The hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) put a question to me in connection with the Group Areas Act. I again caused inquiries to be made, and the position is as I told him. It is no longer necessary to have this provision in the Act and that is why we are deleting it.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, in dealing with this Bill the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) asked two questions. One was why sub-section (6) refers to only two paragraphs of Section 21 (2) of the principal Act and not to the other paragraphs of that section. It is clear, however, when one analyses Section 21 of Act 12 of 1960 that the other paragraphs of the relevant sub-section refer to powers which the Minister has in granting prospecting leases. They give him the right to lay down the scale on which prospecting is to be done and what returns have to be furnished by the lessee during the period of the lease, and also to determine the rental. Then there are other provisions in connection with the area to be mined, etc. The two paragraphs to which he has referred, namely (a) (vii) and (b), provide that the Minister has the power to determine the rental but only after consultation with the board, and (b) also gives the Minister certain rights, but only after consultation with the board, in connection with the payment of certain amounts by the lessee. In both these cases therefore the Minister has certain powers but he can only exercise them after having consulted the Mining Leases Board. Under the existing legislation therefore the Mining Leases Board is already a consultative body, and since we are now establishing a second body here, the whole intention of sub-section (6) is to make it clear that the committees which are to be established will not be consulted in so far as the powers of the Mining Leases Board are concerned. In other words, as far as the lease is concerned and the rental which is payable, as well as any other payments which have to be made by such a prospecting lessee, that will still be laid down by the Mining Leases Board.

The other question was what the powers of these committees would be. Sub-section (4) makes it perfectly clear that the intention is that these committees are to make recommendations to the Minister in connection with prospecting leases. Their main function will be to make recommendations. Amongst other things, they will be able to examine the applicants and make recommendations as to how they should be grouped together. Those will be the committees’ only functions, and once those functions have been performed, the committees can be dissolved.

The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. G. de K. Maree) referred to the possibility of rich deposits in this area. It is correct, of course, that diamonds were discovered in 1928 particularly in Alexander Bay and that this led to the establishment of the Alexander Bay State Diggings. Great wealth has been produced there in the years since 1928. Then there is also Kleinsee, but we have no knowledge of other large deposits, although there are frequently rumours to that effect. I hope that prospective applicants will not allow themselves to be misled by that sort of thing. I notice that in a magazine which appeared towards the end of last year it is stated, amongst other things—

There is no truth in those rumours, and I hope that people who want to invest their money will not take any notice of such rumours. The fact of the matter is that there are only diamonds where they are actually found, and it takes an enormous amount of time and money to search for diamonds. It is not clear where the diamond deposits of that area come from. Various theories are held by people who have gone into the matter, people such as Dr. Merensky, for example, who believe that these deposits come from the sea. There are others again who contend that they come from the interior, but there is no certainty in that regard. The fact remains that the large deposits that have been found, are in old sea terraces which in some cases are situated up to six miles away from the coast. They are situated high above the bottom of the sea, as we know it to-day. Whether these diamonds come from volcanic pipes is something that we do not know. It is true that there are volcanic pipes in the interior which contain Kimberlite and in which diamonds have been found. There are many pipes which are of a volcanic nature but which contain no diamonds, as was pointed out yesterday by the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel). The presence of volcanic pipes therefore or even of Kimberlite does not mean that there are diamonds. There are many theories with regard to the origin of these pipes. The geologists talk in terms of millions of years, and they believe that these volcanic pipes were formed 60 to 90 million years ago when the various territories such as Africa, South America, Australia and the South Pole region formed one continent; that they drifted apart and that with the breaking up of the continent enormous forces were unleashed which caused these fissures volcanic pipes in which diamonds are found. But again I say that these are only theories. There are other people who contend that the diamonds were carried down from the interior by old rivers, and in support of that theory they point out that the biggest diamonds have always been found in close proximity to estuaries. That was the experience at the Orange River as well as at the Olifants River, and the same applies to the Buffels River and the Swartlyntjies River, but in Namaqualand many of these deposits where diamonds may possibly be found have been buried under masses of Kalahari sand. There axe certain parts where prospecting is taking place and where sand to a depth of 90 feet has to be shifted. Hon. members will know what it means to shift a solid mass of sand 90 feet in depth in order to find a few inches or a few feet of quartz, and even then there is no certainty that it is diamondiferous. The fact remains therefore that although there is a possibility that these areas may be rich in diamonds, they have to be discovered first and there is no certainty in that regard.

The hon. member for Namaqualand has suggested that the development of diamonds or prospecting for diamonds will lead to the discovery of base minerals. That is quite correct. Because large areas are closed to prospecting for diamonds, they are also closed to prospecting for base minerals, and once this measure is in operation and prospecting for diamonds has taken place on State land and it appears that that land is not diamondiferous, it is the intention to throw it open immediately to prospecting for base minerals. It is a well-known fact that Namaqualand is very rich in base minerals. The Cape Town University is taking part in the geological survey of that area and it is possible that this may lead to the discovery of even greater base mineral deposits in Namaqualand and that it may offer opportunities for further development. I hope therefore that this preliminary investigation in connection with diamonds will also lead to further discoveries of base minerals.

The hon. member also asked that we should see to it that these activities stimulate the economic development of that area. I have already indicated that according to an estimate made by the head of the State Diggings it will cost anything from R 1,800,000 to R2,000,000 to undertake proper prospecting operations in only one of these 20 areas. In the nature of things the prospecting operations over the whole of this area will stimulate great economic activity in Namaqualand. It will create avenues of employment; it will introduce a greater purchasing power and also offer the opportunity for shareholdings in that area, so we can rest assured that these activities will have a stimulating effect on Namaqualand.

The hon. member also asked that we should consider the workers of Alexander Bay. It has always been the policy of the State to give preference to the inhabitants of Namaaualand in engaging employees for the State Diggings. At the moment the State Diggings employ 1,800 workers, of which 40 per cent are Whites. There is not a single diamond mine in this country where such a large percentage of Whites is employed as at these diggings. It is the policy of the State to employ the Whites of that area. It is estimated that the life of Alexander Bay will extend up to 1970. This is a comparatively short period and we would be well advised therefore at this stage already to bear in mind that here we have new fields which may come into being where these people who have the necessary knowledge and experience of the diamond industry can be given employment again. The preliminary prospecting will take a few years before we shall be able to determine whether it will, be possible to undertake mining development on a large scale. By that time there will in all probability be a decline in the activities at Alexander Bay and the question of stipulating in thé mining leases that as many of these people as. possible must be given employment there is one which can be considered.

The hon. member for Christiana referred to the professional diggers of the Transvaal and the Cape Province. Here we have a small group of 400 to 500 people who make their living out of digging. They are the last remnants of a large group because it has been the policy of the Department for years not to issue further diegers’ certificates. This group is becoming smaller and smaller therefore. The active diggers are those persons who work for six months or longer per annum. I am not referring now to holders of certificates because their numbers are greater, but the number of active diggers in the Transvaal is estimated at a little more than 200, and in the Cape Province there are about 270 of whom 70 are non-Whites. They are people who will probably remain diggers for the whole of their lives because it is in their blood. They always live in hopes that what they cannot find today will turn up to-morrow, and that is what keeps them there. The problem is to find sufficient ground for them. It is also possible that these diggers, just like other groups, may form companies and submit applications, and my information is that they have already formed such companies, and their applications, together with the others, will be referred to this committee.

As far as the employment of these people is concerned, experience has taught us that it is well worth while making use of their services. With the development of the West Coast mines their services have been used on a considerable scale. They have been employed there at fixed salaries which give them a much better income than they would have had if they had continued as private diggers. These people also have diggers’ licences and they have the necessary knowledge. We hope therefore that quite a number of these people will be employed by these companies, and we might even make representations in an attempt’ to obtain employment for them. We do try to make openings for these diggers; but it is a problem to have privately owned land opened up for prospecting, and our latest efforts in this connection have not proved a very great success. The hon. member may rest assured. however, that we will try to assist. The granting of rights will not be in our hands, but this is a matter which can be submitted for consideration to these committees.

I move—

This Bill, the second reading of which I have just moved, is perhaps of a somewhat technical and complicated nature, but I want to give the House the assurance that it was drafted after very thorough consideration and investigation and after consultation with experts not only here in South Africa but in other parts of the world. The Bill also follows the same pattern on which similar legislation in various countries in the world is based.

As is evident from the long title and its contents, the Bill deals in the main with the responsibility for nuclear damage—that is to say damage which flows from or is ascribable to the radio-active properties of nuclear-hazard material—and the accompanying requirement that those persons who are responsible for such damage should give security for meeting such responsibility.

It is essential that this legislation be passed this Session because of the fact that the risk of nuclear damage will exist when the fuel elements for the reactor of the Atomic Energy Board start arriving later this year and when the reactor is expected to come into operation early in 1964, or becomes “critical” as the scientists put it.

As hon. members probably know this reactor was purchased in the U.S.A. It is the so-called Oak Ridge type with a capacity of 20 megawatts and the building in which it will be housed, as well as the necessary additional buildings, laboratories, offices, etc., are already being constructed at Pelindaba, about 18 miles west of Pretoria. Nuclear reactors are expensive installations and the one at Pelindaba, which is regarded as comparatively small, will cost approximately R2,000,000. The money has been provided by the State, the mining industry and other industries.

I may also mention that the Bill embodies recommendations by a committee which was appointed by the Atomic Energy Board towards the end of 1961 to study the legislation and regulations of other countries and organizations concerning third party liability for damage arising from nuclear installations and to recommend suitable legislation to determine who is responsible for any damage suffered because of nuclear explosions or accidents.

The Bill which hon. members have before them to-day is, therefore, to a great extent based on similar legislation in the United Kingdom and to some extent also on the provisions of The Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation (O.E.E.C.) and the Draft Convention on Minimum International Standards Regarding Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage of the International Nuclear Power Agency.

Firstly, provision is made in the Bill for the licensing, by the Atomic Energy Board, of sites used for nuclear installations or certain related purposes and it provides that no person other than the board shall use any site for the purposes of a nuclear installation, except under the authority of a licence granted by the board.

Such licences shall only be granted to a body corporate and will be subject to such conditions as the board may deem necessary in the interests of health and safety.

Provision is made for proper notification to local authorities and other interested bodies when application is made for a licence for such a nuclear site and an opportunity is given for them to make representations to the Atomic Energy Board. Representations can also be made to the State President as far as the promulgation of regulations in terms of the proposed legislation is concerned and whereby, inter alia, the steps to be taken to prevent nuclear incidents (occurrences which cause nuclear damage) from happening may be prescribed.

The board shall keep a list showing every site in respect of which a nuclear site licence has been granted together with maps showing the position and limits of each such site. This list must be available to the public and the public shall be given appropriate notice that these data are available to it for inspection.

We accordingly come to the most important objects and provisions of this Bill namely the question of the liability of the licensee for which provision is made in Clause 5 of the Bill.

In brief this clause provides that the licensee concerned shall be liable for all nuclear damage caused—

1. (a) by anything being or done upon such site or by any waste discharge (in whatever form) therefrom; or
2. (b) by nuclear-hazard material in the course of carriage to or from its site within South Africa’s area of jurisdiction (whether it be carried to or from any place outside the Republic)

except to the extent to which such nuclear damage is attributable to vis major or where the damage is done to a person or property who is on the site without permission or to any person or his dependants who deliberately caused or deliberately contributed to the cause of such damage.

The licensee shall only have a limited right of recourse inasmuch as the damage is caused deliberately by somebody else and also inasmuch as he may have a right of recourse against somebody else in terms of a contract because, as in other countries, the object of proposed legislation here is to canalize liability for nuclear damage as far as possible to a single source, namely the licensee, so that the risk can be covered by one comprehensive policy.

If the right of recourse were to be retained without limitation (and if it were to apply also, for example, to a person who caused damage through negligence) it would mean that contractors and subcontractors of the licensee would also have to cover themselves by way of insurance and that the cost of their premiums (which are usually high) will also be a burden on the licensee which will mean a large additional expense to him. In the case of a nuclear incident there may then be numerous counter-claims which will cause considerable administrative trouble to the insurance companies and which may even jeopardize the payment of claims if it is not possible to determine without doubt which one of the insured is liable.

In order to eliminate endless and costly civil actions, and in order to conserve the sources of insurance cover, all countries who have so far been faced with the problem of obtaining cover for nuclear damage have been obliged to canalize practically all claims for damages to the licensee and to deprive him to a large extent of the right of recourse, including, for example, the right of recourse which he would have had against anybody whose gross negligence was the direct cause of the damage in respect of which damages are claimed. This legal concept which is a striking departure from the age-old legal philosophy concerning lawsuits based on unlawful acts, has also been incorporated in the relevant legislation in the United Kingdom, in the O.E.E.C. Convention, as well as in the Convention of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Then we have the question of security which is dealt with in Clause 6 of the Bill. As a prerequisite, the applicant for a nuclear site licence must, by way of insurance or in some other approved manner, provide security for a maximum amount of 1110,000,000 to ensure that any claims for which he will be liable will be paid. In each individual case the Minister of Finance has to be consulted as to the manner in which security has to be given, the manner and circumstances in which it shall be made available to any person who has suffered any damage, as well as the amount (the maximum being the R10,000,000 aforesaid) for which such security shall be given. This maximum amount of R 10,000,000 is approximately the same as the maximum which applies in European countries.

Additional security—up to R10,000,000—can be demanded or the amount of the security can be reduced or the manner in which security has to be given can be changed—in all three instances after consultation with the Minister of Finance (Clause 6 (3)).

If, however, a nuclear incident occurs and compensation is claimed in respect thereof, additional security may be claimed in terms of Clause 6 (4), irrespective of the maximum of R 10,000,000, to the extent to which, in the opinion of the Minister, the existing security will be inadequate to cover further nuclear incidents. The idea is, therefore, that it must be ensured that additional security is given for possible future nuclear incidents to the extent to which a nuclear incident which has already occurred has given rise to claims against the existing security.

Clause 7 provides for nuclear incidents to be reported and for the Atomic Energy Board to make note of the details concerning the persons who were concerned in such an incident. These details have to be carefully noted and preserved in order to assist in proving subsequent claims or to dispute false claims. This provision is necessary because of the fact that radio activity only manifests itself after a long period.

Clause 8 provides that in the event of any claims for nuclear damage exceeding the amount of the security given, the State must assist in paying those claims by virtue of the same considerations which would have applied had it been a national catastrophe.

When the maximum amount of the security is decided upon in respect of a nuclear installation, the ability of both the licensee and the insurance market must naturally be taken into account—if the last-mentioned has to be approached to provide the cover. The maximum cannot, therefore, be unlimited and, as in the United States, the United Kingdom and elsewhere, the State liability for claims that have been proved is accepted here in principle to the extent to which the total of such claims in any given case exceeds the amount of security given.

In such a case the licensee must immediately notify the Minister in writing giving the details of the total amount, the amount of the claims received and those which have been met, together with an estimate of the number and the amount of any claims which will still have to be met. If the Minister is satisfied that the amount of outstanding claims and the amount of the claims which will probably still be made will exceed the remaining amount of the security he must Table a petition for relief in both Houses of Parliament and, by notice in the Gazette, suspend all further payment of claims until such time as Parliament shall have decided on the petition for relief. If Parliament appropriates any moneys for the payment of such claims no claim may be paid without the approval of the Minister or an order of court.

In terms of Clause 9 no claim for compensation can be instituted if a period of ten years has already elapsed since the incident concerned or since the last event of a succession of occurrences.

Clause 10 provides for the appointment of inspectors by the Atomic Energy Board to do inspection work and other duties which are considered necessary for the application of the proposed legislation. Section 15 of the Atomic Energy Act, No. 15 of 1948, applies in this respect which means that the remuneration and other conditions of service relating to the inspectors must be determined in consultation with the Minister of Finance.

Because important research and development works are, inter alia, undertaken at nuclear installations in respect of which, if the details are made public, their chances of being patented may be jeopardized, Clause 11 makes it an offence for any person to disclose any information obtained by him in the exercise of his powers without the authority of the Atomic Energy Board.

Because the Atomic Energy Board will itself operate nuclear installations and because it is a body corporate which can, as a separate entity from the State, summons in its own name and be summonsed, Clause 12 of the Bill places the same liability for nuclear damage on it as is placed on a licensee and it also has to give security for the fulfilment of its obligations and it must also comply with certain other provisions of the contemplated legislation. Penalties are also prescribed in the case of the board.

Clause 13 vests the State President with power to promulgate regulations which relate in particular to the protection of health and safety.

In terms of Section 30 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1948 the Atomic Energy Board must pay all reasonable expenses, including compensation, of any person who, while engaged in any capacity by or on behalf of the board in work connected with prescribed material or any produce thereof, suffers a personal injury or contracts a disease which is attributable to the nature or special properties of such material or product. In view of the fact that the provisions of the proposed legislation may, however, in practice be found to be more advantageous and not as limiting as those of the 1948 Act, Clause 14 of the Bill confers the benefits contained in the proposed new legislation on those employees to the extent to which they do not enjoy them under the 1948 Act.

In terms of Clause 15 the proposed legislation will also apply to South West Africa which, because of the absence of coal and other conventional fuels within its borders, may perhaps be the first area in southern Africa which will use nuclear fuel for the generation of electric power.

Before I conclude I should just like to inform you, Sir, that I intend moving certain amendments in the Committee Stage to Clause 8 of the Bill where the procedure is laid down in paragraphs (a) and (b) of sub-section (2) and in sub-section (3) of the same clause to be followed by the Minister when he appeals to Parliament for relief where, in the event of a nuclear incident, more damage is done than the amount of the security.

The amendments, which will appear on the Order Paper as soon as possible after the second reading, do not differ in principle from the existing sub-sections and are mainly aimed at bringing the contemplated procedure more in line with accepted parliamentary procedure.

In conclusion I wish to emphasize that this Bill covers a field where a great deal has still to be learned. My scientific advisers are satisfied that there is almost no or very little danger of a reactor exploding and that all safety devices which human ingenuity with its present knowledge has devised are being built into reactors. Nevertheless, because of the possibility of anything happening, and because the possibility of harmful gases, rays or materials escaping or being released cannot be regarded as impossible, the proposed legislation is regarded on all sides as essential and I now lay it before the House for consideration.

This is uncontentious legislation. The Minister has explained the Bill in great detail and, as he has said during the course of his second-reading speech, the Bill has been framed after a considerable amount of research. I think the Minister will agree with me that to a large extent it follows the legislation which obtains in Belgium today. The legislation which obtains in other countries using nuclear fission has been followed and we do not propose to delay the passage of this Bill. The Bill, as the Minister has said, provides for the protection of personnel and it is significant that Clause 9 of the Bill provides that a period of ten years is allowed in which actions may be brought, which indicate the very dangerous nature of this material and the necessity for ensuring that the public which may have to be protected should be given the maximum protection possible. The Bill also provides for licensing, which quite rightly is vested in the State to ensure that this new element is under proper control. It provides for regular inspection and it also provides for a report to Parliament, and as the Minister has said, he proposes in the Committee Stage to introduce an amendment to Clause 8 which will provide for certain amendments with regard to the report which will be tabled in Parliament. We support this legislation and we give it our blessing.

This Bill which the hon. the Minister has put forward in great detail is one which I think the House and the country should welcome. I feel that one should place on record the appreciation of the House to the Minister and his Department for the very careful study which they have made of legislation in all parts of the world to ensure that as comprehensive a piece of legislation as possible is placed before the House in regard to this most important aspect of nuclear experimentation and development in South Africa. Although atomic energy was originally conceived for explosive purposes to be used particularly in wartime its uses in peacetime for the benefit of scientific advancement were very quickly realized. This fact was recognized very early after the war and considerable advances were made in countries like the U.S.S.R., Britain and America with regard to development of reactors, more particularly in order to establish power stations operated by atomic power. In fact in 1955 Britain embarked on a ten-year project. The United States, on the other hand, wanted to experiment as much as possible and is still proceeding with a great deal of experimentation. It has also been found that reactors can be used not only for producing power but for other purposes such as therapeutic purposes in medicine, electronics, and other control devices; so from the scientific point of view I think that this Bill was not only necessary but indicates immediately the progressive steps that our scientists are taking in order to bring South Africa abreast of modern atomic and nuclear development. One does appreciate that a great deal of the contents of the Bill will in the course of time require reconsideration and possibly even amendment, not because the powers provided for in this Bill are unsatisfactorily framed but because changes may be introduced in the light of experience gained. The public obviously has to be protected not only against any outfall but it has to be protected against the escape of gases but also against the possibility of the contamination of water which will be discharged from these reactors and flow into our streams and onto the land. The hon. the Minister has made the point that these reactors need not necessarily be placed at extremely great distances from towns, cities and places of habitation. It was thought at one time that reactors should be placed far away from any possible contact with human habitation but there has been a big advance made in this respect in the last seven or eight years, and we understand not only from the Department but from other sources which have conducted research that to-day there are safeguards which do enable us to have a reactor at Pelindaba only 16 or 17 miles away from Pretoria. In fact, talking to a medical man who has done a great deal of research into injuries resulting from radio activity, he seemed somewhat taken aback when I mentioned to him that the reactor at Pelindaba was only 16 or 17 miles away from the city of Pretoria. But I think it is clear to-day that safeguards have been developed which do not make the presence of a reactor so close to a large city the danger which it would appear to be at first glance. In studying this Bill very carefully certain problems have occurred to those who have gone into it. For instance, in Clause 5 (3) it is provided—the licensee shall not be liable for nuclear damage to the extent that it is attributable to vis major. One immediately thinks of the possibility of a reactor being struck by lightning or other effects that the elements may have on the reactor, and one wonders whether vis major should be excluded as far as liability is concerned, but it does appear from experiments which have been made that there is no danger of any explosion or any other untoward incident through the effect of the elements on the reactor and on what it produces. I do believe, however, that that is a matter which will have to engage the attention of the Department. The other question, which was an obvious one and which might have been raised perhaps by other speakers who unfortunately have not got back to the House yet because of private business, is the fact that the amount of security has been limited to R 10,000,000. Sir, I accept what the hon. the Minister has said namely that we are following the precedent laid down by other great countries who have limited the amount of security to R 10,000,000. It is obviously impossible really to fix a figure at all. I presume that some norm must be laid down at this stage, however, and only time will tell whether the amount of security should be increased or not. I should also like to know from the Minister whether it is intended under this Bill to have discussion with insurance companies so as to arrange for some pool with regard to the security that will have to be provided. Obviously it will have to come from insurance. I should also like to know what steps the Department is going to take to get the insurance companies in principle to accept this large liability, a type of liability which they must obviously view with a good deal of caution. The Bill does provide, of course, that the Minister will report to the House with regard to any excessive liability which the licensee may have to face over and above the figure of R 10,000,000.

The other question which is also one which must cause some concern is the question of the limitation of the period for the institution of actions to ten years. One hopes that that will be an adequate period. One would only be able to tell after the passage of time whether this period is sufficient. But one understands from the results of the unfortunate incident in wartime Hiroshima that although a much longer period than ten years has elapsed, the effects of radiation are still being experienced there and that in fact it may even lead to hereditary defects in individuals. It may carry on from generation to generation. It is impossible to say therefore whether the period of ten years provided for here is long enough. As the reactor is obviously an experimental one and will be used for peaceful purposes and will not set off the type of explosion to which Hiroshima was subjected it is possible that ten years may prove an adequate period, but I do feel that this is one of the matters which will have to be taken into account.

Then I would like to know from the Minister whether any contact will be made with the large local authorities, particularly the local authorities in close proximity to these reactors and whether regulations will be published either through their health laws or under this measure to ensure that the public has adequate protection with regard to the escape of any matter into the streams or onto the land with detrimental effects upon human beings and upon agriculture. Sir, we do know that in so far as atomic power is concerned we have sufficient coal supplies, particularly in the northern areas, to make it unnecessary for us to contemplate the establishment of atomic power plants at this stage. It might well be a matter, however, for consideration around the coastal belt of the country, and I wonder whether the Minister contemplates that steps will be taken in that direction, in terms of the powers granted in this Bill, to ensure the establishment of some form of atomic power plant in the Republic. Atomic power plants are already being erected in Britain and by 1970 will probably be the main source of power supply because it has been found that it will be more economical in a country like Britain than the supply of power from conventional fuel. We on the other hand have the advantage of enormous coal supplies which will make it unnecessary in the interior of South Africa, although it might well be a matter for consideration in the coastal areas.

We feel that this legislation is certainly timeous; it is legislation which this country should have, and we can only express the sincere hope that after the careful attention which has been given to this matter, as this Bill demonstrates, care and caution will continued to be exercised; that continued consideration will be given to the matter from year to year, and that Parliament will be apprised from time to time of the advances we are making and the effectiveness of the provisions of this Bill.

I should like briefly to thank hon. members on the other side for the support that they have given to this important Bill. I think they support it because we are all agreed that South Africa can still play a leading role in the world in the sphere of the production and the processing of uranium. Our uranium-bearing areas are amongst the largest in the world; we already have quite a number of trained scientists of a very high calibre and we are still training more scientists for this important research. I believe that South Africa, with the means at its disposal, is capable of great achievements, particularly in the sphere of the peacetime use of uranium. We are in this privileged position that while many other countries are spending large sums of money and devoting a great deal of time to research into the wartime use of uranium, we are able to concentrate our energies on the great possibilities of the peacetime use of this wonderful source of power. I am thinking here, for example, not only of the ordinary generation of power but of the very great importance of radio isotopes in the agricultural industry, in secondary industry, in the medical sphere and in other spheres. We are only at the threshold of a new era. One is amazed at what has been achieved already in the sphere of nuclear physics. The possibilities for the world are so staggering that I think we would be amazed if we could look just ten or 15 or 20 years into the future and see what use is still going to be made and can be made of uranium.

The hon. member for Florida has mentioned a few matters here, some of which can be discussed in the Committee Stage. It is very difficult to give a definite reply at this stage to some of his questions. We are only at the initial stage at present and we shall have to learn from experience over this ten-year period. As far as the R 10,000,000 security is concerned I just want to say, as I also said in my second-reading speech, that it is admittedly a large sum of money and that that is also the amount on which other countries have agreed, as the hon. member has correctly said. In the second place we must take into account the ability of the licensee to pay the premium. The premium is enormously high; it is R20,000 on R 10,000,000. I also want to say that we have already been in touch with insurance companies with regard to the establishment of a pool for this type of insurance.

As far as his last point is concerned, the question of co-operation with local authorities, I just want to refer to Clause 3 in which provision is made that before the granting of the licence there must be consultation with the local authorities. There will be consultation, where necessary, with all bodies, including local authorities, because we are dealing here with a matter involving the health and the safety of the public.

I move—

The introduction of this Bill gives me very great pleasure because it is the culmination of many years of hard work and thorough study by a large number of experts and interested persons who are undoubtedly going to contribute a great deal towards making worthy artisans in the true sense of the word of our young people.

Because of the tremendous industrial expansion that we have already experienced and are going to experience to an even greater extent in the future, it has become clear that we will have to adapt our training techniques to the modern development so that our artisans who have to keep the wheels of industry moving will have that expert knowledge to enable them to do their work properly. But not only this; we want the skill of our artisans to be accompanied by a higher standard of education. It is undeniably true that knowledge is power and in this modern age where competition in every sphere is becoming keener, it is also necessary for attention to be given to the academic training of our future artisans.

It has been felt for some time that the present Apprenticeship Act does not comply with all these requirements. The Act was passed in 1944 and came into operation on 12 March 1945. Together with its predecessor this Act has enabled us to train more than 170,000 apprentices. But the development in the technological sphere has advanced by such leaps and bounds over the period of 18 years during which the Act has been in operation that we were compelled to think along more modern and more advanced lines because we realized that there was much room for improvement in our training system. That realization, particularly having regard to representations which were made from time to time for a general revision of our apprenticeship system, caused the then Minister of Labour to decide in September 1958 to instruct the National Apprenticeship Board to investigate the existing apprenticeship system and to make recommendations for its improvement. The board then appointed a committee of inquiry of its own members to do the preparatory work in this connection. An invitation to all interested parties to submit their views was published in the Press in October 1958, and personal invitations were also sent to all federations, employers’ organizations and trade unions, to trade unions which were not affiliated to the federations, to all Government Departments, the Chamber of Mines, the various Chambers of Industry, all municipal associations, apprenticeship committees, youth councils and the Public Service Commission. You will realize, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that we approached all those bodies who were likely to be able to make some contribution in this connection. The response to this invitation of ours was extremely encouraging— so much so that it took the committee of inquiry nearly two years to sift out all the comments that it received, to sum them up and, where possible, to tabulate the information in order to determine the value of the various opinions and proposals. I may perhaps just mention that apart from the representations from the various organizations to which I referred, comments were also received from no fewer than 23 private persons.

There is no doubt that all the divergent opinions and proposals were of real assistance to the National Apprenticeship Board in finding a solution to the practical problems experienced in the application and administration of the Act. The board eventually submitted its report in September 1960, and that report was tabled in this House last session. Hon. members who found time to read the report will agree, I think, that the National Apprenticeship Board made a thorough investigation and also made well-founded recommendations for the improvement of our apprenticeship system.

Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendments in this Bill have a twofold purpose. The first is to remedy the defects in the existing Act in order to eliminate administrative difficulties. The second is to implement certain of the recommendations of the board. The provisions dealing with administrative difficulties concern matters such as the appointment of an Assistant Apprenticeship Registrar, the composition and dissolution of apprenticeship committees and sub-committees, the making up of lost time, the transfer of apprentices and so forth. I think the House will agree that it is not necessary for me at this stage to take up the time of the House in dealing with these matters. We can discuss them very fruitfully at the Committee Stage.

The other provisions of the Bill refer directly to the training of apprentices and are designed to make better qualified and better trained artisans available to industry. The most important provisions are perhaps those contained in Clause 11 of the Bill which amends Section 16 of the principal Act. Hon. members will observe, however, that the provisions as such do not reveal very much, because in conformity with the pattern that has been followed in the existing Act, they are merely enabling provisions. They empower the Minister, after consultation with the apprenticeship committees and on the recommendation of the National Apprenticeship Board to prescribe certain conditions of training.

In view of that fact and in fairness to hon. members who are interested in this matter, I think it is no more than right that I should give the House a full explanation of the most important aims of the Apprenticeship Board—aims with which I am in full agreement. As hon. members know, the position is that when apprentices are placed under contract under the present system they receive a certain reduction in the prescribed period of training in respect of their pre-apprenticeship academic achievements. Let me give an example. A lad with a National Technical Junior Certificate is at present entitled to a reduction of seven months and a lad with a National Senior Certificate (Technology) has his period of training reduced by ten months under the present setup. But in considering this matter the Apprenticeship Board felt that a reduction in the prescribed period of training should not be granted simply because a person desiring to become apprenticed possesses certain educational qualifications. The granting of such a reduction is regarded as being most arbitrary because the possession of such a certificate does not necessarily prove greater skill.

It was the general opinion of the board that an apprentice should rather earn a reduction in his period of training by undergoing a trade test at such stage of his period of training as may be determined by his educational qualifications. In other words, the period of training of an apprentice with a National Technical Junior Certificate will in future not automatically be reduced by seven months but he will be allowed to undergo a voluntary trade test after having served 3½ years of a five-year apprenticeship. In the same way, an apprentice who is in possession of the National Senior Certificate (Technology) will not receive an automatic reduction of ten months but will be entitled to undergo a voluntary trade test after 2½ years. In this way, Mr. Speaker, the periods of training will not be automatically reduced on account of scholastic achievements but apprentices will have to serve their full contract period unless they pass a qualifying trade test at an earlier stage.

Another aspect in regard to which we have considerable changes in mind is the question of attendance at classes at technical colleges. Of course there are some apprentices living in rural areas who cannot attend technical colleges and who of necessity have to study through the medium of correspondence courses. Although the remarks that I now propose to make relate mainly to technical colleges they are also to a large extent applicable to these correspondence students.

The position at the moment is that an apprentice is compelled to attend technical classes for a minimum period of two years and his employer is compelled to allow him to attend these classes during ordinary working hours for eight hours on one day in the week or four hours on two days in the week at full remuneration. The apprentice is compelled to attend classes until he has passed the N.T.C. II, or at least two subjects, one of which must be trade theory. Once he has that qualification, he need no longer attend classes. But, Mr. Speaker, experience has proved over and over again that the vast majority of apprentices are not interested in their technical studies in spite of the fact that after the first two years they have to attend classes in their own time and in spite of the fact that if they attend 75 per cent of the total number of classes, the class fees which were deducted from their wages are refunded to them. This is an unfortunate fact, but unfortunately we have to deal with facts here. The result is that they never pass an examination but nevertheless have to attend classes for the full period of training. Because they do not want to learn but are compelled to sit at a desk their presence in class is a constant source of irritation to the lecturers and to the small group of apprentices who take their studies seriously.

That type of apprentice is keenly aware of the fact that artisan status does not depend upon the passing of any test at all; nor does he see any reason why he should put himself out in the least. Indeed, the employers’ organizations expressed the opinion that such apprentices regard the daily classes as a challenge to them to play truant without being caught or as a golden opportunity to avoid the practical work in the workshops on one or.two days in the week.

Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, the intention is that the attendance at classes in the employer’s time, after the first year—I want to emphasize this—after the first year, will be dependent upon a satisfactory report from the technical college. In other words, as long as an apprentice continues to make satisfactory progress, he will be allowed to attend classes during normal working hours even though he has already obtained the minimum educational qualification.

In pursuance of what I have just said, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that apprentices who do not want to learn or cannot learn—I agree that there are some of them who conduct themselves in the manner that I have just indicated not because they do not want to learn but simply because they are not able to learn—will in future be expected to attend classes for two years, the first year in the employer’s time and the second year in their own time. If at the end of the second year they have not yet obtained their N.T.C. I, they will not be compelled to attend any futher classes. Those two years will simply have been a waste of time and money.

I must admit that there is a sting in this concession because apprentices who have not obtained the N.T.C. II or who have not passed at least a trade theory test of N.T.C. II standard, will not be permitted to undergo a voluntary trade test. In other words, the first opportunity that they will receive to show their ability will be at the end of their period of training when they will have to undergo a compulsory test. I shall give the House more details in regard to this compulsory test within the next few minutes.

The proposal in connection with trade tests, Mr. Speaker, is an important departure from the present procedure but before I elaborate any further in this regard I want to tell the House something about the background to this matter.

I think that it is generally known that the vast majority of apprentices gain artisan status through the passage of time, and the question as to whether they are qualified artisans who are fully qualified in the true sense of the word can seldom be answered with any certainty. That is particularly so in the case of artisans in the rural areas where employers often do not have the necessary equipment and where the type of work does not vary sufficiently to train an apprentice properly in all the facets of his trade. Unfortunately, we also find employers here and there who do not have the interests of their apprentices at heart but place them in skilled employment at the lowest possible wages in order to make the maximum profit. These apprentices serve their period of apprenticeship and are then supposed to be qualified, but in fact they are not. Such people are very often a danger to the public and perhaps also an encumbrance to themselves and their employers. It is our intention to act a little more strictly in this connection.

Under the proposed procedure we intend rewriting the practical training courses for all the recognized trades in such a way that every facet of the trade in which training has to be given will be clearly shown. It is our intention to introduce logbooks. Logbooks will be issued to apprentices and they will be obliged to indicate in those logbooks by way of symbols precisely what training they have received. Copies of these notes will then be sent by their employers at the end of the quarter to the relevant apprenticeship committees.

Besides this, Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to appoint an adequate number of apprenticeship inspectors. These inspectors who are to be appointed will be trained technically and will be able to keep a watchful eye on the workshop training of apprentices. On their visits they will peruse the logbooks of the apprentices and they will have interviews with employers and also with apprentices. If it appears that an apprentice is not being properly trained, it will be the duty of the inspector to draw the attention of the employer to this fact and in the case of the apprenticeship committees, this has to be reported to the committee for further action. If the inspector feels that the committee is not succeeding in its efforts to induce an employer to improve his training facilities, the Apprenticeship Registrar may cancel that contract of apprenticeship and transfer that apprentice to another employer with whom he will be able to receive suitable training.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members are probably aware of the fact that since the 1951 amendment of the Act we have introduced compulsory qualifying trade tests in certain trades at the end of the penultimate year of apprenticeship. It is our intention now to postpone these compulsory tests until the end of the final year and also to introduce voluntary tests. Briefly the system will work as follows in practice: An apprentice may apply to undergo a voluntary trade test after he has received the necessary practical instruction during his prescribed training period. This period is determined of course in accordance with his academic achievements and pre-apprenticeship experience. In this connection I refer hon. members to the report of the Apprenticeship Board where they will obtain more details in this regard. But no apprentice will be permitted to undergo a voluntary test unless he has at least passed a trade theory test of N.T.C. II standard. If he passes the voluntary test he immediately gains artisan status, but if he fails, he may again undergo one or more voluntary tests. If he is unsuccessful in all those tests, he will have to serve his full contract period, and at the end of that period he will have to undergo a compulsory test. If he passes the compulsory test he will, of course, be recognized as a full-fledged artisan, but if he fails it will be a clear proof of his ineptitude because the compulsory test—and I want to emphasize this fact— may only consist of practical work and not theory.

This is an important change in our present system where a person gains artisan status through the passage of time, but I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is it right that a man who cannot even pass a practical test should be let loose in industry as a qualified artisan? I do not think so and the National Apprenticeship Board does not think so either, and I hope that this House agrees with us. That is why it has now been decided that an apprentice who fails this test will have to serve an additional year in a five-year training period. During that time he will however be entitled to apply for another voluntary test and, if he is not successful he will have to serve the full year. Only after that will he gain artisan status through the passage of time.

Mr. Speaker, although it is certainly not the ideal that we are striving for, it is felt that the apprentice will be able to concentrate on his weak points during the additional period to such an extent that he will be able to become a useful artisan in the course of time. We were hesitant—and I want to mention it here—to make this concession enabling an apprentice to achieve artisan status through the passage of time, because, after all, if a man maintains that he is a qualified artisan, he ought to be able to prove that he has passed his final practical examination. That is obviously necessary. It will interest hon. members to know that 67 per cent of the organizations which gave evidence before the National Apprenticeship Board declared themselves in favour of the proposition that the granting of artisan status should be subject to a qualifying test while only 33 per cent of the witnesses advocated that artisan status should continue to be granted as it is at the moment, that is to say, through the passage of time.

We were prepared to make this concession because in the first place it is the first time in the history of our apprenticeship system that we are going to try to make artisan status subject to a final qualifying test. In the second place we were prepared to make the concession because it was recommended by the National Apprenticeship Board as a compromise in the light of the objections of a certain section of the trade union movement. I refer here to the Mechanics Union’s Joint Executive and the Trade Union Council. According to their representatives on the National Apprenticeship Board, these two organizations had no objection to a qualifying trade test at the end of the final year of apprenticeship but they were strongly opposed to withholding artisan status from any person who has served his prescribed period of training, even though that person has failed his final examination. In other words, in the view of these people a man must be given artisan status whether he passes or fails his final test. These same organizations—and it is interesting to note this fact—were even more strongly opposed to extending the period of training of an apprentice when he fails his final test. Their main argument was that a person would be branded if his apprenticeship contract was endorsed to the effect that he had to serve an additional year before he became an artisan, and that employers would give preference to persons who obtained their artisan status through the medium of a qualifying test. That was the argument advanced by these two organizations. The representatives of these two organizations on the National Apprenticeship Board stated that they would rather have the original period of training increased and then reduced if an examination was passed successfully.

But, Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for the opinions of those organizations, I cannot understand what difference it will make as far as the final result is concerned. If a young man is going to be branded because it has taken him six years to learn a five-year trade, surely that same stigma is going to cling to the person who has entered into a six-year contract and has not been able to shorten his period of training by passing a trade test at an earlier stage. I cannot understand the opposition of that section of the trade union movement because the artisans in the engineering industry in particular have been agitating professional status for a number of years now and yet in this instance they are opposed to one of the most important aspects of professionalism—proof of qualification. I cannot imagine any professional man being allowed to practise unless he has passed his final examination. Can you imagine. Mr. Speaker, a man being permitted to practise as an attorney or a doctor or an architect if he has not passed his final examination? And yet these two trade union federations insist that persons who have completed their normal apprenticeship without achieving any success in practical tests should be let loose in industry irrespective of how capable or incapable they are.

Mr. Speaker, now that I have told this hon. House about the opposition to these two important recommendations by these two trade union federations, I hope you will allow me to outline the other side of the picture as well. Amongst those who were in favour of the new proposals were the employers in two of our largest industies in the country—the motor industry and the metal industry. But they were not the only ones who declared themselves to be in favour of these recommendations in their evidence before the National Apprentice-ship Board. The S.A. Federated Chamber of Industries also supported them; the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut also supported them; the Railway Administration and the Department of Education, Arts and Science also supported them.

But besides these employers and State institutions there is a large section of the trade union movement that supports these provisions. Here I want to refer the House to the Confederation of Trade Unions, a Confederation consisting of three Federations and representing 160,000 workers. They are entirely in favour of these provisions.

As I have already indicated, of the 12 members constituting the National Apprenticeship Board, only one member objected to these specific recommendations.

But I want to explain to the House and also to the objectors that after careful consideration we have decided to protect apprentices against a stigma as far as possible, a stigma which may cling to them as a result of the additional year that they have to serve. You will note that in Clause 23 of the Bill powers are being asked for in terms of which certificates of competency can be issued to apprentices who have completed their studies in terms of the regulations. The form that this certificate will take is still under consideration but it is the intention to word it in such a way that it will serve as a proof of artisan status without revealing the fact that an artisan failed his final test and had to serve an additional year. In order to be able to differentiate between artisans who pass an artisan test and those who obtain artisan status through the passage of time we might possibly consider the question of issuing two different certificates as is the case under the Training of Artisans Act.

Besides this, we also intend to amend the form of the contract in such a way that it will contain no specific reference to the fact that an artisan had to study for an additional year because he failed his trade test. I think that in this way we are going as far as possible to assist those apprentices who fail and have to serve an additional year by protecting them from any stigma because we have a great deal of sympathy for the type of young person who is sometimes not able to pass these examinations, and it is not our intention to allow them to go through their whole lives with such a stigma. I think that this proposal ought to be regarded as a great concession in their case.

But I want to make it perfectly clear that the provisions in connection with artisan tests and the conditions of training in terms of Section 16 of the Act can be implemented only on the recommendation of the National Apprenticeship Board after consultation with the apprenticeship committees concerned. The passing of this Bill therefore will not automatically mean the incorporation of these recommendations. I am merely seeking the power to be able to take steps when industry approaches us for the implementation of this proposed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, although we are now going to tighten up the provisions a little in connection with the training of apprentices in workshops and their studies at technical colleges, it is nevertheless our intention to make the conditions of service far more attractive, not only to attract more young men to the trade but also to encourage them to devote more attention to their technical studies.

In the first place, the National Apprenticeship Board recommended that the present system in terms of which apprentices are remunerated should be done away with. At present every industry prescribes its own wage scales for apprentices and those wages are written into the contract of apprenticeship. Generally speaking, the wages are not very high and the starting wages are particularly low; the wages stipulated in the contract are not periodically increased either as the apprentice progresses but remain practically static for the duration of the contract. The result is that these wages provide no incentive for young men to enroll as apprentices. Many of our young men who start work after leaving school are compelled to assist their parents financially and the result is that instead of their becoming apprentices they may prefer perhaps to become operators or lorry drivers and in this way our artisan potential suffers a great loss. Our intention is to remunerate them on a percentage basis in the future, a percentage of artisan wages. In this way an apprentice to a five-year trade will, during his first year, receive 30 per cent of the wages of a qualified artisan: in his second year, 35 per cent: during his third year, 40 per cent and during the fourth and fifth years, 50 per cent. In practice this will not only mean that apprentices will be able to draw higher wages, but their wages will also be raised if the artisans receive an increase in wages through the medium of wage agreements. I may just mention that an apprentice who does not pass his final trade test and who has to serve an additional year, will, during that additional year, receive 70 per cent and not 50 per cent of an artisan’s wage.

Apart from the basic wages which we are proposing to improve it is our intention too to pay apprentices what may be termed an incentive bonus to encourage them to continue their studies. These bonuses may vary from a minimum of 50 cents per week for an apprentice with a Std. IX certificate and R1.50 for an apprentice with a National Technical Certificate, to as much as R2.50 per week for an apprentice with a National Senior Certificate. Apart from these bonuses a lad who is really interested in his studies, who excels and who obtains a National Diploma, will receive an increase of R4 per week over and above his basic wage.

But we are going even further. I have already said that a lad who fails his Technical College examination after he has attended classes for one year in his own time, will not be expected to attend further classes. But where a lad wants to work and obtains a certificate from the Technical College every year as proof of satisfactory progress, he will be permitted to attend classes in his employer’s time during his full period of training at full remuneration.

Another concession that we are making is in connection with military training. Under the amended Defence Act all ballotees are now being called up for a continuous period of nine months’ military training and although it is our policy as far as possible not to call up apprentices during their period of training, it does happen that some of them sign on voluntarily and are therefore called up. This means that for nine months they cannot undergo training in their ordinary trade. On the recommendation of the National Apprenticeship Board it has been decided that apprentices will only have to make up for five months of that period of nine months during which they do military service; in other words, in the future they will receive a remission of 120 days instead of the 72 days per annum prescribed by the Act at the moment.

Another important matter for which this Bill makes provision is that all those intending to enter into a contract of apprenticeship will have to register with the Department of Labour. This is a particularly important provision because its purpose is twofold. In the first place all these young men who are registered with the Department of Labour will have to undergo an aptitude test which will be conducted by our professional extension officers in order to ascertain the particular type of work for which they have a flair. This will to a large extent eliminate the difficulty of what is generally called “square pegs in round holes”, or the right man in the wrong place. From these aptitude tests we will be able to ascertain the aptitude of a young man so that he can be properly advised as to the direction and trade he should follow. The second purpose of this amendment is to have the names and qualifications and suitability of all aspirant apprentices available at central offices of the Department of Labour. Employers will then not have to search for suitable apprentices but will merely have to telephone the departmental office for a suitable boy or girl and, similarly, the apprentice himself will not have to go from one employer to another looking for work; the Department will be able to give him the necessary advice.

Then I should just like to refer to Clause 24 of the Bill which amends Section 7 of the Training of Artisans Act. In terms of that Act provision can be made for the training of an adult person as an artisan and for the passing of a trade test by such a person but the difficulty is that the Act provides that a person who has served his apprenticeship under the Apprenticeship Act does not qualify for such training or test, and in this respect an important amendment is being made here. We often find that a qualified artisan wants to prove his ability by passing a trade test under the Training of Artisans Act but because he has served his period of training under the Apprenticeship Act he is not permitted to do so. One also sometimes finds that a person who has been trained under the Apprenticeship Act as an electrical wireman, for example, may desire, because of his contract with the work, to be trained as an electrician, a trade in which he has already gained experience. He now has to pass a test in order to qualify as an electrician. But he is prevented from doing so because he has been trained under the Apprenticeship Act. That is unfair. This provision was inserted in the Training of Artisans Act at the time because of objections by the trade union movement, or so I think, but it has appeared to be a very impracticable measure and we want to assist these people as far as we can.

I mention these details merely to draw the attention of hon. members to all the measures that we intend taking in order to attract apprentices to industry and I want to say that we will give them every opportunity to be successful. I sincerely trust that the powers for which we are asking will enable us to succeed in our main aim. In conclusion I want to sum up our main aim as follows—

1. (a) In this Bill our aim is to produce better qualified artisans;
2. (b) It is our aim to give our young people who have the necessary intelligence and the necessary ability the opportunity to qualify sooner and thus to strengthen our manpower;
3. (c) Thirdly, our aim is to ensure that those young people with a below-average intelligence and ability will also be given an opportunity in life;

Because representations have continually been made over the years for an improvement in our apprenticeship system I want to ask the House to give these new recommendations a fair test. I can give hon. members the assurance that I, or whoever has to deal with the Ministry of Labour, will not hesitate to come to this House again to ask for an amendment of this measure if it appears in practice that these provisions are not having the desired effect. We trust that this Bill will be considered in that spirit because I personally am convinced that this Bill will assist in giving us a better trained labour force which will be to the great advantage of the development of the country.

The hon. Deputy Minister has given us a very good outline of what he intends doing as a result of the report submitted to him by the National Apprenticeship Board in regard to improvements in the apprenticeship system. I think, however, that the Deputy Minister will be the first to appreciate the difficulty that the Opposition faces in dealing with this problem in the light of the fact that the majority of the recommendations made by the board do not require legislative enactment—they will be achieved by administrative action. The result is of course that the Bill does not contain any reference to some of the recommendations that the hon. Minister has accepted, and therefore in the Committee Stage we will not be in a position to deal with those in detail. We therefore have to deal with them during the second-reading debate. But this is the first indication we have had of those recommendations which the Minister has accepted which do not form part and parcel of this Bill, and it would appear that it would have been a far better proposition if the Minister had presented this House with a White Paper setting out which of the recommendations he was accepting. We would then have been in a far better position to assess and to debate this issue with him at the second reading, seeing that some of these most important recommendations do not form part of the Bill. Therefore my first criticism is one of detail in respect of the way in which the Minister has presented this Bill to the House. I think it is a very important point because of what is happening in respect of our apprenticeship system, and I think I should start my comments by bringing to the attention of the Minister something which I think is basic to this whole question of apprenticeships and the artisans’ future. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to an article which appeared in the Natal Mercury on Wednesday, 10 April of this year. It is headed “South Africa scraping bottom of the pot for apprentices”. This is how it reads—

I think it is generally admitted that in a country which depends so much for its future on its industrial expansion, the manpower we have to get by way of apprenticeship is one of the greatest importance and significance. I quote further—

Here is a man who has a very wide knowledge of the subject and what he has to say about it is of considerable importance and has considerable bearing on this whole question of amendments to the Apprenticeship Act—

The report shows that:

1. (1) South Africa is scraping the bottom of the pot for apprentices;
2. (2) in spite of almost five years of constant education, apprentices rarely improve their educational standard.

Then he deals with the failures, and I think this is the aspect we should concern ourselves with particularly—

That means that only 15 per cent in respect of this grouping will in terms of the amendment now indicated by the Minister be enabled to take the trade test before they complete their five years’ apprenticeship. In other words, the number that is going to be in a position to take a qualified trade test earlier than five years is going to be very small indeed because of the qualification the Minister has laid down that no apprentice unless he has got a National Technical Certificate II or a pass in trade theory of that standard will qualify to take a voluntary trade test before the end of his fifth year. The importance of these failures can therefore be seen in the scheme as outlined by the Minister. I continue to quote—

Mr. Speaker, if that is the position, I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he is accepting one of the recommendations of the Apprenticeship Board that the academic qualification must be lifted from Std. VI to Std. VII. The Minister gave no indication in his speech whether or not this recommendation was to be accepted. But the problem I am faced with if the Minister is accepting it, is that there are many youngsters who have only passed Std. VI, but who, had they had the opportunity, could easily have passed matric, and if the educational standard were to be lifted to Std. VII, it would mean that they would either have to go to school for a further year, or they would not be able to be apprenticed. The question then arises why children who have passed Std. VI and who cannot continue at school for a further year, should be eliminated. There we come against the question of economics again. It is a problem which we have got to face if we are going to solve the overall problem of getting the right type of youngster to come in as apprentices. But the final part of the report I have referred to gives what Mr. de Waard said he would like to propose. He says that he would like to propose a scheme for the country’s less gifted children at the age of about 14—

Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether that is a worthwhile proposition but the fact remains that we have to face up to this problem of how to get youngsters into apprenticeship in a way that it is made possible for them to become first-class artisans. The Minister has indicated that he proposes to deal with this matter in two ways, firstly, that all apprentices will be registered as prospective apprentices and secondly, that they will have to pass aptitude tests. This is placing a tremendous responsibility upon those who have to compile the aptitude tests. It also indicates that the Minister has accepted, or the Department has accepted, that aptitude testing is something that we can rely upon entirely, but we are up against problems in that regard that I will deal with later on.

But I now want to deal in more detail with two aspects of the report which I feel require a lot of consideration by the House. I, like the Minister, went through the report and the recommendations of the National Apprenticeship Board in regard to this revision of our apprenticeship system, and my first criticism there is in respect of the delay which has taken place. This committee was appointed in 1958 and they submitted their report to the Minister in September 1960, that is to say, 2½ years ago, and here we are to-day dealing with the Bill. I do not know what has caused this long delay, but in view of the seriousness of the position this delay is very unfortunate. I think the Minister should tell us in reply to the debate why this has been held up for 2½ years. Because some of the recommendations which the Minister has accepted could have been brought into effect administratively almost immediately. They do not require legislation. As far as I am aware none of the measures the Deputy Minister has indicated he is accepting and which could be brought about as the result of the administrative action, have been actually brought about by administration action, and I ask the Minister to tell us the reason for this delay.

This report, I think, is a very valuable survey of the problems associated with our apprenticeship system, but taken in conjunction with the annual reports submitted by the Department of Labour, I think we also have got to accept that the whole position of the apprenticeship system is grave indeed.

Some of the recommendations have been accepted by the Minister, as I have indicated earlier on and they are embodied in the Bill—some require legislation and some do not. But I now wish to deal with two of the recommendations which have been accepted and are given legal effect to in the Bill before the House.

The first of the amendments is in Clause 11. The Deputy Minister referred to this as being the most important clause in the Bill. It contains a provision which will enable the Deputy Minister to extend the period of apprenticeship in the case where an apprentice fails to pass the trade test during his normal period of apprenticeship. One year has been suggested by the Minister, but the provision in this Bill of course enables the Minister to lay down a longer period than one year. He has not restricted himself to one year at all. He has suggested in his speech that he does not intend to go further than one year, but I think it would be better if the Bill stipulated that the period of extension cannot exceed one year over and above the normal period of apprenticeship. The wording there indicates that the Minister has very wide discretion, and I say again that in his opening speech he has indicated one year, but there is nothing to prevent him from making it 18 months or even two years.

Or shorter.

Yes, so it appears, but I think we should have something more definite in the Bill itself in respect to the extent to which the Minister can go in extending the period of apprenticeship where an apprentice fails in the fifth year, or whatever year it is, to pass the trade test.

I do not know whether the hon. Minister has gone into this question of this extra year very fully. The Minister did indicate that there was a difference of opinion on the committee and that certain of the trade unions opposed the extension of a further year of apprenticeship and that the proposal which the Minister is now submitting to us is the result of a compromise in this regard. I think one point which the Minister should have made, and which as far as I know is one of the main issues as far as the trade union movement is concerned, is that they would be prepared to accept not only the position of every apprentice passing a trade test before becoming an artisan and further the extension of a year to enable him to do that, but the proviso that they put forward was that the Minister should not permit any apprentice who fails to qualify from practising in the trade at all. Now this is a very important consideration, and I think the Minister will agree it would place the trade union movement in an impossible position if they were to agree that only apprentices who have passed a trade test could become artisans, then subsequently discovering that all who had failed could practise as artisans and possibly work at a rate far less than that laid down for artisans. So I think this aspect is one which we have to consider and we should not condemn the trade union movement for being tardy in accepting the further period of apprenticeship, or for their objection to an apprentice only becoming an artisan as a result of qualifying by way of a trade test. One can see the danger in which the whole trade union movement would be involved if there were two groups, those who have served their apprenticeship and failed and therefore could not become artisans, competing with those who have passed and who have become artisans, employed in the same field of work. That is an important issue and I think it explains why the trade union movement had difficulty in respect of the Minister’s proposals. But I think that the compromise which has been reached is reasonable. I think also the fact that what is revealed in other reports to which I shall come presently in respect of the percentage of passes also indicates that we would be in an impossible position if we were to insist that only apprentices who have passed a trade test could become artisans.

I think, firstly, if we consider the annual report of the Department of Labour for 1961 we find a summary there of trade test results for the period 1959-61. This summary, I think, is one which we should consider most carefully because it discloses quite an alarming state of affairs. I am going to deal with three industries just by way of example, the metal or engineering industry, the motor industry and the S.A. Railways. I think the Railways is a good example because of the very wide variety of apprentices employed there and the over-all results of their trade tests. We find that in the metal or engineering industry in 1959 13.7 per cent passed the trade test, in 1960 17.32 per cent passed, and in 1961 15.52 per cent, all very low indeed. In the motor industry the position is considerably better. In 1959 22.3 per cent passed, in 1960 29.95 per cent, and then it dropped in 1961 to 23.30 per cent. Now we come to the Railways and we find that in 1959 the percentage of passes was as low as 9.7, in 1960 it was 16.04 and in 1961 16.16. Now one would assume that this result of the trade testing would indicate that there is something radically wrong with the educational standards of the youngsters, or with the training they receive. But if we examine the educational standards of the youngsters, I am taking 1957 as the year which would correspond with the entrance into the trade of those apprentices concerned in the trade test results I have just mentioned. We find that in 1957 in the same three industries, in the metal industry there were 212 apprentices out of a total of 1,500 who had Std. IX or X as their pre-apprenticeship educational qualification. In the motor industry 53 out of 1,263 had Std. IX or X, and in the Railways 58 out of 1,260 had Std. IX or X. If you look at the end results you discover that the engineering industry, which had the highest number of matriculants, has not got the highest number of passes in the trade tests. In the Railways, where there was the second highest number of those having Std. IX or X, the passes were the lowest of the three. But in the motor industry, which had the lowest number, 53 out of 1,200 with Std. IX or X, you have the highest number of passes in the trade tests. So it would indicate that it is not necessarily the pre-apprenticeship educational standards which determine the number of passes in the trade tests. I can come to only one conclusion, and that is that the higher educational qualifications at the commencement of the apprenticeship do not mean that there is a correspondingly high rate of passes in the trade tests. One can only assume from that that a higher standard of education in the commencement of the apprenticeship is not the complete answer. Secondly, that a higher standard of education cannot compensate an apprentice if he is apprenticed in the wrong trade.

Now I want to deal with the position in the motor industry. That industry maintains a higher percentage of success in the trade tests, although its educational standard is not the highest. I think there are probably two reasons for it, firstly that the motor industry on its own initiative has appointed designated agents in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act to act as inspectors; and, secondly, I believe it is because the trade test is more closely linked with the actual experience gained by the apprentice in the motor trade. I think the motor trade is a more concentrated trade than possibly any other, and therefore I think the trade tests are far fairer than possibly in any other industry. The nature of the test bears a very close relationship to the general work done by the apprentice.

If this assumption is correct, is it not a pointer to the possibility that the other trade tests are suspect? Here I want to say that I have no detailed knowledge of the tests which are undertaken, but I have had considerable experience of the question of apprentices, the type of work they do, the suitability of the apprentice for that work and the value of such an apprentice to his employer. To put it another way, are apprentices in all the other trades obtaining a thorough training in all aspects of their trade? The Minister has referred to a possible remedy here and I thank him for the disclosure he made in respect of one of the recommendations which is not included in the Bill, and that is the appointment of technically trained inspectors as suggested in the report. I think that may be a step in the right direction, but I will come back to it in a moment. The Minister has indicated that the Bill provides for a system of log books. Now, I must warn the Minister that this may not be the complete answer, because this system has been in vogue in the Railways for many years. They keep what are known as apprenticeship progress records, yet the trade test results on the Railways are very far from satisfactory. Let me dwell there for a moment.

The Minister will remember that I dealt with this question of the poor results on the Railways in the trade tests. What have we got in the railway set-up? We have a very large number of apprentices, we have the shop steward system, together with the progress records to which I have referred, where every year an apprentice has got to sign such a card indicating that he has received the training laid down in the schedule, and he has to sign it in the presence of a shop steward who is present when he is interviewed by his workshop foreman. They discuss the progress he has made, and if it is found that the youngster has not been given the training he should have obtained, remedial action is taken. In spite of that fact, and in spite of every encouragement which can be given to an apprentice in the railway service, we find that the end result is worse than in the motor industry. Therefore I suggest that we must not place too much reliance on the log books.

But the Minister has indicated this second line of offence, and that is the introduction of the technically trained inspectors. I think the first thing we have to clear up here is that the Minister should indicate whom he will appoint as trained inspectors. Are they men who have come up through the ranks of apprenticeship themselves, or will they be men appointed from the administrative section of the Department of Labour? I think it is most important that we should have the details of what qualifications the Minister will lay down for the appointment of these technically trained inspectors. I should imagine, and my own view is, that any artisan who has achieved N.T.C. 3, or A.T.C. 1 or 2, would be a reasonable type of person to appoint as an inspector, but I think it is important that the Minister should indicate quite clearly what the qualifications are for the appointment of these inspectors. Their function, I feel, is going to be of the greatest importance in the improvement we all want to see brought about in the apprenticeship system. I think they can serve a very good purpose indeed, but of course they must be the right men for the job. I am not suggesting that they should be put in front of a committee or that they should pass an aptitude test; I think something more definite than that is required, but I do suggest that if there is to be considerable improvement in the system of training apprentices a lot will depend on the type of person and the qualifications of the persons who are appointed as inspectors.

Now, I have suggested that the trade tests themselves may be at fault. I want the House to consider this fact, that the vast majority of apprentices trained by the Railways are retained in the service as artisans, although they have failed their trade tests, and yet under the system of bonus working, the incentive bonus scheme operating in the Railways, these artisans who have failed their trade tests perform their work satisfactorily and earn a bonus under that system. That is an indication that although they failed their trade test they are able to compete with artisans of long standing in the work they are doing.

When we adjourned for lunch I was dealing with the effectiveness or otherwise of the trade tests imposed by the Department of Labour and pointed out that although as far as the Railway Administration was concerned the percentage of passes in the trade tests for the last few years was only some 16 per cent, the apprentices in the railway service are retained as artisans, by and large, and are competing very well with artisans of long standing. This led me to believe that the Minister should have an inquiry into the trade testing system as such to ascertain whether the trade tests are fair and reasonable. I am not making this suggestion lightly; I am quite serious about it because I know that many an apprentice has failed his trade test because he was asked to do a particular job with which he is completely unfamiliar through no fault of his own, because in the particular workshop where he was trained that type of work was never done. There is also the other aspect, that he was unable to understand what was required of him in the trade test, with the result that he could not give of his very best. I suggest that where trade tests are given there should be a choice open to the apprentice to take Test A, B or C, so that he will be tested on the work he is familiar with. It is no use adopting a Utopian attitude in regard to the training of apprentices. It is not possible for every apprentice to cover every aspect of the work he will have to do as an artisan. I am convinced that many youngsters fail the trade tests because they are not familiar with the work they are asked to do.

I want to deal briefly with the proposal in the Bill for the registration of prospective apprentices with the Department of Labour. This is the second proposal I feel we should spend a little time on. The reason why I am a little doubtful about this proposal is because of the wording of the amending clause, Clause 12 (5) (a), which reads as follows—

The Department, in putting forward that amendment to the Act, has adopted in part the recommendations put forward by the National Apprenticeship Board. I think it is as well for me to read out what the recommendations were in this respect. The first was that all prospective apprentices should register with the Department of Labour and be placed with suitable employers in the trade of their choice, having regard to the outcome of aptitude tests to be conducted by the Department, and this is the proviso to which I wish to draw the attention of the Minister—

Now it would appear to me that this amendment in the Bill which I have read out would preclude an employer from engaging an apprentice unless he were registered with the Department as a prospective apprentice. That is not what the board had in mind. The second portion of their recommendation says that a prospective apprentice in possession of the minimum educational qualifications of Std. VII or an equivalent certificate should compulsorily undergo an aptitude test, and that in the event of failure the employer shall retain the right to indenture such prospective apprentice, provided his continued employment after one year of apprenticeship shall be reviewed in consultation with the Apprenticeship Committee concerned and the inspector appointed for the area; and (c) that a prospective apprentice not in possession of the minimum educational qualifications of Std. VII and who has passed the aptitude test may by way of exemption be permitted to be indentured. Now, there are safeguards which I do not think the Minister has taken cognizance of in the framing of his amendment in the Bill, and I think that in his reply the Minister should indicate quite clearly what he is going to do in regard to the recommendations made by the board so that the system of compulsory registration of prospective apprentices will not be as rigid as it would appear to be from a study of the Bill itself. I think we should have clarity on this point so that we will know that it will be possible for youths other than those included in such a list held by the Department of Labour to be indentured if the employer so wishes.

Finally, I come to the question of the apprentice’s wages. This is one of the aspects which we will not be able to deal with in the Committee Stage because there is no provision in the Bill itself for it. Yet the Minister has indicated that the powers he has under the Act as it stands will enable him to introduce the new principle of wages being based on a percentage of the wages paid to the artisan. In other words, the basic wage paid to an artisan will in future be the basis on which the apprentice will be paid, according to a certain percentage scale. I want to ask the Minister what he intends doing, firstly, in the application of this scale in respect of the apprentice who will be called upon to serve a sixth year. I think the report indicates that he should be paid 70 per cent of the artisan’s rate of pay, but I do not remember the Minister saying anything about that.

Yes, I said it would be 70 per cent.

Well, then that clears up that point. But I now come to the position that has developed as the result of the delay I commented on earlier on. the delay in giving effect to the recommendations of this Committee. recommendations which could have been given effect to without legislation being passed. The first group I wish to deal with is the wages of the apprentice now being paid by the Railway Administration. In September last year there was a rationalization of wages throughout the service, and as a result the apprentices now begin their apprenticeship in their first year at a salary of R60 a month. That represents 36 per cent of the artisan rate, and I ask the Minister what he is going to do when he finds that the percentage rate which he is laying down is not as high as the existing rates which have been established and laid down by the Railway Administration. I assume that what the Minister will lay down will be the minimum rates, and if there are other rates which are higher he will not interfere with them, but I think we should have clarity on that point as well.

As far as the railway apprentice is concerned he will start off with R60 per month and the maximum that he will receive during his five years’ apprenticeship will be R80, so the commencing rate has been stepped up considerably but the rate in the fifth year has not been stepped up proportionately. However, I think that is in keeping with the intention at the back of the minds of those who compiled this report. Sir, in the Cape Argus of Wednesday, 17 April there was an item dealing with the pay of apprentices, and it says this: “Apprentices’ pay almost doubled by a Rand firm”. It says also that this is a move to draw the best trainees, and it goes on to say—

I think this is particularly significant in view of what I have said in regard to the academic standard of the youngsters who have come into the trade in the last few years. The report goes on to say—

This is being done by South Africa’s biggest automotive engineering firm and, as I indicated earlier on, as far as the trade tests results are concerned, the best results are being achieved by apprentices in the motor industry, but despite that we have the largest automotive engineering firm in the country taking the initiative and voluntarily increasing the pay of apprentices, possibly following the line taken by the Railway Administration. Sir, I say to the Minister that in view of the fact that he had all the necessary power administratively to increase the rates of pay of apprentices from the time this report was submitted to him in 1960. the question is why he has failed to take the necessary remedial action. It is most unfortunate that we should have such a tremendous disparity in the wages paid to apprentices under the various industrial council agreement, as explained to us in the annexure to this report. Let me just give an indication as to what the position is in respect of some of these apprentices. In the metal industry the first-year apprentice receives 24 per cent of the artisan’s rate; in the motor industry 21 per cent; in the building industry mainly 20 per cent; in the sugar and refining industry 26 per cent; in the printing industry we find that it is as low as 14 per cent in the first year, and going up to 19 per cent and finally 21 per cent according to the various groupings; in the grain milling industry it is as high as 30 per cent. You will see, therefore, Sir, that if the Minister is going to give effect, as he says he is, to the suggestion put forward by the board that there should be a commencing rate of round-about 30 per cent of the artisan rate, there will be an improvement in the scales of pay in the vast majority of apprentices. But my complaint is this: Why was this not done in 1960; why has the Minister waited until now? What has the passing of this Bill to do with the establishment of a better rate of pay for apprentices? That is what I cannot understand, and I would ask the Minister to give us some information as to what has caused the delay in giving effect to this recommendation which does not require legislation for its implementation. It may mean that we have wasted two years with regard to the recruitment of the type of apprentice we want, two years which we in an expanding industrial economy can ill afford to lose. These young chaps who would have been persuaded to come in as apprentices if the pay had been right, are lost to us; they are over the age limit now and we will never get them back as apprentices again, so this delay has had serious repercussions and I do hope that the Deputy Minister himself will give effect to the recommendation of the board as soon as possible. We regret that there has been this delay.

In summing up I can say that the official Opposition accepts this Bill as a measure designed to improve the apprenticeship system by the introduction of innovations which the Minister has indicated will be reviewed after a probationary period of five years. I think it is most essential that we should have this review because we are breaking new ground here; we are going to place terrific reliance on aptitude tests, and I do not know that it has yet been proved to be an effective system, but it is one that no doubt we will have to try out. I do hope, however, that we will have a review of these innovations and that the Department of Labour in its Annual Report will keep us well acquainted with the developments which are going to take place as far as the selection of apprentices is concerned, so that Parliament itself will be kept informed of the progress of these innovations.

I have dealt with the second point which I am going to make now, and that is that the principle of apprentices’ pay being calculated on a percentage of the basic wage paid to artisans be implemented as soon as possible— that is what the Opposition would like to see—and then, thirdly, that it would appear that the main difficulties facing the Department of Labour as far as the training of apprentices is concerned, appear to be problems which the Department of Education, rather than the Department of Labour can help to solve, and I think that the Deputy Minister of Labour who has introduced this Bill is in a very favourable position to keep in close contact with all the many problems associated with the training of apprentices in view of the fact that he is also Deputy Minister of Education, Arts and Science. The Deputy Minister is therefore in a favourable position to see that everything that can possibly be done to improve the educational standard of those who are going to become prospective apprentices, will be done by the Department of Éducation and the Deputy Minister, in his capacity as Deputy Minister of Labour will be in a position to see that the utmost advantage is taken of all the facilities provided by the Department of Education so as to make it possible for him to get the very best material for training as artisans of the future. Sir, this is a Bill which we welcome. It is a Bill which was preceded by a tremendous amount of study as the result of the appointment of the committee under the Apprenticeship Board and I only hope that the promise that some of these innovations hold out will mature and that as a result we are going to get a better type of apprentice, that the training of the apprentices is going to be better supervised so that in the long run we will get what we so badly need, a very big influx of first-rate artisans.

I want to express my thanks that the Opposition, as do we on this side, welcome this Bill as a step forward in the training of our apprentices. Although this is a Bill of a highly technical nature, we are dealing to-day with what is probably one of the most important Bills that we could deal with at the present stage and that is why I am pleased that the Opposition have seen their way clear to support this Bill in principle.

Over the past 20 years we have had a great deal of criticism of our apprenticeship system and people who know what they are talking about have often expressed serious criticism of this apprenticeship system. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) quoted this morning from a report of the speech of Mr. De Waardt, head of the technical training school of the Natal Technical College, in regard to his findings over six years of study. We also know that other people like Professor Duminy now Rector of the University of Cape Town, who for 16 years was head of the Technical College in Pretoria, have often expressed very serious criticism of the training system. Mr. Rowe, the head of the Witwatersrand Technical College, has also expressed criticism of this system on various occasions. This is a position that we can no longer tolerate in a young country like South Africa which has made all its preparations for a further step forward as far as its economic expansion is concerned, and it is something that we must try and rectify. We are called to compete not only with competition from outside as far as our internal market is concerned—in this regard we still have certain steps that we can take to protect our local industries—but we are called upon more and more to compete upon foreign markets that we have to find, conquer and retain. In that regard we cannot do otherwise than to try to increase and strengthen the quality and productivity of our labour. I say that under the circumstances in which we find ourselves as a young country we must make the best use of our limited manpower and that is why we are pleased that an effort is being made here to train this important section of our labour corps in South Africa in a better fashion for the task which awaits them. I also approached the Pretoria Technical College; I also want to make a contribution to show how serious is the position in respect of the training of our apprentices. As I said, I went to the Pretoria Technical College and asked them for statistics of the successful candidates at the end of last year. I must say that the results were disturbing and upsetting. If, for example, we take the examination for the Elementary Technical Certificate which is the equivalent to Std. VII, we find that last year at the Pretoria Technical College 375 candidates enrolled for the examination and of this number only 13 received their certificates. Of the 1,092 technical entries for that examination, 240 did not even turn up for the examination. Now that is a very large percentage; it is almost a quarter. Take the results which were achieved in the examination for the National Technical Certificate I which is the equivalent of Std. VIII. The number of candidates who entered was 614. Of these, 50 obtained the National Technical Certificate I and three obtained the Junior Technical Certificate. In other words of 614 candidates, only 53 obtained a full-fledged certificate. In the case of the National Technical Certificate II which is the equivalent of Std. IX, there were 623 candidates who entered for the examination. Of these, 54 obtained the National Technical Certificate II and one obtained the Intermediate Technical Certificate; in other words, 55 out of 632 candidates obtained a full-fledged certificate. I come now to the National Technical Certificate III which is the equivalent of Std. X. Here we had 442 candidates of whom 57 obtained the N.T.C. and seven the Senior Technical Certificate; in other words, a total of 64 out of 442. In order to give hon. members a general impression of the number of candidates who wrote these examinations, I want to put the matter in this way: There were 2,063 candidates at the Pretoria Technical College who entered for the four examinations and of these only 185 or 8.9 per cent obtained full-fledged certificates. This is a very low percentage indeed.

Are the Transvalers so stupid or is the college so inferior?

These are sobering figures and that is why one is pleased that an effort is now being made to effect an improvement. This is the second time that this Government has taken important steps to effect an improvement in our apprenticeship system. The first step was taken in 1951 after the report of the so-called De Villiers Commission on vocational training. Legislation was then passed which was aimed particularly at enabling the enthusiastic and ambitious apprentice to reach artisan status more quickly. In that legislation the so-called compulsory artisan test was instituted if industries asked for it and the test could be taken in the penultimate year of the apprenticeship term. If the apprentice passed that examination he reduced his apprenticeship by one year. If he did not pass that test he simply achieved artisan status at the end of his apprenticeship term; in other words, if he completed the five years or four years or three years, whatever the term was, he became an artisan without passing any test.

I want to express my appreciation that some of the larger industries in our country asked for this test to be instituted. I understand that some of our largest industries such as for example the motor industry and the engineering industry, as the hon. member also mentioned, asked for this test to be instituted. A compulsory test has therefore already been instituted for those industries. I also understand that a trade like the hairdressing trade asked for the test and that apprentices take that test to-day. Mr. Speaker, this was a step forward and that is why one is not surprised that in the latest report of the Apprenticeship Board it is recommended that a compulsory test of this nature should be taken before artisan status is achieved. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana expressed certain doubts about this artisan test. He pointed out the small percentage of artisans who have passed the compulsory tests already instituted. I just want to say that the Department has given me the assurance that the test that will now be instituted will be a purely practical one. There will be no test of theory. The compulsory test which was instituted in the penultimate year of training which, if passed, could shorten the apprenticeship period, included a theory test, but the test that will now be instituted will be a purely practical test. So I cannot understand why certain trade union organizations object to it, particularly if one accepts the fact that it will be a purely practical test so that a man can prove that he can use his hands and that he can do the work expected of him in that particular sphere.

I also want to welcome the announcement made by the hon. Minister in connection with recommendations that he and the Department have adopted. These recommendations are going to help the intelligent and ambitious apprentice even further and one welcomes them because these are the people who must eventually become workshop managers and foremen. If we can help these ambitious apprentices it will be an important step forward. As the hon. Deputy Minister said, in future apprentices must obtain their A.T.C. II certificate which is the equivalent of the Std. VII certificate. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana also pointed out that there are Std. VI pupils who sometimes become very good artisans. I can only say that the Department has given me the assurance that although an aptitude test will now be taken and the A.T.C. II examination will be a requirement, the Std. VI boy will still have his chance; he will only have to undergo an aptitude test and if he proves that he has the ability, he can be trained as an artisan.

I think that a very important recommendation that has been adopted is the recommendation that the period of apprenticeship should be shortened by as much as 2½ years. It appeared from the statement made by the hon. the Deputy Minister that a person with an A.T.C. III certificate can now undergo a trade test after years and if his term is a five year term, he can in reality shorten his apprenticeship by 2½ years if he passes such a test. This is a very important concession that is being made in the case of the intelligent apprentice who wants to work.

I think that another very important concession that is being made is that apprentices can earn bonuses by studying. I think that it is an important step forward to encourage our apprentices to study. If they obtain certain certificates they can earn a bonus which can amount to from 50c to 250c per week. One knows that an apprentice’s wages are not very high and if an apprentice can add an amount of R18 to his monthly earnings by studying, this will be a very great encouragement to that boy to study. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana also expressed certain doubts about the recommendation that has been accepted that wages should be calculated on a percentage of the wages fixed for artisans. I just want to say that I think that this is a very important step forward. One of the great stumbling-blocks in the recruitment of apprentices in the past was the low wages paid to apprentices. Unfortunately, we have a high conjuncture economy to-day in which people find it easy to earn high wages. One is amazed to see what Std. VI boys and girls can earn. In other words, there has really been no encouragement for them to become apprentices because they have been able to earn far larger salaries and wages in other posts. I think therefore that this step of basing the wages of apprentices on the percentage of the wages of the artisan is going to be a very great encouragement. Its effect is also going to be that the apprentice’s wage is going to rise when the artisan’s wage rises. I think that this will be a very great encouragement to prospective apprentices.

I want very much to say something about the recommendation that Std. VII should be the minimum educational qualification for apprentices. I think that this is a very good recommendation but I want to bring one fact to the attention of the Government. This is a fact that sometimes worries me. It is that increasingly higher education qualifications are being required from boys and girls in various spheres of work and we are reaching the position to-day where it is very difficult for boys and girls with a Std. VI certificate to obtain work. I know for a fact that every year at the end of the school year it takes the Labour Bureau months to place these boys and girls in employment. I know that in Pretoria it sometimes takes up to three months to place Std. VI boys and girls in employment and if one is continually setting higher and higher qualifications, what work will eventually remain for these people to do? That is why I hope that in the application of this Std. VII provision all boys, and girls too, who want to become apprenticed will have the opportunity of becoming apprenticed if they pass the aptitude test. There has to be that encouragement to assure them of a standard of living which they would otherwise not be able to achieve with a Std. VI certificate.

The hon. member also expressed his doubts about the registration of apprentices with the Department of Labour. I think that this is a very important provision because with this we have the recommendation that they must take an aptitude test. The hon. member said that we must not place too much emphasis upon or expect too much of the aptitude test. He had certain doubts in that regard. I think that in our educational services we have reached the stage to-day where we can rely to a fairly large extent on these psychological aptitude tests. But there again the recommendation is that the aptitude test should only serve as an indication so that the prospective apprentice can be told: “You have an aptitude in this direction and not in that direction”, but that person is still free to follow the direction that he wants to follow and any employer is also free to employ him. That is why I say that this is an important step that we must welcome. This is something which is being followed more and more in the world to-day—to test people for their aptitude.

I want to conclude by mentioning what I consider to be a very important provision in this Bill. I am a person who left school very early and by means of private study I was even able to obtain a university degree. That is why I want to emphasize this opportunity that one must give to the young people to be able to study further and I welcome this provision that any apprentice who wants to study further will be allowed to study in his emloyer’s time. Under the previous legislation e was permitted to study for two years in his employer’s time. If an apprentice shows that he wants to study he will now have the right to attend classes at the technical college in his employer’s time for the whole period of his apprenticeship. I welcome this provision particularly because I believe that it will make a very great contribution in enabling pur apprentices to reach a higher educational Standard and will also enable them to play a greater role in our economic and industrial development. They are going to be a valuable addition to our technicians and our engineers in this country. I think this is an important step forward towards supplementing the engineering and technical forces that we will need in South Africa. That is why I also welcome this Bill. I think that the technical colleges in this country will be grateful for the amendments that are being effected here because the system in the past had a detrimental effect upon the intelligent student. The large number of students who did not want to study completely spoilt the spirit at the colleges and had an obstructive effect upon the progress of the enthusiastic student. As this measure will reduce the administrative work of the technical colleges and make it easier to control the classes, I think that the technical colleges will also welcome this legislation. Another important provision is the provision that we find in Clause 11 (h) which provides that the apprentice who does not want to study need not study; that he has only to study for one year and if he does not have a good report then he is compelled to study for a further year in his own time and after this period he is no longer expected to attend further classes if he does not receive good reports. One feels rather sorry about this but the fact remains that one will no longer be able to compel these boys to do things that they do not want to do, as was the case in the past.

We also welcome this legislation as far as this point is concerned. I just want to say something about the logbook about which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana also expressed some doubt. I do not want to say that this is going to be an infallible scheme. But where the 1951 legislation provided for the first time that a training roster should be kept and that every employer training apprentices should follow that training roster, I think that this is a very good addition to that provision. Many employers actually shirked their obligation under that provision and did not follow that roster. The only way to pin down the employer now is to place something in the hands of the apprentice by means of which he can indicate whether the employer is following that roster or not. And where we are now going to make use of a larger number of trained inspectors, I think that this is the only way to give those inspectors the opportunity to pin down those employers who are shirking their responsibility. That is why I think that this is an important provision although the hon. member expressed certain doubts about it.

In conclusion I want to say something about the constitution of the board. I am very pleased that the hon. Deputy Minister and the Department have seen their way clear to give the employers’ and employees’ organizations increased representation on this board. When the Apprenticeship Board was originally brought into being in 1944. the employers’ and employees’ organization had only one representative each. This representation was increased to two each in 1951. It is now being further increased to three each. I think this is very important because this Apprenticeship Board has shown that it plays an important role in our industrial life. I think only of the report on which this legislation is based. That is a monumental work that they have done for our industries in this country. That is why I think that as it is the employers and the employees themselves who are interested in this provision in connection with technical training, it is a good thing that they should receive increased representation and that we should have the views of a larger number of representatives of industry on the Apprenticeship Board with a view to the advice which they give to the Department and to the Minister. We are dealing with an important piece of legislation here which is going to be of great value to our country. I am pleased that we have been able to discuss this legislation today and that it is going to be placed on the Statute Book.

As has been said, the Bill before us mainly arises from the recommendations made by the National Apprenticeship Board. The board was entrusted with the task, after years of negotiation with the Department of Labour, to carry out an investigation into the whole of our apprenticeship system and its terms of reference were very wide indeed. They investigated every aspect of apprenticeship training. The board has done a very thorough job and it should be commended for it, considering the fact that it consisted of both employee and employer representatives. They went to great lengths to arrive at a formula on which both these forces were agreed.

I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) about the time period. This board started its work through a sub-committee in September 1958. The report was available in September 1960 and it is now 1963—some four years eight months after it started its task. The report has been available for two years. In supporting the hon. member for Umhlatuzana I should like to say that there is a number of recommendations in this report that could have been implemented before now without legislation being passed through this House. The recommendations, notwithstanding the delay, have by no means become out of date. The interim period has undoubtedly proved that the whole of the apprenticeship system needs a complete overhaul in order to produce artisans of a higher standard than we have to-day. The old saying, Sir, that anyone who is handy with his hands but lacked the mental ability to improve his education was the best material for training as an artisan has become outdated. There are exceptions, but they are very few indeed.

Industry in South Africa requires highly trained artisans and technicians to-day. Industrialists have and are still spending considerable sums of money on the training of artisans to become specialists in particular types of industry. I know that in the motor industry— which is the industry I know most about— motor car and truck manufacturers in this country run special courses at their factories at considerable expense where artisans are taken from their agents and put through an intensive course of training to bring them up to a high standard. The factories recognize the fact that in order to offer the best possible service and to keep their cars on the road in perfect condition, it is very necessary for the artisans to undergo this training. Industrialists in the motor trade have gone even further. In order to improve the technical standard of education of the artisans, the apprentices and the technicians, they have established the Institute of the Motor Industry with the cooperation of the technical colleges. The latter are conducting courses which will enable young men to qualify to become members of the Institute and thus go further in life.

Provided we adopt sound methods of training we should be able to provide a substantial portion of the requirements in the way of artisans in this country. We are always crying out for artisans but I do not think we are doing enough to generate our own artisan staff in this country. The higher minimum standard education recommended in the report plus aptitude tests will assist, I have no doubt, in eliminating to a large extent the misfits which we find in industry to-day. An apprentice can still be admitted with a Std. VI certificate. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give serious consideration to adopting this portion of the report where they recommend that Std. VII should be the minimum qualification to enter a trade.

Clause 12 (5) of the Bill deals with the registration of the youth who wants to become an apprentice. My worry is about the rural apprentice. A youngster in Springbok or anywhere in the rural areas has not the facilities to register unless he goes to a city. If he is near Cape Town he has to come to Cape Town; if he is near Johannesburg he has to go to Johannesburg. One wonders whether facilities cannot be made available at the local magistrate’s court or the local post office where such a youth can register. The same applies in the case of aptitude testing. We should like to hear from the Deputy Minister how this is going to be carried out.

The need to improve the standard of apprentices in technical training is reflected in the results of the examinations for 1961 and 1962. Figures have been quoted here to-day. In reply to a question which I asked on 18 May 1962 as to the results I was shocked at the reply which I received. In 1960-1 something like 22,749 White apprentices entered for examination. Only 1,696 candidates obtained a full certificate, and 4,000 obtained subject successes. There was a slight improvement in 1962. In 1962 22,931 candidates entered, 2,009 passed with a full certificate and 7,600 obtained partial certificates. This is a very low standard. Sir, and it reflects the very serious state of affairs that does exist at the present moment.

Clause 11 (a) gives the Minister powers to lengthen the period of apprenticeship. By putting this clause into the Bill the Minister has accepted the recommendation of the board. The board’s idea was to encourage apprentices to take greater interest in their studies and to endeavour to pass a trade test during their penultimate year or to pass a trade test at the end of their final year. I have no doubt that when this Bill becomes law and when the minimum entrance requirement becomes Std. VII very few boys will have to go on to their sixth year. The old idea of a boy going into a trade, losing interest and just drifting along until he becomes an artisan just by the effluxion of time is out of date and is one which should have been taken care of a long time ago. I am pleased to see that the employers were able to arrive at an agreement with the trade unions on this particular matter.

Under Clause 11 (b) the Minister now has the power to vary the period apprentices are forced to attend technical classes. At the present time they have to attend for two years in the employer’s time. Now the Minister can, on reports from the technical college, vary that period thereby eliminating the unsatisfactory apprentice, the fellow that has not the mental ability and the chap that just does not want to learn. This amendment is in a way—I do not like to use the word “defeatist”—an amendment which points to the fact that we have got to accept the unsatisfactory position that we have to allow this apprentice a let-out; the lazy and the won’t-work will just stay away and he will not worry about going to college. It reflects the very poor standard of technical education that we have at the present moment.

There is no doubt about it, Sir, log books and the supervision by inspectors will remedy this position to some extent. Talking about inspectors and knowing them as far as industrial councils are concerned and the difficulty the Department of Labour itself has in obtaining suitable inspectors, I wonder where we are going to obtain these individuals to cover this very important job. The board recommends that industrial council inspectors should be used for this particular function but at the same time I think the Minister and his Department know that not all industrial council inspectors are qualified artisans. In nine cases out of ten they have purely administrative experience; they understand the agreements that they have to administer and it will be very difficult for them to decide whether or not an apprentice is being trained properly, if they are not qualified artisans themselves.

The Bill before us to-day is no cure for the troubles which we are experiencing in the apprenticeship field. It tries to improve matters without getting at the core of the trouble. The training of an apprentice is essentially an educational matter. I say this with due deference to the Department of Labour: The Department has done its best to make the system work; and has succeeded to an extent. But because it is not an educational body it has not been able to achieve the success which it would have liked. It has had to leave trade testing and other educational spheres to the Department of Education over which the Department of Labour has no control. The Department of Labour can in no way dictate to the Department of Education as to what courses apprentices should follow. I should like to say this, Sir, that at the present time there is the greatest liaison between those two Departments, but there is this vacuum between the two—the one Department cannot run the other nor do they attempt to. The greatest weakness in regard to the technical training of apprentices is that the system in accordance with which apprentices have to be examined is totally out of date. Although this has been acknowledged by the Department of Education nothing has been done to bring this up to date. The last handbook and syllabuses for technical education were produced in 1951. It is out of print at the moment and has been unprocurable for several years.

In 1955 the employers’ section of the motor industry took the initiative and replanned the courses of interest to it. That might explain the remarks of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana when he said that the motor industry had the highest rate of passes as far as trade testing was concerned. They submitted proposals to the Department of Education and these proposals for the amended scheme were introduced in a pilot scheme in 1957 at the Witwatersrand Technical College. I would like to pay tribute to the Secretary for Education, Arts and Science for his work in this connection. Efforts to extend these courses have mainly failed due to the lack of finance. It is interesting to note that in 1961 the Secretary for Education informed the motor industry that the cost of equipping suitable workshops could not be borne by the State and that the funds would have to be provided by the industry. I must point out to the House that in this pilot scheme which was introduced by the Witwatersrand Technical College R2,000 was donated by the motor industry in order to carry out the scheme. I think it is a very sorry state of affairs if we are told that there is insufficient funds in respect of such an important subject as this namely the training of artisans. On the one hand we have the Minister of Defence battling to build up an army and telling us about the lack of technicians and on the other hand we are told that there is no money to train boys as artisans.

There is another aspect of technical education which is not very satisfactory and that is the provision of correspondence courses. If technical colleges are not available to youngsters they have to take these courses through the Witwatersrand Technical College. A youngster may leave school at Std. VI, VII or VIII; he may even leave at Std. X. He receives these courses through the post and in nine cases out of ten they are completely Greek to him. If he lives in Springbok for example there is no way of getting any tuition. There are provincial secondary schools available, but, it is not their duty to provide the tuition. We have some very brilliant youngsters on the platteland who fall by the way on account of the lack of tuition. I would suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that when he talks to his colleague, the Minister of Education, Arts and Science, that they do something about establishing local technical institutions for these youngsters.

As I have said, the whole training of our youth must be done on a sound basis. Technical training must be a combination of theoretical and practical training. They go hand in glove. The Department which should handle this is the Department of Education. This aspect was considered by the board and they did not agree to it. But one of the large employers of apprentices, namely the steel and engineering industry, recommended that the whole control of apprentices should be passed over to the Department of Education.

The boy who intends to become an apprentice should go through a period of pre-apprenticeship training. He should then be indentured to a trade most suited to his ability. Once he is so indentured he should continue his technical training on a part-time basis under the supervision of the Department of Education. The suggestion of pre-apprenticeship training is, of course, not a new one. You find it in the De Villiers Commission’s report, No. 65 of 1948. It is stated at length there how we should go about it. When you re-read that report even at this late stage, 15 years after it has been produced, the facts stated the e are still relevant. It is to be regretted that we did not go forward with the recommendations in that particular report.

The present position where the Department of Labour controls the body of the apprentice and disciplines him and the Department of Education attempts to control and train the mind is not a satisfactory one, notwithstanding the high degree of liaison which we have between these two Departments. And the sooner the system of training apprentices is put under one Department the better. We have this position here to-day in this House, Sir, dealing with apprentices as a labour matter. The Minister of Education who should also be concerned is not here; I doubt whether we have any members of his Department here but the position is this that the most important aspect of apprenticeship training is the technical one. The matter is urgent. I do not think we can leave it to drift. I am not suggesting that we should have another commission. We have had commissions; we have had voluminous reports; we have had departmental reports on the method of training of apprentices. I think we have sufficient material. I should like to suggest to the Government that they should give very serious consideration to having apprenticeship training placed under one head and I say that the right head is the Department of Education.

The Bill we have before us to-day is the result of a thorough and searching inquiry by a committee appointed by the Apprenticeship Board in 1958. That committee consisted, under the chairmanship of the Registrar of the Apprenticeship Board, of another representative of the Department of Labour; two representatives of the Department of Education, Arts and Science; two representatives of employers’ organizations and two representatives of employees’ organizations. The inquiry took place on the instructions of the then Minister of Labour, who decided to institute it as a result of representations he had received regarding alleged shortcomings in our system of apprenticeship. That it was a comprehensive inquiry is evident from the fact that the terms of reference of the committee were so comprehensive. It is proved further by the various persons and organizations who were specifically requested to give evidence and make comments. As I say, the terms of reference were very wide and consequently it was a very comprehensive inquiry. I am emphasizing this fact because I believe we ought to have full confidence in the final result before us now, not only in the form of the Bill but also in the form of the report that has been submitted as a result of that inquiry. What still further strengthens one’s confidence in the final result of this inquiry is the objective and scientific approach of the committee to the whole problem. The comments and all other data gathered, the points of view of the employers, as well as the employees’ organizations and of all other interested parties have been duly taken into consideration. tabulated and statistically analysed. Ultimately it was subjected to their own critical examination.

Having completed this task, the Apprenticeship Board proceeded to determine the tendencies. On the basis of that they drafted and clearly formulated their recommendations. That is how they dealt with every part of the terms of reference. Every aspect in regard to apprenticeship was thoroughly examined and covered by this inquiry. That is why I say one has the fullest confidence in the final result in the form of this Bill, in which the vast majority of the recommendations have been embodied or in which they could well be incorporated. Therefore we can say that this Bill is the fruit of a sound, searching and comprehensive inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, the Republic of South Africa is a vigorous, energetic young country standing at the present time on the threshold of great industrial development. Therefore it is necessary that our factories should be manned to the greatest possible extent by the best forces at our disposal. We have to get away from the long-cherished misconception that anything, even the crumbs falling from the tables of the provincial schools, is good enough for this purpose. Only the best will be good enough, as well as those second-bests who are imbued with the ideal to produce achievements to the best of their ability. It should be our aim to attract to the industries some of the very best men.

Now it will not profit us much to attract the best men unless we have a system that will contribute to and will be purposefully aimed at bringing forth their dormant potentialities. In other words, we have to have a system of apprenticeship that will determine beforehand that prospective apprentices firstly have the requisite feeling of being attracted, and secondly have the natural aptitude for the trade of their choice; next that it has the machinery in which that natural aptitude can be fully unfolded and developed.

If now one reads this Bill in conjunction with the report, one finds that it is this very system of apprenticeship precisely that is being envisaged here. At first glance this Bill does not contain very much substance, but read it together with this report, then only will you appreciate the real value of the amendments proposed in this Bill. We find in this report the lofty objectives of the apprenticeship system and the recommendations as to how it can be overhauled to achieve these objectives. The machinery for overhauling the system is contained in this Bill. The report deals with the “what” and the Bill with the “how”, So the two are really indivisible and complementary. Much in the existing Act that is good is retained, and here and there it is streamlined, but everything that could impede or thwart the achievement of those objectives is eliminated. In other words, what was missing has now been added; what impedes has been removed; or rather provision is made for their removal or addition. Everything in the report has of course not been reproduced in the Bill. However, we should not lose sight of the assurance we received here to-day from the hon. the Deputy Minister of Labour, that the recommendations contained in the report have been largely if not wholly adopted and endorsed by the Department. Of course, what is not specifically embodied in the Bill could be prescribed by the Minister by regulation such as, inter alia, the important conditions of apprenticeship. On perusal of the report, one thing is salient, and that is that the closest attention has been given to every aspect of apprenticeship from the day of registration with the Department of Labour to the day of the attainment of full artisanship, and in respect of every aspect valuable recommendations have been made and reforms have been suggested. Of course it is impossible in the time at my disposal to dilate upon all the proposed reforms; that is why I should like to dwell upon only some of the most important ones.

In the first place I should like to say something in regard to administration. At the outset I should like to say that I wholeheartedly agree with the recommendation of the board that the administration of the Act should remain a function of the Department of Labour. The recommendation has been properly motivated in paragraph 11 of the report—

In passing, that is my reply to those who wish to transfer the training of apprentices to the Department of Education, Mr. Speaker. It is one thing to have a good Act, but it is something quite different to see to it that it is applied properly, and administered properly. Poor administration in consequence of several factors, such as for instance insufficient trained personnel, may have the effect of shipwrecking the best Act in the world. Among the keymen for the effective application of this Act, are the secretaries of the apprenticeship committees, and that is why I, in common with the Apprenticeship Board, feel perturbed that experienced secretaries are so frequently transferred and replaced by inexperienced men who could easily, on account of their immaturity and lack of self-confidence, cause the whole matter to be a failure. That is why I should like to urge that these secretaries should never be transferred otherwise than on promotion, and that they should never be replaced otherwise than by properly trained and experienced assistants. I should like to add this plea, that those secretaries as far as possible should be people who have had training in the basic principles of scientific personnel management. As regards the administrative personnel, I think that all who take a profound interest in the affairs of our apprentices will rejoice because provision is made in the Bill for the appointment of an assistant registrar of apprentices. while the membership of the board also is increased from 11 to 13 whereby greater representation is given to the most important employers’ and employees’ organizations.

Secondly I should like to say a few words in regard to the material that will become available for apprenticeship in consequence of this Bill, and then I shall try thirdly to show to what extent this Bill is calculated to activate those apprentices to achieve attainments to the best of their ability, for I think that is the main object we want to achieve with this Bill.

The prospective apprentice who has to register himself with the Department of Labour in the first instance, will in the first place have to produce proof of his aptitude by writing an aptitude test. As regards his minimum apprenticeship educational qualifications, it will now not be Std. VI as at present, but be raised to Std. VII. The raising of the educational qualifications is motivated by the Apprenticeship Board as follows: They point out that in the old days when this Std. VI provision was fixed, the Std. VI examination still was a public examination, and therefore was of a higher standard than the present Std. VI examination which can be attained on the ground of age. But I should like to add that in practice you cannot separate education and training from each other The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) wanted to show with the aid of certain statistics he quoted, that there is no correlation between training and education. Now I should like to quote from this brochure under the heading “Training for Industrial Employment” issued by the Institute of Labour Management of Great Britain in regard to this matter of Education and Training—

Further on he says—

Employers who have trained apprentices, and with whom I discussed the matter during the 1962 recess, feel so strongly in favour of the raising of the educational qualification that they have requested that a uniform national Std. VII examination should be passed by all prospective apprentices. Mr. Speaker, this will not impose such a heavy burden upon the apprentices. In 1958 the statistics in regard to identured apprentices were as follows: Under Std. VI there were only 68; those with a Std. VI certificate numbered 2,054; Std. VII, 2,072; Std. VIII, 2,066; Std. IX and X, 485; a total of 6,745. So you see that the vast majority had better qualifications than Std. VI and less. The employers with whom I discussed the matter urge that there should be a national Std. VII uniform examination which all apprentices should pass. Now it might happen that a boy who has not attained the Std. VII certificate, perhaps through circumstances over which he had no control, yet may be a skillful man with his hands, and in the long run may become capable of being a good artisan. Provision is made for these people in this Bill, or at least in the report on which the Bill is based. If he passes the aptitude test, he is eligible for an apprenticeship contract. And in passing I should like to say that this is one of the most conspicuous features of the report in my view; The level-headedness of the recommendations. Yet I believe that preapprenticeship educational qualifications cannot be sufficiently emphasized, and the Apprenticeship Board has also had due regard to that aspect, as I shall show now. In the first place, it exempts the prospective apprentice with a higher than the minimum educational qualification, from the aptitude test; secondly, it will mean a higher initial salary for him; thirdly, it can reduce considerably the period of apprenticeship indirectly, although not directly. I shall return to this later on. I should like merely to say here now that there is the fullest degree of recognition of the pre-apprenticeship educational qualifications of prospective apprentices.

That is the material that will come forward, young men with a Std. VII certificate or higher, or with a lower education certificate than Std. VII, but who have at least proved their aptitude. The question that immediately arises now is to what extent the proposed system of apprenticeship is calculated to activate this material. Let us look once again at the recommendations in regard to the period of apprenticeship including rebates. The period of apprenticeship in the vast majority of trades at the present time is five years; for about 12 trades it is four years, and for about three trades it is three years. 61 of the 86 interested parties who made comments, indicated that they had no objection to the prescribed period of apprenticeship, but 56 of the 86 felt that the rebates are granted much too liberally. As regards rebates the Apprenticeship Board endorses the view that a rebate of the period of apprenticeship, as the hon. the Minister has indicated, should not be granted as at present merely on the ground of an apprentice’s educational qualifications, for that surely is no proof of skill or ability, but they support the idea that the apprentice should earn the rebate by passing a voluntary trade test at such a time during his apprenticeship as may be determined by his educational qualifications, that is to say, before the normal date of expiration of his contract of apprenticeship. This exact point of time is laid down in a proposed schedule drawn up for the various educational qualifications by the Board. To be eligible for the voluntary trade test prior to the normal date of expiry of the contract, and apprentice must pass the full N.T.C. II or at least the trade theory N.T.C. II in respect of the trade concerned. Apprentices not having these minimum requirements or who fail the voluntary trade test, have to pass a compulsory trade test at the end of their final year. If they fail in the compulsory trade test then, their contract has to be extended for one year. I really do not think that there can be any objection to that. If in the meantime he does not pass a further voluntary test, he has to serve the remaining period of the extended period, at the end of which he will then acquire artisan status by effluxion of time. On the other hand, the contract of an apprentice who passes the voluntary test, for which he may sit on the basis of his educational qualifications, is terminated from the date on which he becomes so entitled, or if he passes it after the date upon which he became entitled to it on the last day of the test. Analysis of the proposed schedule indicates that apprentices may attain full artisan status by voluntarily submitting to the test from six to 30 months before the date of expiry in the case of a five year contract, from four to 24 months in the case of a four year contract, and from two to 18 months in the case of a three year contract. If such a generous indulgence and such a challenge do not activate our young people, then one does not know what will do so. What a tremendous inducement ought it not to be to our apprentices to improve their educational qualifications academically and technically, and what an incentive to give their keenest attention to every facet of their work in order thereby to acquire the requisite knowledge to be able to pass the voluntary trade test and to attain full artisan status a long time before the normal expiry date of their contracts? To me it is the one thing that runs through the entire report of the Apprenticeship Board like a golden thread: This attempt to establish a system in which all the basic principles of scientific personnel management are consolidated in order to activate our apprentices to rise to the very highest level of their inherent capacity. A system of apprenticeship under which apprentices acquire artisan status merely by lapse of time is an enervating system that contains no activating stimulus at all for the apprentice to constantly produce his best. The idea has been expressed, inter alia, by the employers with whom I discussed the matter during the recess, that artisan status should be attained only by passing a trade test. We know that the Trade Unions vigorousl objected to this because they think it could lead to abuse exploitation. The proposed system of the Apprenticeship Board is a compromise between the two systems: the one system according to which artisan status can only be earned on the basis of achievements. and the other one under which it can be attained by effluxion of time only—thus another example of the balance of the recommendations of the Apprenticeship Board.

Among the other important links in this process of activation, in so far as the Department of Labour is concerned are the following: (1) The apprenticeship committees and their secretaries; (2) the logbooks to be kept by the apprentices and for which provision is made in Clause 19 of the Bill and (3) the proposed appointment of technically trained apprenticeship inspectors. Time does not permit me to go into details of these important links in the activating process. The whole system of logbooks is dealt with in paragraph 41 of the Report of the Apprenticeship Board. It can be summarized thus briefly: Logbooks have to be printed in duplicate with one page for every three months of training; the apprentice then has to indicate in the relevant column of the logbook with a symbol in which aspect he has received training; at the end of three months it is signed by the apprentice and the employer, and there is an obligation upon the employer to transmit it to the Secretary of the Apprenticeship Committee within one week.

The plea for the appointment of apprenticeship inspectors who have to act as liaison officers between the apprentices, the apprenticeship committees, the employers and the technical colleges, is recorded in paragraphs 42 to 46 of the report of the Apprenticeship Board, and in order to show how strongly the Apprenticeship Board feels about this matter, I should like to quote paragraph 42 in its entirety to you—

I think all of us will say “Selah” to that.

I will content myself with pointing out that the majority of interested parties who made comments, expressed themselves in favour of the keeping of these logbooks and the appointment of such inspectors of apprenticeship. I agree that we should pay regard to the qualifications of these people, and if there are people who really ought to pass a course in industrial psychology, a course in scientific personnel management, these are the people, and I should like to appeal to the Minister that we should find picked men for this task, and that we should not hesitate to pay them a good salary, for in their hands mainly will lie the success of the objects of this Bill.

The hon. the Deputy Minister dealt fully with the raising of the wages of apprentices. [Quorum.] From what the hon. the Minister has said, and the examples I and others have quoted, it appears clearly that there can be no doubt of the good intentions of the Minister and his Department to establish a system of apprenticeship which is calculated not only to attract the most suitable material in the form of apprentices but also to activate that material to the highest level of exertion and energy.

In conclusion I should like to point out that this activating process cannot be brought to fruition by the Minister and his Department alone. A heavy duty rests also on the technical colleges, on the parents of apprentices, to instil idealism into their children and to inspire them, on the apprentices themselves, and on the employers in whose workshops they spend the most hours of their period of apprenticeshio. One of the things that perturbs me a little is this very question of the workshops because in these workshops there are not always the requisite equipment and machinery to have these apprentices learn their trade, hr this connection I should like to refer to the recommendation of the board that apprentices from the country districts should take an intensive practical training course of four weeks in the use of modern machinery at the trades test centre at Olifantsfontein during the annual slack period of that institution. The State may look after the travelling and other expenses during the journey and employers could look after the class and boarding fees. The Report says further that the necessary boarding house facilities are already in existence. But in this connection I would urge that this scheme should be extended to the urban apprentices also, for it frequently happens that the firm by which he is employed does not have the necessary facilities available. I agree with the recommendation that practical training by employers should be supplemented by technical colleges as the trade test and experience have taught that apprentices in many instances do not have adequate practical training. This is mainly attributed to the fact that employers, even in urban areas, do not have the necessary equipment. As regards this matter, I should like particularly to refer to the small industries. I quote from page 41 of the brochure to which I referred earlier in my speech—

Mr. Speaker, what South Africa is going to do as in regard to its future industrially, is going to depend to a large extent on this attempt in regard to our system of apprenticeship and on this occasion I should like first of all to express my thanks and appreciation to the Apprenticeship Board for the comprehensive and wonderful report they drafted. It is one of the best reports I have ever read in our country in connection with labour matters and particularly this matter. In conclusion I should like also to express my thanks to the Minister and the Deputy Minister for having laid this Bill before us, which I believe will contribute largely to the industrial welfare of South Africa.

I want to join with the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) and other speakers who welcomed this Bill. The most important aspect of this Bill I think points to the fact that we have a shortage of manpower. It has been said that we are already scraping the bottom of the barrel, and if that is the case I think we must go to the root of the supply and find out how we can best recruit more people for industry. There is, as we all know, the feeling that the better and more intelligent youths are encouraged to go to the matriculation class and then pass on to the university and take up one of the professions. We have from time to time heard from individuals who say that the less intelligent should be diverted to trade and industry. I think one of the important methods of recruiting artisans should be to break down this so-called discrimination between the intelligent and the not so intelligent. I will not believe that the less privileged of our population is less intelligent than the more privileged. So many of our children have to leave school at Std. VI because of the economic structure that faces a particular family, the need to get in as much as possible for the family as quickly as possible. I would ask the Deputy Minister as soon as possible to institute as much propaganda as possible into the schools to show that it is just as important for a boy to become an artisan as it is for him to go further in the educational field. I would like to see in the civic classes at school the importance of the artisan shown to the children. Let them realize how important it is for the country to have people to keep the machines of industry turning. The snob attitude that exists in the schools to-day has to be broken down, and the children must be taught that it is no disgrace not to be a white-collar worker or a professional man. For us in this country particularly, where the White person has to bear the brunt of industry, trade, commerce and the professions, it is just as important for our youth to be trained as artisans as it is to go to the university. Even there we have our difficulties and shortages, but if we want the wheels of industry to turn properly in this country, which is becoming more and more industrialized, we have to recruit as many of the youth as possible. When I talk about the youth, we, who have such a small percentage of White people in this country, have to make use of our females as well as the males, and in those industries where girls can be utilized to do work which is not of a strenuous nature but does require skill and training, they should be recruited. I can mention work like in the printing industry. I feel that women should be encouraged to take up printing and lithographic work. The same applies to electrical work and to the field of radio, etc. I think the time has come to encourage the girls in our schools to take up that type of work in increasing numbers. We cannot afford to allow the ranks of industry to remain vacant while we have some potential available. I hope that the Minister will take this suggestion that I have given in regard to making propaganda in the schools to the Minister of Education and let him help in the propagation of the use and the value of the artisan to our country. It is difficult enough when development is slow in the scientific field, but with the rapid development of science to-day in industry and the changes that are taking place overnight it becomes increasingly difficult for the trained artisan to keep pace with the changes that are coming about. So I say that not only has the artisan to be trained and not only has the apprentice to be kept fully informed of these changes, but his work has to be implemented by other sources and that can only be done through tuition, by reading and encouraging apprentices to read as much as possible of the literature available in connection with their work. Some of it is very technical and will not be easily followed by the apprentice, but it is the job of the Department to make this literature available to them in a form in which it can be easily absorbed so that they can put it to good use in their work. I am one of those, like the hon. the Deputy Minister, who believe that it is absolutely essential for examinations to take place to determine the proficiency of any apprentice who wishes to become an artisan. If we are going to raise the status of the artisan, certification is essential. It is something which can be attained, and the final goal should not only be the ability to earn 100 per cent of the wages offered for that particular job, but there should also be some desire to become an expert in the job that has been undertaken. That can only be done if examinations are set for these people.

There are two difficulties I have in regard to examinations. For the man who depends entirely on his ability to pass examinations through his hands alone, that may be all right, but the man who has a goal before him should not only be given a practical examination but there should be facilities for him to show that he has a sound theoretical knowledge of the subject also. Facilities should be offered so that these young boys can show that they are not only proficient practically but that theoretically they can take charge of any workshop and that they have an interest in the work. Let us give those boys a chance to proceed further along the line of advancement. I know that we have just started in this Bill to pave the way for a better future for the apprentice. I know that the success of this Bill can only be determined after it has been in operation for a number of years, but I think the interim period should be utilized to work out ways and means of improving the standards that we expect from our youth.

I want to go further on the point raised by the hon. member for Boksburg. He mentioned that in certain trades and workshops there is not sufficient machinery present to train an apprentice properly. When the inspector comes to visit the workshop he should not only be satisfied that the apprentice is doing his work, but I think that the employer of that apprentice should be examined as well; and I am not at all satisfied that the owners of workshops are doing their job properly and that the type of work that comes out of certain workshops is the best that can be produced. I think the turnover is sometimes more important than the article produced at the end of the line. I think we must go into these matters more carefully and see that the type of work produced is in accordance not only with the apprentice’s ability, or of the artisan’s ability, but is in accordance with a certain standard that we want our country to keep up. We have to start right at the bottom if we want to have a country which produces good articles and the only way we can do it is to encourage the apprentice to take as much interest in his work as possible, and he can only do that if the example is given by his superiors, especially by his foreman and his boss. It is for that reason that I suggest that the inspector should take an interest in the work produced, and not only in how the apprentice does his work.

There is one matter I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister and on which I spoke during the last Budget debate. It comes under the training of artisans and I hope Mr. Speaker will allow me to deal with this matter now. I said that in certain trades and industries people occasionally find that for one reason or another they become unfit to continue with the type of work they have been doing. They still have many years of fruitful work in front of them. Take, e.g., a mine-worker, whom I discussed last year. I said that when the mineworker reaches the second stage of phthisis he should be taken out of the mine and taught a trade. That man will have to undergo a similar type of training that the apprentice undergoes. I hope that the Minister will realize that it is becoming terribly important for us to preserve as much of the manpower we have as possible, and for that reason I ask him now to start drawing up legislation whereby a man who is already doing one type of work will be able to transfer to another type of work and be helped to do so. I do not know how it will work. I do not know whether it is possible for an adult to absorb the work required from an apprentice quicker than an apprentice does. Can a man who has been a mineworker for a number of years put his talents to use to become a motor mechanic or an electrician quicker than a boy who has just come out of school? Is it possible for him to have the six-year apprenticeship reduced to three years because of his semi-skill in a particular type of work? I think it deserves investigation to see whether we cannot utilize the material which will become available to us because of disability in one form or another of workers, so that they can be absorbed in some other type of work which is more suitable to their state of health. I also want to suggest to the Minister that all those people who to-day have some physical deformity should be trained to do as much skilled work as possible, through rehabilitation centres, and from there they can go to the factories. I hope that the Minister will investigate this problem as well and see whether he cannot take into the factories those people who have been handicapped in some way. Too many of these people go about to-day helpless and with a feeling of hopelessness in regard to their future because they cannot be absorbed into factories to do skilled work, although so many of them have the intelligence and the will to do this type of work. But very little opportunity is given to them, and on their behalf I say that the time has come to give special recognition to them so that they can be employed usefully.

Finally, I want to say that nothing should be made easier for the apprentice. He should have to do his work up to the standard required from him by law. I am not one of those who say that because there happens to be a shortage of artisans, the apprentice should be allowed to qualify as easily as possible. I sincerely hope that the tests and examinations which are set for the apprentice are such that it will take only a first-class man to pass, because we have no room for second and third-class people in our country.

Mr. Speaker, there are two things of which the Republic of South Africa can be proud. The one is the rapid industrial development that we have experienced since World War II and the other is our Apprenticeship Act, an Act that is amongst the best of its kind in the world, if not the best. But the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Minister were not satisfied with the legislation that we had on our Statute Book governing apprenticeship and they went further and appointed a committee to inquire into the shortcomings which existed in the present Act. And so we again have before us to-day what can probably be regarded as a model Bill, as one of the best, and we want to congratulate the hon. the Deputy Minister in this regard. I am pleased that we are all in agreement in this regard.

But if there is one thing that disturbs all of us it is the fact that we find that the incidence of failures amongst apprentices in the various industries is so high. This was again illustrated to us by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) when he pointed out the very large number of apprentices who fail to pass their final examinations. Let us investigate this matter more closely and see what the actual reason is for this. Why do we find that so many apprentices do not pass their final examinations? What is the cause of this?

The first thing that I want to say—and I am very pleased in this regard—is that the stigma of the “trade school”, which has always attached to a trade, is gradually falling away because of the fact that the Government is going out of its way to make better facilities available at all our technical schools. When we look at the important facilities that have been made available over the past years we are grateful for them and we hope that these facilities will assist in reducing the large number of failures. Another matter is the attitude of parents. The moment that a lad becomes an apprentice—and we must realize that he is only a boy of 16 or 17 years of age—the parent feels that his responsibility towards the child ceases because the child is now working for himself, and he leaves him to it. If only the parent will realize that he still has the same responsibility towards that child whom he allows to enroll as an apprentice as he has in respect of a child who attends high school, or in respect of a young person attending university, we will experience greater success. The parents ought to co-operate with the employer and the State and the school to obtain a better final product.

Then I feel that with the improvements for which this Bill provides we shall have a great deal of success in reducing the large number of failures. In the first place there will now be a central registration office where all apprentices will have to be registered and that office will be under the control of the Department of Labour. In other words, all apprentices will now have to be registered. Furthermore, aptitude tests will have to be taken in the future. I contend that the high failure rate that we have is due to the fact that in the past a child had to become an artisan because his father was one, whether the child was suited for it or not. The parent forced him into that calling because that was the parent’s calling. I am pleased to see that all apprentices will have to undergo aptitude tests in the future. I have noticed that a child goes in a certain direction. The parents leave him to his own devices because they know that in the long run he will become an artisan simply because he has served his time, whether he has undergone tests or not. That is why we welcome the opportunity which is now being created to undergo aptitude tests. I want to ask that the parent should take better care to ensure that the child attends the various classes at the technical school. One feels rather sorry that after two years those classes are done away with if the child has not been successful, but we know the reason for that. The children sit in the classrooms; they take no interest in the work and merely distract the other children. The first thing that I feel will reduce the number of failures is this logbook system that is now being introduced. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana says that this system does not work so well on the Railways. I myself have a business and I employ a number of apprentices. Since we are going to introduce this logbook system and since the Minister is going to appoint inspectors—we know that nobody likes an inspector, neither the employer nor the apprentice—I want to say that I see this inspector as an adviser. We must not regard him as a person who wants to prosecute the apprentice or the employer. If the employer does not do his duty he must be prosecuted, but I can say to-day that the biggest shortcoming in our apprenticeship system is in the workshop. The necessary attention is not given to the apprentice there. It is not the apprentice who is so bad, but he is being used by many people to-day as a source of cheap labour and care is not taken to ensure that he receives the training that he ought to receive. But when we test this new system I want to tell the hon. the Minister that as far as I know these inspectors of the Department of Labour they are people who like to give advice The amount of co-operation between the employer and the apprentice will depend upon these inspectors. I also want to issue the warning that it is the easiest thing in the world to fill in a logbook. That is why I want to ask, as other hon. members did, that these inspectors should be people with a thorough knowledge of the trade and thorough training. It is of no avail to appoint a person with clerical experience to see whether the logbook is kept up to date, whether he can prosecute the employer or create friction between the two groups. They have to be men who can help us to reduce this large number of failures. The fourth reason why I feel that we will be able to reduce this number of failures is to be found in what the Government has done for our technical schools since 1948. We find that in 1948 there were only 81 technical schools in the Republic of South Africa and to-day there are 143. As far as the rural apprentice is concerned, the technical school has to-day been brought far closer to him in our rural towns. The position is not, as the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) said, that a boy who lives in Springbok has to come to Cape Town or that a boy living in a rural town in the Transvaal has to go to Johannesburg. There are technical schools at Pietersburg and Bethal to-day; we find these technical schools in many places to-day. We see that since 1948 the Government has spent no less less R 12,000,000 on improvements to existing technical schools and the erection of new technical schools, and all of this has resulted in our having a better type of artisan to-day. The fifth encouragement is the improvement in the wage scales. I agree with the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) that we must not lower the educational qualifications, nor should we make the wages so attractive. That is not going to supply us with better artisans. There are other things that we should do for these boys. A very great improvement is being effected in this Bill in the wages of apprentices, but is the question of wages the true reason why we do not attract a better type of person and why there are so many failures? Mr. Speaker, look what the Government is doing for our universities. As far as universities are concerned we find that since 1948 the State has contributed R71,000,000 to the cost of these universities by way of State grants. We find that the allowance per student has been increased from R102 to R284. What is the position as far as secondary schools are concerned? We find that in 1948 the State contributed R30,000,000 to their education and in 1961 R83,000,000. Has the time not come for us to have a new dispensation as far as apprentices are concerned? Has the time not come for us to reorganize our apprenticeship system? When the mines originally found it very difficult to get mineworkers they established their own schools, the G.M.T.S., where they trained young miners. We know that the mining industry has been built up into the best organized industry in our country. The mining industry established its own schools to train young men and look at the results that they have produced! But what has happened under the apprenticeship system? Here we find a 16-year-old boy. He is left to his own devices. He works during the day with a group of men. He listens to all their talk about what they did the previous evening. He wants to follow their example and yet that evening or in the afternoon he has to go to school. I think that the time has come for us to have a new set-up as far as the training of apprentices in this country is concerned. The State ought to take over the training in co-operation with industry and ought to set up training institutions where the apprentices can live together, work together and play together. Then we will train artisans in South Africa of whom we can be proud, but while we allow a lad to work in a small workshop during the day and then leave him to his own devices in the afternoon or in the evening, undisciplined, we cannot expect these people to become top quality artisans. I want to make a plea here this afternoon. South Africa has taken the lead in many spheres. South Africa can still become the workshop of Africa and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to create a new set-up for apprentices; that training institutions should be established for them on the same basis as we have our gymnasiums and police college to-day; that we should follow the same policy followed in the mining industry in connection with the training of its apprentices. Then we will train men in the mining industry and in the various facets of our industrial life of whom we can be proud. But in the meantime we are very grateful to the hon. the Minister for this legislation. We are sure that under this new set-up we will be able to overcome the problems that we have experienced in the past. If we can receive the co-operation of the parent, the child, the State and the school I am convinced that we will be able to produce better results in the years that lie ahead.

I have the temerity to take part in this debate because, as has been emphasized by the hon. members for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) and Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk) this Bill is essentially a Bill on education. on the training of apprentices, and it has been apparent throughout the debate, from the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister and the speeches of other members who have taken part in the debate, that there is not the necessary co-operation or even liaison between the Department of Labour and the Department of Education, Arts and Science. The Department of Education, Arts and Science is responsible for technical training in South Africa, and it seems, as so often happens, that we have two Departments operating here in separate spheres. I think that is most undesirable. If I may add a third Department, I think a third Department would be the Department of Defence because these young men whom we are discussing this afternoon are men who, in addition to being apprentices in their own trade, are men who are called up for service in our forces in the interest of South Africa.

Sir. I should like to endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton). He has told us that the presentation of the Bill would have been improved if the hon. the Deputy Minister had issued a White Paper, a memorandum, or had even referred it to a Select Committee. That is my own suggestion. There is such a large measure of agreement about this Bill that I think we could have cooperated together rather better than we usually do on Select Committees. I think an opportunity was missed there because we could have produced a better Bill and fortified the hon. the Deputy Minister in the sound views which he has put forward on some of the clauses. Sir. this question of technical training in South Africa is a very old one, and one remembers the pioneer work that was done by an engineer, Professor John Orr, who established our system of technical education for these apprentices on the Witwatersrand. He was a member of the Education Commission that goes under the name of that great South African, Dr. Frans de Villiers, who was the chairman of this commission. That commission was appointed to make recommendations in regard to technical training, but they found, as we always find in discussions on education, that the scope of the subject broadened; that it was not only technical training, it became academic training; it became the whole system of training in South Africa because our systems are interwoven. Sir. that commission brought out a very interesting report. I am sorry to strike a personal note here but I was associated with the training of these apprentices on the academic side in the early days. I must confess that we failed and when I make that confession I am bound to say that, having heard what is happening to-day, having heard these examination results, I feel that we are in no better position to-day than we were then. We have not made the necessary progress. The hon. member for Salt River has given us some figures; we have had other figures from other members who have spoken and they are very disturbing because they mean that we do not seem to be getting the right type of people to train as artisans. Sir. can we get the right type? This is part of the South African dilemma. In South Africa we have a population of 15,000,000 people, and 3,000,000 Whites of that population are called upon to provide the Civil Service, the fighting forces and the skilled artisans. Throughout every walk of life we are in a privileged position. We find that we have not sufficient men to fill those posts. In a country such as Canada or Australia, many men who fail to become efficient artisans would become labourers or, to use the new term we have, operators—men who have a certain amount of the necessary mechanical intelligence but are not sufficiently skilled to become qualified artisans. This question of the principle of apprenticeship is a very old one. Doctors were apprenticed in the early days; attorneys and accountants are apprenticed to-day. The teaching profession was built up on a system of apprenticeship. The apprentices were called pupil teachers. At the age of 15 they were recruited and started teaching from 15 to 18 before they went to a training college. During that early period they were under the supervision of an educationist, usually a headmaster, and that is rather what we are doing with artisans to-day. I sometimes think it would be a very good thing if we could revert to a system of that kind, because what are we doing in the teaching profession to-day? We are emphasizing academic training at the expense of practical training—this problem that always crops up in the training of apprentices or of men for any profession. What is the correct balance between the academic training and the practical side? What is the correct balance between schooling, education, and the bench where the man works? How do we do that? Well, in the teaching profession to-day we say that after matriculating a man can go to a university and get a university degree, a B.A., B.Sc. or even an M.A., M.Sc.; he can spend another year obtaining a professional certificate—four or five years’ training—and at the end of that time he finds that he has not got the bent, the inclination, to be a schoolmaster. I do not say that his time has been wasted. He has had a valuable education, but in that system of training that we have we have not got the correct balance, the correct balance that we are striving to obtain in the hon. the Minister’s Bill. It is a glaring example to-day. We even have men who go on and take doctors’ degrees before they go to the school, before they actually go to the bench, to do the thing for which they have been trained for five, six or seven years. That is what we are faced with. Now, when we come to this question of our apprentices, what do I regard as the chief essential? It is this: that however he starts as an apprentice, whatever his academic qualifications are, whether it be Std. VI or Std. VII or matriculation, the road to the top should be clearly open to him. It should be possible for him if he becomes a miner to become a mine manager; the private should have a field-marshal’s baton in his knapsack. That is the first essential. In other words, the academic and the practical training should go together. I think we should emphasize that because it is very necessary. When we come to the question of testing, when we say that we are looking for the person’s aptitude, his suitability, I think that aptitude tests should be regarded as supplementary but not as decisive. There are many factors that one has to consider. Many men who have not the apparent aptitude at the age of 15 or 16 may develop and have that quality later in life. Therefore any preliminary test that we give him should be regarded as supplementary. I quite agree that we do require an elementary education.

I know that the hon. Deputy Minister is anxious to reply and I am not going to delay this debate. The next thing is the period of apprenticeship. The proposal which the Deputy Minister has given us is a sound one, and we are grateful for that proposal. I am very sorry that we did not know in advance what his proposals were, but the proposal that, for example, in a five-year course of training the man should have an opportunity of having a trade test and a general qualification at the end of four years is a sound one. The proposal that he should go on for another year if he does not pass at the end of five years, is one which I do not think is sound. I am prepared to accept a standard time for training and a minimum time but I am not prepared to extend it; I do not think it is advisable because you are ear-marking a man as one who did not have the necessary ability at the final stage of his apprenticeship. Make it shorter than the regulation period but do not make it longer. I do not mind how much shorter you make it, how many trade tests you give him prior to the completion of the regular course, but do not give him a longer period; do not give him what is nowadays called an inferiority complex. I think that is essential and I wish to emphasize that. Sir, my next point is this, and here I find myself in good company. I believe there is an arrangement that if a young man is called up for military service, four months of that service will be regarded as leave granted to him. Sir, I want to make this appeal—the whole of his period of military service should be granted as leave. A young man who is balloted and called up to serve his country should have that privilege, and here I find myself in good company because this is what the Commission said after having considered what could be done—

I say that it should be the full period. I am not content with four months. Why should a young man who is not called up be privileged over the man who is called up? I would suggest that when a young man who is an apprenticed fitter, for example, is called up, an effort should be made to draft him, for example, to an Air Force unit, or a transport unit, where, after he has done the drill and so on in the elementary stages, after he has done his recruit training, he can go to a shop and serve the country and the army in a capacity that will assist him in his own trade. I should like to make that suggestion. I think it could be done, but whether it can be done or not, no man who goes on military training should have to sacrifice anything; he should rather receive some benefit. I go very much further in regard to university men. I say that if a young man has been to the gymnasium or if he has served his nine months’ training as a ballotee he should have priority in admission to a university. He has served his country, and he has a right to say to his country “Now I should like you to help me rather than the man who did not go for military training”. I am very anxious that this should be done and I hope that the Deputy Minister will consider that.

I should like to pay a tribute to the Deputy Minister for the manner in which he has introduced this Bill. I am sorry he did not make it possible for us to co-operate as we should have liked to co-operate, but I do feel that together we can make a good Bill out of this. We can regard it, as he said, as experimental for a period and we can work together. I think perhaps he could get a joint committee to assist him even at this stage, but I want to give him the assurance, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has done, that we are very keen to co-operate and that we expect a good Bill and a good system of training.

It is pleasant to hear hon. members who have spoken paying a tribute to the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to this legislation. It is quite apparent that this Bill is meeting with a favourable reception in this House, but I have noticed that throughout the discussions there has appeared a fear as to the future. I have listened very intently to some of the speakers, not all, and it is quite clear from their statements and from Press reports that South Africa is scraping the bottom of the pot for apprentices. Sir, that is a very serious statement. It is quite unnecessary for South Africa to scrape the bottom of the pot for apprentices. The reason is that there appears to be an unfortunate refusal to draw upon the big reservoir of people who can fill these positions, who can become apprentices, who are there for the asking if they are only encouraged to become apprentices in the various trades. I refer to the Coloured people of South Africa. Sir, the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) has quoted certain figures; I do not intend to quote them again. I merely wish to draw certain inferences from his figures and to show how few Coloured people are attending the lectures offered at the technical colleges. Sir, the Minister was asked how many White and Coloured apprentices were enrolled at technical colleges during the years 1961 and 1962, and the reply was: Whites, in 1961, 28,839; Coloureds 1,027, a ratio of 22 to 1. The same ratio exists apparently in respect of the year 1962: 22,931 Whites and 1,086 Coloureds. Why should there be that disparity when the White population is just over 3,000,000 and the Coloured population about 1,500,000. In spite of that the ratio is 22 Whites to one Coloured. What is the reason for it? Why does this country not make use of the Coloured youth of South in the various trades? Why is it that the Coloured youth who is fit and competent and very keen to enter this field of employment, is not accepted as an apprentice? Because there is this unfortunate prejudice. Apparently people will not work with the Coloured boy. If you have an industry where five, six, eight or 10 apprentices are required, they all have to be Europeans for some reason or another. Coloured boys are not accepted? Why? I do believe, representing the Coloured people as I do in this House that the time has arrived for the Government to say, “we will make use of the Coloured youth of this country to help us to overcome this problem.” The Government should introduce legislation forcing people to accept one Coloured apprentice to every three White apprentices, and only in that way will we break down this wall of prejudice and will we be able to overcome this apparent derth in the applications for apprenticeship. Sir, the Government should set the example. There are certain Government departments where Coloured people are not accepted as apprentices. We are told that there is no colour bar in regard to this matter. Why then is it that the Coloured youth is not accepted? I do believe that the Minister must consider making it obligatory for the Coloured youth to be accepted by employers as an apprentice where more than four apprentices are employed by a particular undertaking. I know that the Deputy Minister will say that that would be interfering with the liberty of the subject. He would say, “how can I force employers to engage people of a certain colour or a certain type?” But the Minister must realize that the Coloured people are looking for avenues of employment, and this avenue should be opened up for them. If it is not done by voluntary acceptance then it should be done by legislation. I know that I am perhaps suggesting something here which is completely novel, completely unacceptable, but I am not afraid to put forward something that is new in our thinking in South Africa. It is high time we thought along those lines, and I do believe that the Government should set an example by accepting Coloured youths as apprentices in certain Government departments. Sir, the figures quoted by the hon. member for Salt River reveal a sad story as far as the Coloured people are concerned. It is a sad state of affairs that so few Coloured apprentices are attending technical colleges. I say it is unfortunate.

Sir. I merely wanted to explain to this House that the Coloured man is never thought of in this type of legislation, and that is why I have got up at this late hour to say that Coloured youths are available as apprentices but we are not making use of this wonderful reservoir of labour. I repeat and emphasize in conclusion that it is not necessary for us to scrape the bottom of the barrel because there are thousands of our people who are able to step into the breach if required. All we want is to show good faith towards the Coloured people; all we want is a sincere approach, and then we will not have the difficulties which have been explained to us this afternoon in regard to apprentices.

I think the biggest compliment this Bill could have been paid was the dissatisfaction expressed by the Opposition because it was not introduced at an earlier date. This Bill contains so many advantages that one would have liked to have had it introduced earlier. It was asked why this Bill was being introduced such a long time after the inquiry and it was pointed out that something like four years had elapsed since the inquiry. As I said in my introductory speech it took that Apprenticeship Board two years to sort out and to tabulate the mass of information they had obtained but that is not the only reason why the Bill is only introduced to-day. This Bill could already have been introduced last year and the reason why it was not introduced last year but only this year is the very fact that they fully considered the trade union movement in this respect. The Trade Union Council notified us of their objection to the extension of the period of apprenticeship by one year and because we felt that we wanted to give full recognition to the Trade Union Council as an important part of the trade union movement in regard to this matter, Minister Trollip decided last year to submit the Bill once again to the Apprenticeship Board so that this proposed extension by one year could be discussed. The Apprenticeship Board then met again in October last year, I think, to listen to the objections of the Trade Union Council in connection with this extension of one year. On that occasion they once again discussed the question thoroughly. It then appeared that the other members of the Apprenticeship Board which consisted of employers and the other trade union representatives adhered to their original attitude, namely that it was essential to extend the period by one year. It was only the two representatives of the Trade Union Council who were against it. That is the reason why it was not introduced last year but only this year.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a very fruitful discussion. I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. members for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) and Boksburg (Mr. G. L. H. van Niekerk) and Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) for their pleas and expositions. What they said proved that they had made a very thorough study of the subject and that they had first-hand knowledge of it. I also wish to express my appreciation to hon. members on the other side of the House who were so interested in this matter. I should like to mention one hon. member in particular and that is the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton). It was clear from his speech that he had made a particularly thorough study of the report of the Apprenticeship Board and everything that goes with it. I shall briefly reply to certain aspects which he and other hon. members have raised. The hon. member wanted to know, inter alia, which recommendations of the Apprenticeship Board we did not accept. There are really only three recommendations which we have not accepted. The one deals with appeals under Section 30 of the old Act. That was not accepted because it was felt that in essence the Apprenticeship Board was really an advisory board intended to advise the Minister. That was the reason why we regarded it as unnecessary. The second recommendation of the Apprenticeship Board which we did not accept was the one which dealt with the quota of apprentices. As hon. members know Section 16 (2) (p) of the existing Act provides that the Minister, after consultation with the Apprenticeship Committee, can prescribe the maximum and minimum number of apprentices in any industry. That provision has, however, never been resorted to. It was felt in the past, as it is felt to-day, that the Apprenticeship Committees are really best able to determine what the requirements in any industry are and that it was not necessary to lay down the quota in any other way. This is, in parenthesis, also a reply to the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett). I shall reply to him more specifically in a moment. We cannot lay down quotas in the Apprenticeship Act in respect of the number of apprentices whether they are White or non-White or the total number. It was decided not to do that but I shall reply to the hon. member’s representations more specifically in a moment or two.

The third recommendation which we did not accept is the one which deals with annual leave. We considered it to be unnecessary to lay that down in legislation because the existing Industrial Council agreements, Wage Determinations, etc. under the Factories Act already make provision for annual leave for most apprentices. Section 16 (2) of the present Act also provides for the Minister to prescribe conditions governing apprentices’ leave. That is really unnecessary because they are already covered by existing wage conditions. We consequently felt that it was unnecessary to insert something in the Act which was not relevant.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana raised various matters. I want to start with the technical qualifications of inspectors which he pleaded for. He said that they should not merely be academicians. The hon. member for Brakpan also raised the same matter. Those people must naturally be qualified artisans who have also had academic training. They will, however, have to be mainly qualified artisans otherwise it will be impossible for them to make enquiries and to carry out useful inspection work in regard to the teaching of a trade if they lack the necessary trade background.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana also referred to the number who failed the tests, also those in the Railway service. One of the most important reasons is, of course, the fact that theory is still a requirement. Where we are now providing that the compulsory examination will only deal with practical subjects I take it that the number of failures will decrease considerably. The hon. member then referred to the Railways and said that although they kept logbooks the number of failures was still high. I agree that that is so but we trust that the number will decrease under this new system. He also said that there were artisans on the Railways who lacked the necessary academic qualifications but who nevertheless received bonuses. That is understandable, Mr. Speaker, because bonuses are paid on the strength of their manual work. The position is that there are people who are proficient with their hands but not very good in theory and that they do indeed deserve bonuses. I shall deal with the other aspects raised by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana at another stage.

He also said that this additional year may lead to it that the trade union movement, as he puts it, “will be in an embarrassing position because there will be two types of artisans namely those who have passed a qualifying trade test and those who have not and that those who have passed an examination will be entitled to a higher rate of pay than the others”. That is one of two viewpoints. In reply to that I wish to say that it is customary to-day for employers to pay the good worker more than the wage laid down in a wage determination or a wage agreement. It is customary, if a man is a proficient worker, for him to draw a higher wage. We are not aware of it that trade unions differentiate between good and slow workers when it comes to enrolling them as trade union members.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) referred, inter alia, to the problems which platteland apprentices experience with their correspondence courses because they are not near technical colleges. That is true. There are not technical colleges everywhere in the country. The question that arises is this: Should one deny the boy on the platteland who wants to learn a trade the right to do so because there is not a technical college? Of course not. The alternative is for him to take a correspondence course. And those correspondence courses are not offered by every correspondence college; that course is offered by the Witwatersrand Technical College, a college which has distinguished itself by its experience in training apprentices. We feel that in circumstances where there are insufficient technical colleges available on the platteland this correspondence course offers the best solution.

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) pleaded very strongly for it that we should make propaganda amongst the schoolgoing children not to despise the work of an artisan and that boys who show an aptitude for a trade should be encouraged in that direction. Wherever I appear in my capacity as Deputy Minister of Education at technical schools. I always plead with parents to allow their children to develop according to their natural talents; that they should not develop an academic complex but that it is in the interests of the child and the country for the child to receive that training which is best suited to his talents. If it appears that a boy or a girl is best suited to follow a technical direction they should be encouraged in that direction. It is not only the task of us who are attached to the Ministry of Education to do that. I think everybody, particularly you as Members of Parliament, can do a great deal in this connection. You can do a great deal to remove that misconception that if a child follows a trade it is proof of his poor intellect and his inability to follow an academic direction. I think you as Members of Parliament can do a great deal when you appear in public in your own constituencies or wherever it may be to correct public opinion about technical training by pleading its cause.

The hon. member for Rosettenville pleaded further that we should give these people, the mineworkers, for instance, who are no longer able to do that work, an opportunity to go in another direction. That, of course, is a matter which is very dear to one’s heart but it is a matter which this measure can only help to remedy to a very small extent. If a mineworker, for example, is no longer able to do that work and he wants to do something else, whether he wants to become an electrician or whatever it may be, he should at least have experience in that direction. If he has the experience he can write a trade test at Olifantsfontein. In that regard this measure only assists in this respect that if a man has been trained in one direction, if he has qualified in terms of the Apprenticeship Act and he does not want to or cannot continue in that direction, he now has an opportunity of writing a test at Olifantsfontein in order to qualify in a different direction and to be recognized in it. It is not, however, the function of this measure itself to train people. I think this is a matter which should rather be raised under the Labour Vote or perhaps under the Education Vote; although Labour would be preferable.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) pleaded for the necessary liaison between the Departments of Labour and Education. In this respect I can testify as to my own experience. I have been connected With Labour and Education over the past year and that is why I can testify from my own experience that there is the closest co-operation between these two Departments particularly as far as the training of apprentices, the laying down of study conditions, etc., are concerned I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the co-operation which Labour receives from Education in regard to the training at technical colleges is of the best. The hon. member will also notice from the report that the Department of Education, Arts and Science appeared before the Apprenticeship Board and that they gave very valuable evidence. As I have said, I can only testify from my own personal experience that there is the very closest co-operation between the two Departments to the advantage of the apprentice himself.

The hon. member for Kensington also pleaded for it that we should recognize the whole nine-month period during which an apprentice does military service instead of the four months to Which I have referred. The hon. member quoted from the report of the Apprenticeship Board in support of his plea. I can only say that that was recommended before it was decided to extend the period of military service to nine months. That was recommended on the basis of the previous arrangement. The decision to extend it to four months was taken to conform with the Department of Defence. It will interest the hon. member for Kensington to know that we are indeed complying with his request that when an apprentice does military service he should do the same type of work as the trade to which he is apprenticed. That is done to the extent to which it is practically possible to do so. There is an agreement between Labour and Defence that they will try to place the apprentice in that direction in the military service in which he has been trained, so that the break of nine months in his training will not disrupt him completely.

I again return to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. He raised the question of the aptitude test as well as the question of registration with the Department of Labour. He wanted to know whether it would actually mean that every apprentice would have to register with the Department of Labour and what the position would be of those who did not register and whether their employers could indeed employ them. We prefer intending apprentices to register with the Department of Labour but it is not essential for them to do so. If he does not do so and an employer himself gets an apprentice he will be allowed to do so. But in this connection I refer the hon. member to Section 79 (b) of the report of the Apprenticeship Board which reads as follows—

In other words, it is not a requirement that he should be screened beforehand by the aptitude section of the Department. He can get there in a roundabout way, but after a year he has to be subjected to the revision which I have just read out.

In reply to the question how effective this aptitude test is I can only say that our own experience over the past years has been that it is an excellent institution. As a matter of fact it answers so well to its purpose that various Government Departments are at the moment making use of the aptitude tests of the Department of Labour. Even the Department Of Labour is making use of it with a view to placing their ballotees. The Civil Service use it: Iscor use it to determine in which direction they should train their young men. You can rest assured, Mr. Sneaker, that this aptitude test is a particularly successful undertaking and that the boys are not unnecessarily subjected to one or other sort of experiment.

As far as the question of making Std. VII the minimum requirement is concerned I can only say that it was advocated at the time of the enquiry that the minimum qualification should be raised. As you will see from the report, Sir, the M.U.J.E. even pleaded that it should be Std. VIII. Other bodies pleaded that it should be higher. Std. VII was eventually decided upon after everybody felt that it should indeed be raised. It was stated, however, that if a boy did not have Std. VII but had Std. VI he could still become apprenticed provided he passed an aptitude test. This is contained in Clause 85 where it says that exemption from the minimum educational qualification may be granted if he passes such a test. We are not, therefore, adopting an unreasonable attitude towards these boys.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana raised another matter and that was why wages were not increased when the report was published. That is a reasonable question. One would have liked to have seen an increase at an earlier stage. It would certainly have been an important magnet to draw apprentices. In this respect I can only refer the House to a decision taken by the board in this connection. I refer to paragraph 111. I shall read the relevant portion—

That is the reason why it was not introduced. The employers and the apprenticeship committees have to take the initiative in this respect. Hon. members probably saw a report which appeared in one of the newspapers recently under the heading “Apprentices’ pay almost doubled by Rand firm”. It said—

They have to take the initiative. That is the one objection which I have to the note of criticism which we have had here to-day. Hon. members opposite ask why the Government did not do so; why did the Government dawdle with this; why did it not do something else earlier. Mr. Speaker, this Bill only creates the machinery whereby action can be taken. The initiative to increase these wages in order to give effect to this recommendation still rests with the employers and these apprenticeship committees. The Department of Labour will, however, urge them to do so as far as possible but the initiative rests with them in the first place. We are only creating the machinery whereby action can be taken. The reason why the wages were not increased must, therefore, to a large extent be sought with the apprenticeship committees. We trust, however, that in future this will be thrown into a high gear and that we shall in the near future see a substantial general wage increase as far as apprentices are concerned.

I am coming to the end and I just want to deal with the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett). He expressed concern about the fact that during this time of a shortage of manpower we were displaying such unwillingness to draw from the Coloured labour resources. With reference to that he mentioned the number of trades to which Coloureds could be apprenticed. I think it is very unreasonable to adopt the attitude that there is a deliberate reluctance to indenture Coloured apprentices. I have just receive these data in connection with Coloured apprentices in the Cape Peninsula, data which are very revealing. There are 449 Coloured apprentices in the building industry in the Cape Peninsula, As opposed to that there are 193 Whites. The hon. member for Boland used the expression “a sad story” a moment ago. What does the hon. member think will the Whites have to say if it is drawn to their attention that there are 449 Coloured apprentices as against 193 Whites? Take the furniture industry for instance: There are 117 Coloured apprentices in the furniture industry in the Peninsula whereas there are only four Whites.

[Inaudible.]

You know all this and yet you come with your “sad story”. Like the hon. member I have a great deal of sympathy with the Coloureds because I grew up in this part of the world; I have a great deal of sympathy with them. I think, however, that when you plead their cause you should retain your perspective. To plead as though the Government is bent on being unreasonable towards them does not promote their cause. On the contrary I think there are more avenues of employment for Coloureds to-day than ten years ago in this very Cape Peninsula but I do not want to enlarge on that at this stage.

I want to conclude by repeating the words used by the hon. member for Brakpan when he said that we were getting a new set-up as far as the training of apprentices were concerned. This Bill, Mr. Speaker, introduces that new set-up. It introduces a new set-up in regard to the training of apprentices and the provision of the manpower to keep the wheels of this country turning. For this reason and because it will make a very important contribution to improving the whole manpower position in South Africa I now wish to move that this Bill be read a second time.