feel that this year may well be the turning point in the political future of our Coloured people.

Sir, having made my appeal to the Coloured people I would also like to emphasize that the success of this new Coloured Representative Council will depend not only on the efforts of our Coloured citizens, but also and to an even greater extent upon the encouragement and help which our white people, and particularly our Government, are going to give it. The responsibility is as much the responsibility of the Government of the day as it is of the Coloured people. I venture to suggest that if this new council is going to become the responsible channel through which future generations may possibly find a solution to the problem of co-existence, then a greater responsibility in this matter rests on our white citizens and particularly on our Government. We must exhibit the utmost goodwill to this new body; we must give this new statutory council every encouragement, every guidance and help. There must be entrusted to this new council more and more legislative powers to deal with the affairs of their own people. I know that the Government has promised to do this. I know that the hon. the Minister himself has stated on various occasions that after the establishment of this new council he will take the necessary steps to ensure that more and more powers are vested in them. I sincerely hope that these promises will be fulfilled. As time goes on the number of Government-nominated members must be reduced so that in due course this body will be a truly democratically elected body speaking in the name of the entire Coloured population of South Africa. I feel that the Government must do everything possible from now on to avoid any further acrimony between our Coloured citizens and the Government. I feel that no further discriminatory legislation should be introduced. The Government, I feel, should call a halt to any further discriminatory laws against our Coloured citizens. In all conscience, Sir, we have had enough of these over the last 20 years …

[Inaudible.]

As my hon. friend points out, no further discriminatory laws would appear to be necessary or indeed possible. The Government should ensure that even our existing laws concerning the Coloured people are administered kindly and with the utmost care and with the utmost reasonableness so that there will be no further widening of the gulf between the Coloureds and the Government. Here, Sir, I think it is only fair for me to record once again, as I have done on a previous occasion in a similar debate, that in the present Department of Coloured Affairs the officials are always at pains to ensure that the laws concerning our Coloured citizens are carried out as reasonably and as tactfully as possible. The officials, after all, are not responsible for the laws; their duty is merely to administer the law to the best of their ability and they do so as tactfully as possible. I am very happy to be able to say that the officials have been set an outstanding example by two men in the Department, by Mr. D. J. Bosman, the Secretary of Coloured Affairs, and by Mr. Kobus Louw, the Director of Coloured Education, both of whom have at all times shown the utmost courtesy and consideration to all Coloured people who have had to solicit their help and guidance over the manifold problems which confront them as the result of our legislation. I think it is only right that I should mention this and I am very glad indeed to have this fact duly recorded once again. Sir, I feel strongly, however, that the Government should announce as soon as possible that no further discriminatory laws will be introduced before the establishment of this new Coloured Council, and then only after such laws have been submitted to and approved by the council. I venture to suggest that if it became known that the Government was prepared to adopt this reasonable approach which I have indicated, a great deal would be done to pave the way for the new Coloured Council to commence its duties and to commence this new era which I have spoken about in a calm atmosphere and free from the tensions and the resentment which are presently bedevilling race relations in this country. Sir, an attitude of this nature on the part of the Government would certainly enable our new Coloured Council to get off to a good start, and I commend this very seriously to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I feel that it would be absolutely lamentable if this new council were to commence functioning in an atmosphere of continued resentment and frustration.

Sir, before leaving the subject of this new Coloured Council, I would like to say a few words about the unfortunate position which has arisen as a result of the fact that the Coloured voters rolls will not be available before the end of July or the beginning of August of this year. I would like to say immediately also that I appreciate that it has been an enormous task to complete the Coloured voters’ rolls and that the officials engaged on that task are doing everything possible to expedite the completion of those rolls. But a very serious position may arise if there is going to be any undue delay in making these rolls available. The hon. the Minister will remember that nomination day for the election of these 40 elected members has been fixed for the 20th August. The election day for this council has been fixed by the Minister by proclamation for September the 24th, and the political parties of the Coloured people have been told that there is no likelihood of the voters’ rolls being made available to them before August. If these voters’ rolls are not available before August, very little time will be left for the canvassing and for the tracing of voters. I am sure that the hon. the Minister appreciates that it is in the national interest that this, the first election for a truly Coloured Representative Council, should be a truly representative one and that as many Coloured voters as possible should cast their votes. I think it is essential in the national interest that this should be an outstanding election. We are all very anxious—and I am sure that the hon. the Minister also falls into this category—that this first election should be a great success, particularly from the point of view of the numbers of voters who vote. I do hope that the hon. the Minister and his officials will bear this very important aspect in mind and, if necessary, that the hon. the Minister will not fail to extend election day by an extra month or so in order to enable all the Coloured political parties to ensure that as many voters as possible participate in this important first election.

I am sure that the hon. the Minister realizes the importance of this forthcoming election and I am sure that we can rely upon him to do everything possible in this unfortunate situation. I was struck most forcibly by an appeal made recently by Mr. F. D. Conradie, a member of the Executive Committee of the Cape, who dealt with the development of the Coloured people and the changes which are taking place. In speaking of the fear and frustrations of the Coloured people, he said the following—

In this spirit I am sure that the white people of this country and the Government could do much to make a success of this experiment, because this is after all a new venture and a new experiment. Every encouragement and all possible goodwill must be extended by us to our Coloured people to help them on the way to their winning back for themselves the self-respect and the independent responsibility which they have lost in sheer frustration over the past 20 years.

That is nonsense.

Who said that?

I did.

I am not prepared to descend to your level, so do not interrupt. I am sorry that that hon. member should speak for the Nationalist Party. It will be a sorry day if he has to. I feel that by the Government and the white people giving this new council the utmost goodwill and encouragement and by the Coloureds themselves entering into this new venture with the determination to make a success of it, there is at least a reasonable prospect of our being able to take the first steps in endeavouring to resolve the problems of co-existence which presently confront our country.

In the limited time at my disposal I want to deal with one other subject. I would now like to refer very briefly to another subject affecting our Coloured people, namely the training centre for Coloured cadets. I regret to say that owing to circumstances beyond my control I was unable to avail myself of the hon. the Minister’s kind invitation extended to me about a week ago to accompany him on a visit to this training centre at Faure in order to inspect it. I have, however, made inquiries, not only from my colleagues who accompanied the hon. the Minister and who visited the centre, but also from many Coloured leaders and I am very happy to-night to be able to say that all of them were greatly impressed with the conditions, equipment and facilities at the centre. I would like to congratulate all the officials and especially the Secretary for Public Works, Mr. Driessen, for the excellent work that they have done in establishing and completing this centre in almost record time. There is no doubt that this training centre is fulfilling a much needed requirement for our Coloured citizens the real benefit of which will only be realized when the young Coloured persons attending this centre become trained in the various occupations which are being made available to them. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the Government contemplates establishing any further centres in the near future. From a reply given by the hon. the Minister in this House a few days ago to a question put by my hon. friend, the member for Houghton, it would appear that 2,926 persons applied for registration during the month of February, 1969, alone and further that an estimated 15,000 approximately qualified for registration during the same month. These figures alone, Mr. Chairman, would indicate that consideration may have to be given to the establishment of further training centres for Coloured cadets. I would like the hon. the Minister to take this House into his confidence and to tell us whether it is the intention of the Government to establish these further centres and where they are likely to be established. I think the Coloured people would like to know, and I am sure that the responsible section of the Coloured community would give their blessing to any further endeavours on the part of the Government to establish these additional training centres. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I find it a pity that the hon. member for Peninsula struck two notes during his speech, namely the negative and the positive. There was a great deal that was positive in his speech, but unfortunately there was as much that was negative. What he tried to build up, he himself unfortunately broke down again. In to-night’s Argus there was a report that a Progressive Party M.P.C. representing the Coloureds had allegedly made his so-called last speech to-day. This afternoon the hon. member for Peninsula told the same story, namely that he was making his last speech. I cannot see why a speech made at this stage need be the last speech of any Coloured Representative in this House. The hon. member will sit here until the dissolution of this Parliament, and as far as I can see that will only happen in two years’ time. That M.P.C. will be a member of that Council until its dissolution, and as far as I know that Council will have another session before its dissolution. If I have the time at my disposal, I shall come back to the hon. member for Peninsula, because he made a few statements which, in my opinion, deserve replies, inter alia, his statement about the hon. the Prime Minister. However, before doing so, I should like to bring a few ideas to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

I want to request the hon. the Minister to give us a clear statement on and some idea of the position as regards schools for Coloureds, particularly on farms. The fact of the matter is that the rural areas are becoming depopulated, also of Coloureds. This is a process which was set in motion by the Whites years ago when schools were centralized. Except for certain economic factors the centralization of schools made a bigger contribution to the depopulation of the rural areas than anything else did. The Coloureds are leaving the rural areas because they are following their children to the towns and cities where it is possible for them to put their children in schools. Now it also is a fact that the Government is prepared to pay interest if farmers, for example, are prepared to build schools on their farms. What this amounts to in point of fact is that one farmer has to take the responsibility on his Shoulders. He has to build the school and provide all the facilities and because the school is on his farm, the other farmers in the area are not prepared to make their contribution, and as a result the entire undertaking comes down on the shoulders of one person. It is also the policy of the Department to build hostels for high school children in towns and cities, but I think hostels for primary school children should also be built in the vast rural areas. In the built-up areas this is not necessary, but I am now speaking of the vast areas of the platteland. If a few farmers get together and build a school it is of no use if it does not have a hostel, because the area from which the children have to come to that school is approximately 30 sq. miles in extent. Coloureds are poor and they cannot afford to provide transport for their children to school and to pay board and lodging for them. I hope the hon. the Minister and the Department will make this possible for them or will move in a new direction as far as this matter is concerned. I think it is important for children in the rural areas to be kept there as long as possible and near their parents and for hostel facilities to be created for primary school children as well.

Mr. Chairman, it has also been my privilege to pay a visit to the Coloured centre at Faure at the invitation of the hon. the Minister. I want to congratulate the Minister and the Department on that centre. It is my considered opinion that that is one of the finest jobs of work done for the Coloured population in the course of many a year. I have been informed that there is a tremendous demand for those Coloured men after they have been in that centre for three months. It is a neat centre. I think the training they are receiving there is of the finest one can get. As I say, the head of that centre informed me that there was a tremendous demand from employers for those people after they had completed their training. I can well understand why this is so after having seen what is being done there for those people.

But now it is a fact, and I want to charge the Opposition with this, that the United Party referred to that in this House as hard labour. Now they see what is happening there, but they predicted that that legislation would lead to hard labour. As far as I can see, it has in fact had the opposite effect. Some people who were not keen to go to that centre—and this has been proved by experience—are now really getting stuck into their work. They were not keen to be removed from their own environments to that centre. The outcome of this is, however, that there are fewer Coloured layabouts at present. They can all be sent to that centre for training with the result that at present many more than before have employment. In my opinion that centre is such a success that the Government ought to build at least five to six such centres in the country. I maintain that every cent we are able to spend on that will be justified because in my opinion that centre is preparing people for employment better than anything else in this country can do. On the basis of what I saw there I am of the opinion that a person who has undergone that training ought to feel like working. According to my information this is so. In my opinion people who have undergone that training will feel like working in future.

Then I should like to refer to the election of the Coloured Council in November. I should like to congratulate the Department and the hon. the Minister on their effort in registering more than 65,000 voters within this short period. In my opinion the task of registering those people, of whom many cannot even read and write, was a Herculean one. I think this is one of the fine attempts on which the Department may be congratulated. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the second half hour. I have listened with great interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Peninsula. What he says is true to a tremendous extent. But I cannot go along with him in talking eulogistically of what lies in store for the Coloured people, particularly by their own efforts. After 21 long years these people are being given a representative council and the sentiments expressed about it being the medium of expression of the feelings and thoughts of the Coloured people are true. That is correct. However, to discuss and suggest that white people should change their ideas and think kindly of these people is optimistic. I do not suggest for one moment that there are not people who do sympathize with the Coloured community. There are many, and I include myself among them, who regret the fact that they have been the target of the National Party for 21 long weary years. I live among these people; I work with them, and I see them by the dozen and by the score. They bring me their problems, and I seek solutions and get aid and assistance wherever it is possible.

Here I should like to interpose and say, that I agree that the officials of the Department of Coloured Affairs are extremely cooperative and helpful, and that the secretary and those with him, are in my opinion efficient and able men. I think that the longer they work with the Coloured people, the more they realize that these people are merely a group and that they are people just as we are. They are no different. They have the same loves and hopes, the phobias, fears, anxieties, worries, and ambitions of anybody else. I do not think for one moment that Utopia has arrived for the Coloured community. I believe they are at the bottom of a very long hill with a long weary climb to get back the dignity, which they enjoyed 21 years ago and which has been taken from them step by step. The hope that the Government will change and treat them lightly, more leniently and more kindly is, I think, a pious hope. I believe a leopard does not change his spots. Deep down at the bottom of their hearts I am convinced that the National Party has airways regarded the Coloured community as a menace, and that they will keep them in that position as long as they possibly can. I do not accept the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister that the Coloured community is a dilemma to be left for our children to solve, because in a thousand and one ways our children will not be permitted to mix with them, to talk with them, and to associate with them. How they can get to grips with the problem which we ourselves, on the open admission of the Prime Minister, cannot solve, is something which I do not think is easy of solution.

I believe that this admission by the hon. the Prime Minister was a plain, straightforward admission of failure. He does not know what to do. I have heard many pious words in the past, and I have gone to the trouble of reading the Hansards. I have read the Hansards of this Minister, the Prime Minister, the present Minister of Defence and other leading lights on that side who are well up in Coloured Affairs. When I think of the speeches that have been made in this House in recent years, and then consider that the Prime Minister, the man who is at the helm of our affairs, can offer no solution, and leaves this problem in the air for posterity to solve, I say it is an admission of failure, nothing more and nothing less. The whole edifice of apartheid, which might have worked, had it been confined entirely to Black and White, falls to the ground when dealing with the Coloured community. It has already fallen to the ground. We have listened from time to time, in various debates, to speeches which have been made about the safety of the white worker. From whom and against whom is he to be protected? None other than the Coloured man. We have heard of the discrimination in salaries and we have been told that the Coloured man’s standard of living is lower and that he should therefore receive less money. The facts are that if he were to get more money, his standard of living would rise. It is elementary and simple. There are no complications here at all. Teachers have never been adequately paid. Once upon a time the ratio used to be 5, 4, 3. Whites received increases, and Coloured teachers were left behind. They subsequently were given increases, and in the meantime the white teachers received greater increases. The provinces, and particularly the Cape Province, tried to narrow the gap to 10, 9, 8, but even that broke down.

Coloured nurses are paid almost half the wages and salaries of white nurses, although they pass the same examinations. Sir, I cannot see how this House, or anybody associated with it, knowing the attitude of the Government, can think for one moment that anything further will take place in the Coloured Representative Council until many, many moons have passed. The crux of the matter hinges on finance. When one takes a look at the Estimates, one finds that the Estimates for this year are the same as those for last year, plus the normal percentage increases. When the new representative council meets, and wishes to spend more money, I want to know whether the Government is going to be so free and easy and just hand out what is required. I want to say that the first thing the Coloured Council will recommend and ask for is equal pay for work of equal value. They will not be satisfied to receive a discriminatory wage, a lower wage than that paid to their white colleagues.

When one looks at job reservation, one must look at group areas. Who are the people who have been moved? The Bantu have always lived on the perimeter of our cities. The Coloured people have always lived in suburbs or in certain quarters of our cities. Those particular areas and districts have in many cases been eliminated, and those people have been put out in the veld. Sir, that is not so bad, but to go backwards and forwards to and from work, such a person must pay busfare, and nobody worries about that. Worse still, the Coloured man cannot sell his labour in the best market, because the first thing that was put into effect and directed against him, was job reservation. Who is job reservation directed at? In a previous debate I asked: “Is job reservation directed at the Coloured man?” He is the man who has been on the receiving end for 21 long, weary years. I know how they feel. They feel frustrated, and many feel bitter. Because this is the time to express it publicly, I should like to tell the House what my advice to the Coloured community was. I have had the opportunity of seeing many of them, especially their leaders, and my advice to them has been to sink their differences and to present a common front. I have told them that, until such time as they achieve full citizenship in this country without any handicaps or difficulties of any kind, they will not have succeeded in their mission in life. Do you know, Sir, a Coloured man has as much pride as you or I have. They feel exactly the same. They are as proud of their children and their children’s achievements as we are. They are as anxious about their parents and the difficulties of old age as we are. They are people, like you and me. The whole of the apartheid policy has collapsed in ruins, because the Prime Minister said that the Coloured people, whom many have in the past described as the Achilles’ heel of Government policy, can never have a homeland, because there is not one.

He never said that.

Well, we can hear tonight what the position is. Only recently I saw a statement by the hon. the Minister himself when he was opening the last meeting of the Union Council for Coloured Affairs. He referred to a resolution standing on the Order Paper, which many believed was inspired, and which was withdrawn at the tea interval, and never put to a vote. The Minister, in his competent style, suggested that the Coloured settlements, the bulk of which are in Namaqualand, would be their homeland. Now I ask you, Sir, how is that possible? Those of us who know these Coloured settlements, and know them well, know that they have difficulty in sustaining the people who reside in them at the present moment. It is a physical impossibility, and I think that the Minister was guilty when he suggested to these people that that might be a homeland, merely to bolster this policy of homelands, in terms of separate development.

But that was not all I said about it, you know. I also included the urban townships. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, this is the funny thing. Can you beat it? Can the City of Kimberley be my homeland? My homeland is South Africa, and the homeland of the Coloured people is South Africa, every square inch of it. You cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, or any fiddling of words, think that you are enunciating a policy when you suggest that a township outside Upington or at Keimoes or Kakamas or Eksteenskuil or Calvinia or Pofadder or Putsonderwater, or wherever you like, can be a homeland for Coloured people. An area 500 yards by 1,200 yards in a township cannot be a homeland. It is laughable and ridiculous. I am sure that the Minister is not serious when he suggests that that is their homeland. You see, Sir, the Government, the National Party, and the Minister in particular are unrealistic. They are wrestling with a problem. To-night questions were asked about the women who were going to work in the bank. The Minister referred to the answer to a question he had given earlier this Session.

I believe that it is the Minister’s duty to find jobs for those people. He must find them jobs simply and quickly. They are trained and can be used, and I think he should use them. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to use his influence in regard to the Coloured people who are not involved in trade unions and to have an organization in his Department which could look after their salaries and wages and do something for them, because they are unable to organize for themselves. If the Minister would do that, I think he would be accomplising something of which he could be proud and for which the Coloured community would be extremely grateful.

There is not much else that I can say, except that I think that when Coloured people want to leave the country, the difficulties which are placed in their way should be removed and eased. I think it is grossly unfair to keep these people within the boundaries of the country if they want to leave. I think we should let them go. They will probably come back. It is made difficult for them to an impossible degree to leave the country. I think this makes them more frustrated than anything else. It is unfair. I do hope that this evening the hon. the Minister will appreciate and realize that the advice which I have given to the Coloured people is the right advice, namely to make the best of what they have; to keep at it; never to relent nor relax and never to accept at any time that they are second-class citizens and to hope always that by their own efforts they will demonstrate to South Africa that they are a civilized community entitled to a place in the sun.

The teaching profession is short of staff. The primary schools are filled to capacity with unqualified teachers. We have these children who need education. It should be compulsory all the way to Std. VIII at least. I do hope the hon. the Minister will divest himself of his prejudices and do his best to see the Coloured community as they really are, to give them what they should have, not to be niggardly, but to be generous. He should not only be generous in thought and in action, but also generous in money. Then I am sure that we will find them to be what they have always been, namely a good law-abiding community. The Coloured community is a community which it is a great privilege and honour for me to represent. I should like to say that I have never had the same satisfaction in any other job that I have had the past 10 years representing these Coloured people. This has been the most gratifying, because they are so pleased and happy when somebody pleads their case. I do hope that my pleas have not fallen on deaf ears this evening and, that the hon. the Minister will forget whatever happened in the past and now set his feet On a new road. He should realize that if the Coloured community are to prosper, they must have the money at their disposal to do so. They cannot lift themselves up by their bootstraps. They have to have funds which the Government must provide.

Mr. Chairman, it is late in the day in this House, but apparently it is also very late in the day for the United Party when their speaker on Coloured Affairs makes a speech such as the last one to which we have just had to listen. Fortunately it is also late in the day for him as far as his political sojourn in this House is concerned.

To-night we had two speeches from two hon. members who are representatives of the Coloured community. What did we get? The hon. member for Peninsula, although he manipulated his arguments to some extent, got up and told the Coloureds in a responsible way that what they had at the moment had been given to them legitimately. He appealed to them to make the very best use of those things. His political associates in the United Party in point of fact told them the exact opposite, because he commenced his speech on a completely different note than that on which he concluded when he flattered the hon. the Minister to some extent. He told the Coloureds at the beginning of his speech that they should never be satisfied with what they received because they were being treated extremely unfairly and were being wronged. That is what his entire speech amounted to. Another difference between the member for Karoo and the member for Peninsula is that the member for Peninsula said it was essential for this first election to be a fantastic success in the interests of the Coloureds and in the interests of the country, whereas the hon. member for Karoo let on that he did not want this election to be a success. I also recall earlier speeches he made on Coloured Affairs. Those speeches were in the same vein. He does not want this election to be a success as that will not be in the favour of the United Party. I am in complete agreement with the hon. member for Peninsula that this election must be a success in the interests of the Coloureds and in the interests of the country.

I should like to associate myself with what the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs said recently when he addressed the last meeting of the Coloured Council. He said that was a special event and an historic occasion. He added that that event marked the end of a particular era in the history of the development of the Coloured population of South Africa. The hon. member for Peninsula also said just now that a new era was beginning for the Coloureds. But the hon. the Minister also said that the Coloured Council had often had to put up with shattering blows and insults and that it had taken self control not to pay the people responsible back in their own coin or not to become discouraged. However, more and more voices of appreciation for the work done by that council were heard as the years went by. This agrees with the picture the hon. member for Peninsula tried to present. In reality those people had never been given any encouragement. On the contrary, they were discouraged just as the hon. member for Karoo again tried to do this evening. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to keep something in mind. I want to link this to what the hon. the Prime Minister said recently. In a message to the Coloured community the Prime Minister said the following (translation)—

It is in this spirit that we hope that this election will be a success. But judging from the opinions expressed by these Coloureds themselves it must also be in their interests. I quote from a publication of one of the groups from the Coloured community in which a leading Coloured person said (translation)—

Another Coloured leader said the following (translation)—

They realize that they have to make a positive contribution. They are not simply agitators as the hon. member for Karoo to-night tried to make them out to be. In the light of this I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether his Department is giving sufficient attention to the pitfalls which this first election may present to these Coloured voters? We must have regard to the enthusiasm with which the Coloureds are approaching this election and to the fact that between 600,000 and 700,000 Coloureds have probably been registered even at this stage. All this has been achieved mainly because of their enthusiasm, their own endeavours and on their own initiative. Mindful of the fact that these people are forming their own political parties that will undertake their political organization, I want to ask whether enough is being done so as to create the opportunity for them, people of whom between 80 and 90 per cent have probably never participated in an election before, to receive guidance on how they should conduct themselves on polling day? What I mean by this is that they should know how to vote. For the first time in our history we are faced with this particular problem. In the past, at the White polling booths, we have also been faced with the problem that many people were ignorant, but here we are going to experience that to a much greater extent. Therefore I trust the Department will make use of the ways open to it so as to guide and instruct the Coloureds in this field. In my opinion there is a fine medium through which this may be done. I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members the publication Alpha of the Department. It is a neat, well-produced publication which is published in good English and Afrikaans. It comes from the heart of the Coloured and it is available to that group in the Coloured community who is well-read to some degree. What is published in Alpha can only redound to the honour of the Coloured community. In addition it can also redound to the honour of the people who are trying to assist the Coloureds. I hope the Department will also take the opportunity to bring this publication not only to the attention of the Coloured leaders but also to the attention of the White community. The Whites can then in turn bring it to the attention of the Coloureds in their employment or to the attention of the Coloureds with whom they come into contact. This publication contains truly useful reading matter.

Unfortunately the hon. member for Sea Point is not present at the moment, but I want to touch on a matter which he also tried to touch on just now. He tried to make a joke of this matter, but I want to deal with it on a completely different level. The question is whether the labour potential of our Coloureds in general, and now I am speaking of all Coloureds and not only of those of Calvinia, is being utilized to the full. What I mean by that is the following: Are there not too many of them who may be accused of not being sufficiently work conscious? Are there not quite a number of them who are not diligent enough and who do not know the meaning of diligence? In this connection I should like to quote the hon. the Prime Minister. I hope that the ideas which the Prime Minister expressed with regard to the Coloured community will be conveyed to them also by the Department, even if that has to be done through the Coloured Representative Council, as they relate directly to the field of operation of that Council. This question directly concerns the welfare of the Coloured. They themselves call it the “community welfare” of the Coloured. The hon. the Prime Minister said (translation)—

In addition the hon. the Prime Minister said (translation)—

[Time expired.]

A few weeks ago we discussed here the legislation dealing with the establishment of the University of the Western Cape. The University of the Western Cape is the institution at which Coloureds receive advanced education. When that legislation was discussed here, hon. members on that side of this House showed little appreciation for what we were establishing for the Coloureds. In examining the Bill and in ascertaining what faculties were being established for the Coloureds, we were interested and pleased to note that a faculty of social studies had been included. If ever there were a subject which cried out for further and more scientific study, that subject is the socioeconomic society of the Coloureds. I can hardly imagine a more interesting field of study than that when advanced students of that faculty will go out to make a thorough and scientific study of the socio-economic structure of their own people. I say this in view of the fact that there are Coloureds in the rural areas, in the towns and in the cities. It would probably be commonplace to say that each of these groups differs from the other. If a thorough study were to be made of each of those groups we would be able to come to particularly interesting conclusions. One can take the question of money spending as an example. On the basis of a thorough social study it will be possible to determine in what way each of these groups spends its money, it will be possible to ascertain how much is spent on liquor each month, how much is spent on food and clothing and how much is saved. We know that the Coloureds are great sinners as far as excessive drinking is concerned. We, as well as their leaders, would like to come to their assistance in this regard. In that way we want to offer them something better than what they have at the moment. But this is an involved matter and there will be no point in our trying to solve the problems unless a very thorough study has been made of the causes of excessive drinking and the abuse of liquor amongst the Coloureds. I want to make a short quotation from Woord en Daad. The quotation gives a striking summary of the situation and reads as follows (translation)—

This quotation reflects the endless problems which now have to be solved. If we do not investigate these matters scientifically we shall not be able to tackle the matter in the right way in an attempt to remedy it. I believe that if we had a few dissertions on these subjects they would be of great assistance and of the utmost importance to the social worker as well as to the legislator. Once those studies have been made and the results are being applied in practice by means of legislation concerning social matters, in other words, when they are being implemented for the benefit of the Coloureds, those studies must be fruitful. An investigation can also be conducted in connection with their family planning. I should like to dwell on this subject for a few moments. I think all of us are aware of the rapid increase in the Coloured population. Of all the various groups in this country, their population increase is undoubtedly the highest. Now I would probably not be mistaken in saying that a very superficial observation shows us that the population increase of the Coloureds is taking place at a faster rate than that at which their means are increasing and at a faster rate than their progress in the economic field. Now it is probably an accepted fact as well that if the population increase exceeds the increase in means, there is privation and poverty which will continue to increase. In this respect we may safely look at the position in some of the Eastern countries in which the population increase has been so rapid that we hear that in certain areas two-thirds of that population has never had a decent plate of food to eat in all their lives. What these population groups are gaining through better methods and production techniques is swallowed up totally by the rapid increase in population so that in the end they are in a worse position that before.

To-day the entire Western world is concerned about family planning. Smaller families are being encouraged which in turn, and this is also important, especially to the Coloured population, means a higher standard of living. The Whites in South Africa are definitely practising family planning. We can see this from the low birth rate and the high standard of living which are being maintained. As the Coloureds are accepting the Western way of life now and are following that way of life, I think there can be no alternative for them but to face up squarely to family planning. They will have to give attention to this soon if they do not want their standard of living and that of their children to deteriorate in future. Therefore I am appealing to the Coloured leaders and to the Coloured welfare organizations to face up squarely to this problem and to approach it with the sincerity which is needed if one wants to achieve any success in this respect. I think the necessary information is at their disposal and the Whites who have this information will only be too pleased to assist them and to place this information at their disposal.

Another matter which the department of social studies may well study is the influence of maintenance allowances and pensions paid to Coloureds. In this respect, any right-minded person might probably put his case by saying that where these allowances and pensions are necessary, they should be granted and paid to them. However, we find many complaints as far as this matter is concerned, particularly in the rural areas, because many of these allowances are obtained in a way which is not in accordance with the Act concerned. When they are obtained in this way, it promotes work dodging to some extent. Of course, it is understandable and it is only human that if a person can obtain money without any effort on his part, he will not work to get money. [Time expired.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.