I move as an unopposed motion—

Sir, last night we had the extraordinary situation where the Government was unable to put up any member from that side of the House to reply to the attacks which had been launched from this side. [Interjections.] Sir, they can squeal as much as they like; the simple fact is that when our last speaker had finished speaking no one got up from the Government side to reply. They can claim all the misunderstanding in the world but they cannot get away from the fact that throughout this debate they have been unable to answer the charges and the attacks which have been launched against them from this side. The last straw was when the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. (Hickman) last night, in a brilliant speech, pleaded the cause of the underprivileged in South Africa. As long as you are talking about “kaffers” and “koelies” they are all ready to join in the fight, but when you are talking about the welfare of the underprivileged in South Africa, as the hon. member for Maitland was doing, when you are dealing with the day-to-day lives of people and their suffering and their misery, then you get silence from that side of the House; then they are not prepared to come in and support us in our pleas for the people who live in backyards and in shacks in poverty and in misery, the senior citizens of this country, people who have spent their lives in service to the country and who are now abandoned by the Government of that country to their suffering. We have heard speaker after speaker on the Government side talk of this Garden of Eden, this Utopia, this land flowing with milk and honey because of their good government—money in the reserves—money flooding throughout the country. Why, if that is the position, should we have to come and plead for the people in South Africa who so desperately need help and get no support from any member on that side of the House?

We have charged that the policies and the maladministration of this Government have hampered, harmed and impeded the progress of South Africa. Speaker after speaker from this side of the House has substantiated that charge. Speaker after speaker has given facts and has asked questions, the replies to which South Africa is entitled to have. But what answers do you get? I admit the ability, the very clever ability of that Government to ride on the back of Lady Luck. Give them a little bit of luck and they will ride it until it is hollow-backed, and heaven knows they have had enough luck in the last 15 years of their government. Ladies and gentlemen, you cannot govern a country on luck.

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. Sir, they have ridden Lady Luck as long as they can possibly do it. I also admit their ability to exploit the innate wealth, the innate strength of the South African economy; that too they have done and that too this side has acknowledged. Where there have been bright spots—and there are bright spots as we have stated quite openly and as we acknowledge—where there are bright spots those bright spots are not attributable to this Government, they are attributable to the people of South Africa, to the industrialist of South Africa who is prepared to gamble and to invest despite, and not because of, the policies which this Government is following. It is attributable too to those foundations which this Government inherited from us. Sir, you will find in every sphere of our national life where things are going well that that progress is based on a foundation laid before this Government came into power.

What about Sasol?

They know that we initiated that. Hon. members may laugh but have they forgotten what the United Party Government did to lay the foundation, the experiments, the research and the investigation that were carried out long before they came into power? There is an Act on the Statute Book, the Oil from Coal Act of 1946, that will prove what I say. So you can go through every single aspect of our life, Sir, and you will find that the foundation was laid by this party when it was in power. They are even trying to destroy those foundations. Even those foundations they are trying to destroy—not only the foundations of our wealth, but the foundations of our country as a whole. Our economy is asked to develop, people are asked to invest, to risk their capital in investing, when they have before them a country about to be fragmented. That aspect every speaker opposite studiously ignores. Every speaker runs away from that as though it is poison. It is poison, Sir, it is poison for South Africa, for the future of this country. When we try from this side of the House to get details of that fragmentation again you find a silence on the part of the Government. We have tried for some two, three, four years to find out from this Government—I relate this to their hope that they would develop the economy of South Africa through border industries—exactly what their plans were. We have heard from Government members praise for new border industries. They have a “new-frontier” mentality. Surely, Sir, if they want new frontiers for a smaller South Africa then we are entitled to ask where those frontiers lie. You are entitled to know where that border is on which the industrialists of this country are asked to create border industries. No member on that side of the House has been prepared to give us those frontiers, to tell us where those borders are, to tell us what South Africa will be like in a year or five or ten years.

Earlier this year, Mr. Speaker, I challenged the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development as to whether there had been any discussions whatsoever in regard to the change of borders of the Transkei—to deal with only one of the many Bantustans which are to be established. The hon. the Minister denied it. He said there had been no discussions. I asked whether there had been no reference to the annexation of specific districts. I mentioned specific districts: Mount Currie, Queenstown, Harding and Port Shepstone. The Minister said: “You know it is not true.” He got excited about it. He denied it. Well, Sir, two years ago the Transkeian Territorial Authority made certain demands to the Government. There were three resolutions dealt with by that Authority. One asked merely for extra land. One asked for the acquisition of specific land and another one asked for the annexation of various districts. Those resolutions were discussed by that Authority. I want to quote from the Hansard, the verbatim report of that discussion. One resolution, No. 19, “The Acquisition of Land for Bantu Settlement”, was withdrawn. The chairman asked the mover why he had withdrawn that resolution and this was his answer:

That was the view of the mover who withdrew the motion, namely, that the Transkei constitution met his wish and that that area would eventually belong to them. I challenge the hon. the Minister to tell this House that that allegation was denied by his Department or by any official; or that this statement made by a speaker in that Parliament has been repudiated.

We never discussed that matter.

The other two resolutions were passed. The one demanded the annexation of Mount Currie and various other districts. Item No. 20, “Annexation of certain districts …” “Districts”, Sir, not parts of them—“that the districts of Elliot, Maclear, Mount Currie, Indwe, Ugie be annexed to the Transkeian territories”. The Department of Bantu Administration, in their Minute No. R.145/12 on C.B.A.C. file 66/G, replied to that resolution. They rejected the annexation but for this reason. The reason given for the request was that the population of the Transkei was increasing. The answer given by the Department was that the population of the whole world was increasing—

Then they concluded with this—

Yes, but we never discussed it with the leaders of the Transkei.

Sir, the Minister says it was never discussed with the leaders of the Transkei! This is the verbatim report of the discussions of a body elected and appointed as the Territorial Authority of the Transkei. It passes a resolution, the Minister’s Department replies to that resolution, in writing, and then the Minister says it was never discussed with the leaders of the Transkei! But that is not the end of the story, Sir. We had previously challenged the hon. Minister on this. Then towards the end of last year, the present chief Minister of the Transkei issued an election manifesto. After claiming in that manifesto that “I am competent to deal with any situation on a national or international level” Kaiser Matanzima goes on to say—

I now skip a section dealing with the Native Trust, and I come to this particular issue under discussion—

That was issued as an election manifesto by the present chief Minister of the Transkei. I ask the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development whether he or the Government have repudiated that manifesto or whether they allowed the Bantu of the Transkei to go into an election and to make their decision based on a promise which they would find to be false? Either the Government should have repudiated that undertaking so that the people of the Transkei would have known where they stood, or if they kept silent, then by implication, it allowed the people of the Transkei to elect a chief Minister on the basis of an election promise which the Government, by implication, supported. It must be one way or the other. Sir, the Government cannot remain silent. Did it mislead the voters of the Transkei into believing that they were voting for the annexation of territories in selecting a chief Minister on the basis of his promises? If that is not so, then I ask the hon. the Minister now, I ask him in the interests of South Africa, in the interests of the White people in all those districts, to tell us whether this Government is or is not prepared to annex those territories to the Transkei. Mr. Speaker, it is the duty of this Government to those people and to all South Africa so say clearly and unequivocally that either it is, or it is not, prepared to hand those areas over to the Transkei. It cannot escape that responsibility, Sir. It owes a duty to South Africa. The Minister cannot continue to sit there silently leaving South Africa in doubt as to the boundaries that will ultimately be the boundaries of our country.

Mr. Speaker, those are only the first; what about the other territories? I asked the Minister whether we would now be permitted to see a map of the Bantu areas of Natal. He has not answered me. I ask him again: Is he prepared to allow South Africa to see the map of Natal showing the Bantu areas which are to form a Zulustan or is he going to keep that secret from the people of South Africa until they wake up when it is too late? South Africa is entitled to that information, Sir. We asked for it last year but it was refused because it would be “confusing”. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it would be very confusing, confusing to the followers of this Government, if they were to know the truth. Now I ask again, as we have asked repeatedly: Let South Africa see the map showing the exact boundaries of Bantu areas throughout Natal and indicate thereon the boundaries of the future Zulustan.

How can you expect the economy of South Africa to survive when the very country in which it must grow is a country with undefined borders, a vague and undefined area, which is to be the ultimate South Africa? How can any person wanting to invest take that risk without knowing where his markets are going to be—which are going to be internal markets and which are going to be foreign markets? I want to conclude by directing a question, not to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, but to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. Will the Minister of Economic Affairs tell us—as the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) has asked—the full story of the major border area weaving industry, the Cyril Lord factory? Because, Mr. Speaker, it is common talk that there has been some horse-trading going on behind the scenes. South Africa is entitled to know whether that is so or not. Were any undertakings given? Were any promises made which will mean a rise in the cost of living in order to attract that industry? If so, what were they? I say this, Sir, because the hon. the Minister accused and warned the shirt manufacturers of South Africa about increases in prices. Those increases are due directly and solely to the promises made, and now carried out, to impose duties to protect that factory. The Minister is trying to cast suspicion on the shirt manufacturers. I ask him to tell South Africa the full story of that industry and what it is going to cost every single person who wears a shirt in South Africa. That price which every person who wears a shirt in this country must pay, is part of the price that we must pay for the ideological nonsense which this Government is imposing upon South Africa.

I do not propose to reply to the politicking of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I might just say, Mr. Speaker, that I consider it to have been in really poor taste to have made such a fuss about the fact that this hon. member moved the adjournment last night. It was arranged between the Whips …

It was not.

… that somebody on this side would move the adjournment of the House at 10 p.m. Surely it is the greatest nonsense in the world to allege that there was no member here to move the adjournment.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start with the items of lesser importance mentioned yesterday by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) and North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst). The hon. member for Simonstown mentioned the fact that there were absolutely no sport facilities at Youngsfield. He went so far as to say that we did not even supply them with a pair of rugby posts. I want to give the House the sport facilities they have at Youngsfield. They have a swimming pool; they have a squash court; they have a tennis court; a cricket field; a cricket practice net; two soccer fields; a trampoline and three judo mats.

No jukskei field!

That is the type of interjection we get from that hon. member. What does he mean by that? Juskei is a very fine sport, and if they want it they will get it. In addition to that they have the sport facilities at the Wynberg military camp. They are transported there by means of military transport. There they have two rugby fields, a cricket field and an athletic track. Well, Sir, that is a very different picture from the one painted by the hon. member for Simonstown yesterday afternoon. The only advice I can give the hon. member is this that when he comes with grievances he should investigate them better before he raises them in this House.

The hon. member also asked me whether we had vocational guidance for the youngsters in the military camps. No, Sir, we have not. I know the British Army gave vocational guidance during the years they had conscription. Then they had the young men there for two or three years. We have them only for nine months. They get vocational guidance at school and I do not think we should interfere with that guidance during the nine months that we have them in our camps. He also asked me what study facilities we offered the youngsters. I do not know what the hon. member means by that. They have a library, a reading room and a writing room, but we do not provide them with other study facilities. I can assure the hon. member that they are tired in the evenings; and they have not much time to study anything else but military affairs.

The hon. member for North-East Rand asked how it was possible for expenditure at the General Botha to have increased so tremendously in one year and for the number of students to have decreased so much. It is because this is the transition period. We gave the people there a two-year course of training, but as the result of an agreement arrived at with the bodies concerned, we now give only a one-year course there. All the former activities are now transferred to the technical college. We now train these people for one year only, and even that training will be stopped, and then the General Botha, it is envisaged, will become the naval training college, in the same way that we have Air Force and Military colleges. During this transition period we must make use of all the lecturers there. We are, however, not wasting their time because the number of students has decreased. We use them for the training of ballotees allocated to the Navy.

That is a reasonable explanation.

Now I come to the more important matters raised by hon. members yesterday. They asked what was going on in connection with irregularities and in regard to military purchases. If irregularities exist in regard to military purchases, it is a very serious matter. As the Minister of Defence, I made it clear right from the beginning that I would show no mercy in regard to any attempted malpractices in connection with the purchase of military requirements. Millions of rands of the taxpayers’ money are spent annually in connection with military purchases, and we dare not allow any irregularities to take place. We are on our guard against that. I may just mention here that the matters referred to here were investigated by the Department of Defence. At a certain stage the Department handed the matter over to the police. We were not asleep. It is we who discovered it and handed the matter over to the police to take action, which they did. How the case is to be tried is not a matter which concerns us. The hon. member for North-East Rand knows that the Judge consented to the case being heard in that way.

You recommended it.

I accept that we recommended it. I agreed that that was the best method of holding the trial, and I will tell you why, Sir. In these days in which we live military security is of the utmost importance to our Defence Force. Last year we had an investigation by a foreign power in connection with our military security. The report we received was excellent. I can assure hon. members that when we acquire military requirements or arms which are on the secret list of other states, it is absolutely essential to apply the most stringent security measures. We know that in cases of this nature, if they are tried in public, questions may be put which may possibly violate the security which we have promised other countries to apply. We dare not run that risk. It is not to protect anyone; the proof exists that nobody was protected.

The second matter is this. In these days when so much is being said by so many people in so many countries about the supply of military requirements to South Africa, it is necessary to maintain the greatest possible secrecy in every possible sphere. The hon. member said that if the matter had been tried publicly it would have eliminated quite a lot of rumours and gossip. It may be that it would have eliminated a certain amount of rumour, Sir, but nothing ever evolved by man has been able to put a stop to rumours and suspicious thoughts. We will always have that. I want to give the House and the country the assurance that no malpractices will be allowed in connection with military purchases. On that I stake my honour. We dare not allow it. If there are further malpractices, I give hon. members the assurance that we will investigate them and act mercilessly.

Then another matter was raised here. I do not wish to say that it was done in a carping spirit, but it was mentioned here that there are rumours to the effect that we are buying inferior material for our defence. If hon. members opposite make definite accusations and tell me what those things are, I can have the matter investigated. But I know there were rumours that the automatic rifles we purchased, and which we are now manufacturing ourselves, rifles which can fire hundreds of shots a minute, cannot continue firing for a long time because then the barrel wears out or expands in certain places. That is so, but no automatic weapon with a high rate of fire has ever been made in the world which can continue to fire for a long time. And even a military fool would not use them in that way. There is a technique for the use of such weapons. It came to my ears that somebody had said that even these anti-aircraft guns we purchased, which fire 500 shells a minute, cannot continue firing for a long time, because then the barrel becomes worn out. Sir, I would certainly expect such a barrel to become worn out. No barrel in the world can take that. No barrel ever made by man will be able to last. But nobody uses them in that way. Who on earth uses an anti-aircraft gun, which has to shoot down a fast-flying aircraft, for a minute continuously? Surely that is ridiculous. It cannot be used in that way. They fire a volley of shots and everything is over in a few moments. This type of rumour is being disseminated by people who have no technical knowledge at all, either of the weapon or of the use to which it is put. If the hon. members have specific cases which they want to bring to my notice, they may do so. I want to tell hon. members that within a few weeks I will invite them to attend a firing demonstration of these anti-aircraft guns, and thereafter, when my Vote comes to be discussed, they will have the opportunity of tackling me if those guns are a failure.

Put Vause Raw up as a target.

Somebody says I must use the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) as a target. No, he will be no good; he and I are both too easy to hit.

The other matter raised here, and which is always being raised by hon. members opposite, both here and in the Other Place, is that too much secrecy exists in regard to our military affairs. The question is: What do hon. members expect of me in this time in which we live? In these days of threats made against South Africa, in these days of the announcement of boycotts, do hon. members expect me as the Minister, who at this stage bears the responsibility, to see to it that we get as much equipment as possible for the defence of South Africa within our financial means? If that is so, then I think that in these days in which we live we should show a little confidence. We should realize that the opportunity should be given to me and to my officers to get whatever is possible in the circumstances. I want to mention it again. If we can acquire weapons which are on the secret list of certain states, nobody in the world can expect me to reveal that fact, not even to a broad Committee of this House or to any other group of people.

The question is put as to what we are getting for our money. How can I as the Minister of Defence reveal to this House and the country what we are getting for our money? Surely we must use our eyes. Look at our Navy and how it is being expanded. It is true that certain of the material now being delivered was ordered years ago and that a contract was signed for it, but we are now paying top prices for it. Must I reveal to the world how many aircraft we purchased and ordered to support our Navy? Is it in the interest of the defence of South Africa to tell the world that we ordered so many maritime aircraft, that we have received so many, and that we still expect to get so many? I would like to ask the hon. member for North-East Rand if I would be correct in doing that?

It would frighten off many people.

Yes, but now I want to reply to a few other points. It has been said that if we revealed what we have to the public it would keep the morale of our people high. I frankly admit that, but the question is: What is the best thing to do, to raise the morale of our people a little (and I think it is high enough) or to give the outside world the opportunity to say: See how the military power of South Africa is expanding! We know what is being said every day. The other day a leading article appeared in one of the State-controlled newspapers in Africa in which they said: “Black Africa has missed the bus to attack South Africa. They are too late now.” If those people believe that, that is all very well, and it fits in with what the hon. member over there said. But I want to tell him this, that we have not in the least finished making our preparations yet. We still need many things, and we will continually need many things, and to summarize the position, I believe that it is to our advantage to say as little as possible. If those hon. members want to know the value we receive for our money, let them just look at our skies. Why should it now be said here and proclaimed to the world? Just the other morning somebody telephoned from Cape Town and said: “In heaven’s name what is going on in the Cape? There is something terrible going on in the sky.” That was not peculiar. We knew what was going on. Our people need only look at the sky to convince themselves as to whether they are getting value for their money in that direction. Let them look at our stores and equipment. I held an inspection only last Friday. Do hon. members expect me as Minister of Defence to say what is in those stores? Greater foolishness than that nobody in the world could expect of me. Go and look at our factories, and see how much military work they are doing. We need just walk around here in Cape Town to see one factory costing R10,000,000, which will start operations in March in connection with military requirements. There are numerous other examples in the country. I am not going to say what things these people are making. Nobody can expect me to do so. Look at the expansion of our radar system, which cost many millions. Look at the progress being made. In March I am going to open one of the biggest stations in the country. It cost a tremendous amount of money. That is where the taxpayers’ money goes, for their own defence and their own safety. Look at the expansion of our manpower. We are training our manpower in this country on an unprecedented scale. And when hon. members know that it costs us R5,000 to train one single artisan, they will realize where the money goes to. At the moment we have between 1,000 and 2,000 apprentices, and it costs us R5,000 to train each one of them. If it is remembered that it costs us R200,000 to train a jet pilot to a certain stage of efficiency, hon. members will realize what is being done with the taxpayers’ money. Just think of research in the military sphere and the success we have already achieved there. But do hon. members expect me to say what is being spent in that respect and what they are busy with? I am thinking now only of one item in regard to which we have achieved success. The outside world clamoured for South Africa not to be supplied with tear-gas. I cannot understand it. It is particularly tear-gas which prevents deaths. Why we should not be allowed to have it I do not know. But, Mr. Speaker, if that is the sort of bagatelle in regard to which they want to boycott us, it is just a joke. Our own researchers within two months developed a gas for us which is much cheaper and much more effective than any gas we could ever have imported. I mention these things to show where the money goes.

Now the very serious matter of our changed strategic position has been mentioned here. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) called it “the total change in our strategic position”, and the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) also referred to it. It is true that events in East Africa have brought about a tremendous change. But it is no use our now jumping around like a cat on a hot tin roof because this thing has happened. We have long been prepared even for such eventualities. I referred a few years ago to possible threats to our country. I was ridiculed then. Here we see it to-day. We know that the West has dug itself in thoroughly on the West Coast of Africa, but what has happened now? Now one of the most catastrophic break-throughs one could ever have expected has come on the East Coast. We know what that break-through means to us. We know that now for the first time in our history the communists have a base in the Indian Ocean along the East Coast. We are quite aware of what that means to us, and the Western countries ought to be aware of what it means to them. All the arguments we can advance will not make it more clear to the West because they ought to know what the position is. The question was asked as to whether we had devoted attention to it? How can such a question be asked? In 1960 already I gave instructions that a proper military appreciation should be made for South Africa. That military appreciation was made and I received it in 1961. It is a basic appreciation, based on possible threats to us, and it is continually being supplemented, to the extent that we are physically and economically able to do so, and to the extent that these threats change. We are busy with these matters daily. Last week I dealt with it ad nauseam. Our new appreciation, as the result of what has happened, has already been submitted to the Cabinet Committee on Defence. We are fully au fait in regard to these matters. We are prepared to combat it as far as possible. But the problems we have to face are manifold, and as far as I can see we can only face those dangers if we as South Africans stand together in the sphere of defence. I am therefore glad of the objective discussion of defence matters in this House, but I want to direct this appeal to hon. members. Do not let us come along with all kinds of petty matters just for the sake of saying something. These minor matters can be discussed under my Vote. We are now dealing with the more important matters, and I just want to tell the House and the country this afternoon that we are doing everything, possible for the defence of South Africa. And we are doing it under difficult circumstances. Hon. members say that the circumstances are difficult as the result of the policy of the Government. No, Mr. Speaker, let me now tell you this: Our circumstances are not more difficult than those of any other country with a mixed population in the world to-day. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) said that the future would prove that our policy cannot be implemented. He is wrong. The future may prove it, God forbid, but the difference is that history has already proved that the policy of the United Party has no chance of success at all. That is the difference. I want to appeal to hon. members to stand together in regard to defence.

The hon. member for Simonstown is very much in earnest about a military council, and I promised him last year to investigate two matters, firstly the issue of a White Paper in connection with our Estimates, and secondly, whether it was possible to establish a military council. I thoroughly investigated this matter of a military council, and I discussed it with those higher up. A preliminary submission was put before me. But in all honesty I must say that having studied South Africa’s present circumstances I have come to the conclusion that we cannot compare ourselves with the U.K. and America, which have such councils, because their position to-day is quite different from that of South Africa. Our military activities at this stage demand more secrecy, and for that reason I do not think we can now establish such a council.

But we must still co-operate.

Of course we must co-operate, but not for the sake of the Nationalist Government. We are not asking the hon. member for Durban (Point) to co-operate for our sake, but for the sake of our common interest. I have made the offer, and I do so again, that I will give any few hon. members nominated by the Leader of the Opposition all the information I possibly can.

There will be opportunities later on in the Session to deal with the reply which we have had just now from the hon. Minister of Defence on the points raised by this side of the House. I was interested in the one fact which he gave us and that is the cost to the country of the training of skilled artisans for the Defence Force, not only the cost in money, but also the tremendous cost in manpower, and that factor has a bearing on what I desire to discuss this afternoon, namely, our manpower position.

I am glad that the hon. Minister of Labour and the hon. Deputy Minister of Labour are present, because what I want to say in part answers some of the statements which have been made very recently in respect of this side of the House in regard to the policy as far as our labour and manpower shortage is concerned. I think the best way of illustrating what we are up against is not to use the statements that we read from time to time from commerce and industry, but to rather examine the reports submitted to the Minister by the Industrial Tribunal in respect of job reservation (Section 77 of the Industrial Conciliation Act). If we do that, we will discover that although job reservation is claimed by the Government to be of tremendous importance, according to the reports submitted to the Minister it can be readily seen that it is not the answer by any means to the problem facing South Africa as far as manpower is concerned. I think that the report which I feel we should look at more closely than we have done so far is that submitted to the Minister last year dealing with the building industry in Natal and in the Cape Province. If we test this policy of the Government against the findings in that report, then we will discover some things that I think are quite illuminating and also alarming. We find for instance that job reservation for Whites can only be applied without disruption to an industry where the workers in particular trades in the industry are in a majority in a particular area. Secondly, we find that strong trade unions can safeguard the position of its members without job reservation. Thirdly, we find that the failure to apply the principle of “the rate for the job” has led to the application by employees for job reservation.

Now we come up against some to my mind inescapable conclusions as a result of the report I have referred to, and the first is that where job reservation is applied to protect White workers, we can expect a continuous shortage of workers in that industry because of the shortage of White recruits. Secondly, where job reservation is not applied and the rate for the job is not enforced, wage agreements stagnate. Thirdly, the solution lies in strong trade unions, not in strong Government action.

Let us have a look at the Government’s record in regard to trade unions. We warned the Government when the Industrial Conciliation Act was amended that their interference in the internal workings of the trade union movement as such would lead to the type of problems which are coming to the fore now. I am speaking particularly of the splitting of the trade unions themselves. We have warned the Government that the splitting of trade unions on racial lines would endanger the White workers, and that is precisely what has happened. The fact that industrial council agreements on racial lines are now possible, is directly due to the Government’s policy of splitting the trade unions on racial lines. By that I mean, Mr. Speaker, that it is now possible for unions to negotiate with employers of the same race and come to an agreement, and the wage rates being paid being lower than those agreed to by the White unions in consultation or agreement with their White employers. The hon. Minister and the Deputy Minister know that this has happened and know that the remedy is not job reservation. I will come to that later. I think that the position that has developed in that regard is amply borne out by the report I have referred to, because we have this position that in the Cape for instance job reservation was asked for in the building industry, and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that it could not recommend job reservation for Whites to be applied in all of the trades in the Cape. The reason? That there are not enough Europeans to continue with the work in the building industry in the Cape if job reservation were applied to Whites. That is the simple fact. And in Natal the position is the same in regard to some of the trades. So that the issue we are up against is: Where do we get the recruits from in those industries where job reservation has been applied and where we are dependent upon Whites for the maintenance of the manpower in those industries? Where do we get the recruits from? The Deputy Minister of Labour has said that the manpower shortage will be overcome partly by immigration, but more particularly as a result of the amendments to the Apprenticeship Act of last year. The Deputy Minister said this—

I would agree with the hon. Minister if it were possible to get the apprentices, but I think the House will agree that the improved conditions which were approved of last year, can only be applied if we get the recruits, if we get the apprentices indentured. But if we cannot get them to become apprentices, those conditions are not going to help us at all. The Minister, I think, will agree that unless we can get our young people to become indentured, we cannot look forward to an improvement in the manpower position by way of the Apprenticeship Act. The main inducement offered by the Government in the amendments introduced into the Apprenticeship Act last year was in the field of wages. I think the hon. Minister will agree with me that what we hoped for last year in this regard has not as yet materialized, and I think it is necessary to discover why. I went to the trouble to discover what the position was in relation to this problem in the Cape as far as the building industry is concerned, and I find that if we are going to accept the new proposals (that is that wages of the apprentices should be based on a percentage of the artisan rate as laid down in the various agreements), if we are going to apply that as far as the building industry in the Cape is concerned, it is not going to take us very much further as an inducement to get more apprentices, because I find that the percentage scale of payments if applied on the basis of the current rates being paid to artisans, means that a first-year apprentice will receive an increase of R1.34 per week, all inclusive. In his fifth year he will receive 80c per week less than he is receiving at the present time. That is in the building industry in the Peninsula area where the position is desperate in so far as trained manpower is concerned, particularly in the building industry. The figures given to us by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) in respect of all the skills make it imperative that we should examine the reasons why youths are not coming into the trades as they did in years gone by. But if we turn to the metal industry and look at the record of the Government in this regard, we find that last year, when we debated these improvements as far as wages are concerned, I made the plea to the Government to do everything possible as quickly as possible to bring about the improvements in the wage structure in respect of apprentices, and I was given an assurance that everything would be done by the Government to bring about an improvement so that the intake of apprentices in 1964 would be against the background of improved wages. Well, the information that I have been given is that the National Apprenticeship Committee for the Metal Industry recommended an increase in wages on 28 August 1963, and that the recommendation was in turn recommended by the National Apprenticeship Board on 10 December 1963. I do not know what caused this delay of almost four months, and I hope the hon. Minister will be able to give us an explanation for that. Further, the new wage rates would also apply to existing contracts, and that revised sets of conditions of apprenticeship were being prepared for eight industries, including the metal industry. Sir, that reply was given recently, and at the moment they are still being prepared. The reply continued—

Why this long delay of four months?—

Now we have this position that we passed these amendments last year and they are not yet in operation, and the hon. Deputy Minister has said that the answer to our manpower problem is in getting more apprentices, and one of the main issues is: How do you get more apprentices if the wage rate offered is ever so much lower than that offered by other undertakings? Take for example the Minister of Transport.

I am getting enough.

Yes, because you pay R50 a month to an apprentice in his first year. Compare that with what is being offered by outside industries. There is no comparison and I plead with the hon. Minister to speed up this whole matter and to carry out that part of the recommendations of the Apprenticeship Committee that I have mentioned, bearing in mind that the number of apprentices to come into the trades in 1964 would depend on whether or not the wage structure would be made attractive enough. Now the information I have been given is that the improvement in the commencing rate for apprentices has not yet been gazetted, and I do not know how much longer we will have to wait for it. I say that if you consider this position and remember that the Deputy Minister has as recently as a fortnight ago said that the Government depended on these improvements in the Apprenticeship Act to improve the manpower position, here we have the position that no action has been taken for the last seven months.

Now I come to another issue and I want to ask the Minister whether any consideration has been given to the problem facing employers and to the overall problem of the shortage of manpower in the skilled trades, in respect of exemptions from military training for those who are apprenticed in these key industries. I am putting this forward because the information I have received from the Department of Defence indicates that in 1964 there are 11,875 citizens who should go into military training and who will not be required. The Defence Department will have more than enough recruits. They will have a surplus of 11,875, and it seems wasteful to me to allow apprentices in key industries, where there is an extreme shortage of manpower, to spend nine months doing military training when there are other youths surplus to the requirements of the Defence Department, who are not doing any military training whatever, and they are not employed in key industries either. So I ask the Minister of Labour, who deals with exemptions, whether any action has been taken to try to improve our manpower position in the skilled trades by utilizing the apprentices to the fullest extent so that they will qualify as soon as possible? What purpose is there in having an early trade test if we are going to lose nine months in military training, which is unnecessary because there are more than sufficient other youths who are not in these key positions and who are not being trained because the Defence Department has enough trainees? That is one issue and I think the Minister should go into this question and give some indication as to what he intends doing about it. We cannot afford this kind of waste of manpower. I say that the information given to us by the Minister of Defence indicates what a costly thing it is to train an apprentice to become a skilled worker. It is a tremendous expense, which is of course also borne by industry, who are very loath to take on an apprentice who has not yet completed his military training. But the point I make again is that it is not necessary for these youths to do their military training when there are others who are available for military training, and more particularly, if there is an emergency and these youths are required they will not be allowed to go on military service. So for what purpose are they being trained, in view of our manpower position? I say we should go into this matter very carefully indeed. I hope the Minister will give it his attention and give us a reply to the charges I have made, because it is no use saying that there must be job reservation to protect the White workers if in the long run we discover that because there are not enough White people the whole of the country will have to suffer. I make that observation because of what I have seen in this report I have referred to in connection with the inquiry by the Industrial Tribunal into the building industry, which makes it quite clear that they cannot apply job reservation unless there are sufficient workers in that particular trade to maintain the continuous training of others in the industry. So we are up against a blank wall and we hide behind job reservation as a means of safeguarding White workers, when all the time what we are in desperate need of are facilities for training the artisans of to-morrow, irrespective of whether there is job reservation or not.

Mr. Speaker, in connection with the question of the shortage of manpower, I really think there is a danger of this shortage being exaggerated. To exaggerate it would be economically to our great detriment. That may result in labour inflation. If we talk about a manpower shortage which does not exist to that extent in season and out of season, I really do not think we shall be doing our economy any service. Nobody denies that, as a result of the surprising development which has taken place in the country under this Government, there is a shortage of trained men in certain spheres, but to exaggerate that shortage may give a wrong picture and it may result in labour inflation.

As far as the manpower shortage is concerned, it is just as well that we face up to the position. We are aware of the manpower requirements. Various members of the Government have during the last recess referred to the shortages in the scientific and technical field; that is no secret. But it is also well to bear in mind what is being done to meet the manpower shortage. The other day when the matter was raised here I said I was convinced that as far as our manpower position was concerned, we could be optimistic about the future. That does not mean that we are denying that there are shortages, but when we consider what is being done at the moment and what was done during the past year or two to strengthen our manpower position to meet the increasing requirements, we have every reason to say we can be optimistic about the future in this regard.

The hon. member has once again referred to what I said about immigrants. I want to repeat what I said the other day, but more specifically so. Last year, as far as skilled labour is concerned, we benefited as follows by immigration: As far as factories and construction works are concerned we gained a total number of 5,055 really qualified men last year. As far as professional men are concerned, we gained 2,589, a total, therefore, of 7,644. That was our net gain as far as skilled labour is concerned from the stream of immigrants last year. As you know, Sir, this stream of immigrants is being maintained and according to our policy it will be maintained for a very long time to come. These people are of great value to us and they constitute one of our main sources of manpower.

But that is not the only source that we tap to stabilize our manpower position. We also see to it that we train the available manpower in such a way that they will be able to produce more than previously. I want to produce further proof in this connection. Take for example the training of our youth in technical schools. In 1958 we had 16 technical schools in the country with 5,000 pupils. Last year the number of technical schools rose to 24, and the number of pupils doubled to 10,349. All in all we had 52 schools, technical, commercial and apprenticeship schools, etc., in 1958 where 18,000 young men were trained. Last year the number increased to 76 where 30,000 were trained. That is also proof of the willingness of the Government to do everything in its power to provide our young men with that technical training so as to stabilize our manpower position.

But that is not all we are doing to convert all our available human material into a usable labour force. I want to refer to the extension that has taken place in our training facilities for adults, not only those that exist at West-lake but those that have been started at our technical colleges this year, something which is quite revolutionary in this country. We started by training young people as operators at our technical college at Pretoria where they were given a quick course of three months so that they could be placed at Iscor or any of those places where they started immediately with a good salary and could do their share as smart operators. But that is not all we are doing. In co-operation with the Departments of Labour and Education we are busy at the moment arranging things in such a way that those adults who in the past were only trained at Westlake and Olifantsfontein can in future attend evening classes at our technical colleges and schools in order to enable the man who is a lift attendant to improve himself. I think it is surprising what we are doing in this connection. It is not fair to belittle the efforts that have been made in connection with apprentices and to say they are of very little importance. The Apprenticeship Act was only passed last year. You cannot expect to derive full benefit from it within the space of a few months only, Sir. I appealed to employers last year to make use of the new machinery created under the Apprenticeship Act to pay their apprentices higher wages so as to attract more apprentices and to produce a better type of worker. So far eight of the apprenticeship committees have reacted. During the past few months the Department has approved various wage increases for apprentices in various industries, something that will help to attract young people to those industries. But there are still numbers of committees in the country which have not reacted to the appeal of the Government. That is why I am very pleased that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) has raised this matter because I hope that will assist to bring it home to the apprenticeship committees and the employers in particular, that they too should do their share to produce better apprentices. It is not only the task of the State and of the Government. We have created the machinery and it is their duty now to use it. I have no doubt about it that the improved training facilities that have been created will also provide us with better workers. Alongside this we have the concern of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana about the apprentices who have to do military service. He says that reduces our manpower. The position is that the Exemption Board treats apprentices with the greatest sympathy. In most cases if the apprentice has been indentured he is exempted so that he can complete his apprenticeship. Only in exceptional cases that is not done. Where the name of an apprentice is drawn before he has entered into an apprenticeship contract we see to it that he is placed in the Defence Force in a section which is as far as possible the same as the trade for which he has indentured himself. In other words when he has completed his nine months’ military service he has already received training in the trade for which he is going to be trained. It is totally wrong, therefore, to say that military service is affecting the manpower position to any extent.

The hon. member once again came with the story that the manpower problem is related to job reservation and he stated that job reservation was no answer to the manpower problem. I admit that job reservation cannot provide us with more men than we have at the moment but it has this effect on our manpower position that job reservation is the most important way in which we can ensure a happy and satisfied manpower force. Had we not had job reservation South Africa would not have enjoyed the industrial peace which she is enjoying to-day. The Opposition is apparently suffering from the illusion that the industrial peace we are having to-day is something that has fallen from the heavens. No, it has not fallen from the heavens. This industrial peace is the direct result of our labour relationships and our labour machinery of which job reservation is one of the main pillars. If we were to abolish job reservation to-day you would immediately endanger that industrial peace. The White workers will immediately feel that they have now been thrown to the wolves. What strikes me time and again is the fact that the United Party, in season and out of season, rant against job reservation and it was only the other day that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition described it as an evil, but the hon. member for Umhlatuzana comes from a province where the United Party is in power and in that province the Provincial Administration applies nothing but job reservation. I want to quote from an article written by one of the Natal Provincial Council members in the Natal Mercury of 28 November 1963. Mr. A. T. Allison, M.P.C., wrote the following—

He refers to a hospital at Edendale where he has pleaded with them to employ non-Whites and where they have refused to do so. He says—

That was why he could not persuade them to employ Coloureds at that hospital. He says—

He says: “If this is not job reservation, what is it?” However, that is the same province about which the City Council of Durban recently said the following in the Natal Mercury: “Coloured Labour: City Council attacked,” and then it goes on—

That is what the United Party practise in their own domain, but when they can attack South Africa on that score they do so. I say when they can attack South Africa on this score they do so because what other object can they have with these continual attacks on job reservation? Do they think they will get the support of a single White worker in this country with those attacks in job reservation? Do they think they will get the vote of a single White worker? If that were to have happened surely they would have won seats during the last election where the White workers were the deciding factor, but on the contrary they are going downhill at such a rate that they cut a pathetic figure in this House. No, the United Party are not launching these attacks on job reservation with the object of gaining the support of the people inside the country because they will not get it as is proved in the same report to which the hon. member has referred, the report of the Industrial Tribunal on the building industry in Natal and the Cape Province. They state in that report that workers from Durban appeared before that Tribunal and said that the rate for the job offered them no protection in that area whatsoever. And the workers from the Cape Province said the same. The United Party realize that this thing will not win them a single White constituency. They have one object only and that is to place South Africa in a bad light in the eyes of the world. They are the people who, in season and out of season, talk about the bad image of South Africa. Job reservation is the main culprit which places South Africa in a bad light in the world outside, according to the Opposition, and that is so. Job reservation is one of those things which leaves a nasty taste in the mouth of the outside world to the detriment of the good name of South Africa. I want to ask of the United Party whether they cannot treat this subject in such a way that it does not besmirch South Africa’s good name in the world? Can they not approach it objectively? They should not find that difficult. If they apply it in their own Durban City Council, their conscience ought to allow them to view this matter in its right perspective. The United Party is doing this not to gain votes locally but in the hope that they will harm the Nationalist Government from outside and to me that remains the serious charge against the United Party, the United Party who have acted in this debate as people who still totally lack a South African spirit.

There is nothing I would enjoy more than crossing swords with the Deputy Minister of Labour on the question of job reservation, which is one which interests me very much indeed, but I have to content myself merely by saying to the Deputy Minister that when it suits the Government they inform everybody to what little extent job reservation really has been implemented, but when it does not suit them, as this afternoon, the hon. the Minister puts forward job reservation as the foundation stone of the Government’s policy and of South Africa’s present economic prosperity. I should like to take this up with the Minister on another occasion. I have a private member’s motion on the Order Paper, and I will deal with the subject at a later stage. Unfortunately I have to devote my entire time in this debate to replying to the hon. the Minister of Justice, who I understand is unable to be here this afternoon. But I have to reply to him in regard to the discussion we had and the consequences thereof, in the no-confidence debate, on the whole question of the 90-day detention.

Mr. Speaker, you will remember that I undertook to give the Minister certain instances of abuses which I claimed had taken place under this law. Since then the hon. the Minister has made a statement to the Press to the effect that he was surprised that the information I had given him was so meagre, that the mountain had laboured and produced a mouse, although he said he would investigate the mouse, and thirdly the Minister indulged in what I can only call the adolescent device which one has come to expect from the former Minister of External Affairs, of getting one of his own backbenchers to put a question so that he could give a 64-dollar answer in this House. He had his backbencher put a number of questions asking exactly what had been supplied to him by a member of the House of Assembly and he gave the answer of course about the meagre information that had been given to him. I have no alternative, therefore, but to describe to the House some of the information I sent to the Minister and to let the House itself judge whether in fact it was a mouse I produced or a rather more dangerous animal.

Like a rat?

Perhaps the third alternative is that the Minister has just not done his homework, and I believe that is the case. Let us have a look at what the Minister said I gave him. The Minister stated that he had received only one affidavit about electric shocks and two references to evidence in the Look-smart case, but did the Minister take the trouble to look at the record of that case? If so, can he simply dismiss these allegations so nonchalantly? The two references cover nine pages of the court record. They detail the evidence that six witnesses were prepared to give under oath about electric shocks, and four who were prepared to give evidence about other forms of assault. Ten others were also prepared to give evidence under oath of assault. If the Minister had looked up the references, he would have read Tlale’s sworn evidence, and he would have seen the allegations about the treatment this man received, electric shocks and other treatment. Has the Minister instituted an inquiry into these allegations, such as arose out of the court record of this particular case, and if not, why not? What has he done about the detective-sergeant of his Special Branch whose name appears over and over again throughout the evidence in this case? What has he done about this man, and what has he done in particular about the Pretoria Central Police Station, where most of these tortures are alleged to have taken place, and where counsel appearing for the relatives of the deceased man claimed that a technique of torture had been developed? Now the Minister also referred to a scrap of paper with eight names which I gave him and in connection with which it is merely alleged that they complained that they were assaulted. No statements were attached, said the Minister, in reply to the question so cunningly put by the hon. member for Brakpan. I thought I had made it clear when I mentioned these eight statements that they had in fact been handed to one of the Minister’s own police officers at the Bellville Police Station. I wonder whether the Minister bothered to send for these statements? I must say that I did not expect to do the Minister’s work for him. After all, it is the Minister of Justice and not I who took responsibility for the implementation of this repulsive clause. I think I had better quote from some of these eight statements which the Minister referred to as “eight names on a scrap of paper”. One man, Simon Xamulatshwe, says—

Another man, in the same eight statements on a scrap of paper said—

Sir, so I could go on reading from all these statements, these so-called eight names on a scrap of paper.

Why are you relating all these things on behalf of saboteurs?

Sir, the hon. member is expressing exactly the sort of attitude that all hon. members adopt on the other side of the House; they judge people guilty long before they have been charged.

Answer my question.

When people have been properly charged before a court of law and have been given every opportunity to defend themselves, then I would say there would be some sense in the hon. member’s rather nonsensical question. None of these people had as yet been charged with any offence. They were assaulted in order to get them to make statements, and therefore I say that not only is their evidence unreliable but they are not proven saboteurs as the hon. member would like to imply.

So much for the eight names on a scrap of paper which I ask the hon. the Minister to examine. He clearly did not send for the statements, otherwise he could never have given the answer which he did in this House.

Now I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to another court record, and this time I ask him to send for the record and to peruse it. I refer to the court record in the case of the State v. Kaleb Matshaba and 18 others.

I had first better quote from the evidence of one of the State witnesses who gave evidence in that case—

The cross-examination then went on—

His answer was “Yes”. By the way that case was heard in the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court on 29 November last. Sir, I am prepared to quote, if the Minister requires it—since he said that I had produced this mouse—from 20 further statements which I have. I am assuming that if I quote from these statements the hon. the Minister will give protection to these people. Can I assume that?

You can assume that everybody gets protection at all times in South Africa.

I would like something a little more specific. Will the hon. the Minister give his personal assurance that he will give protection to the people whose statements I would like to read out to this House and which, furthermore, I would like to hand to the hon. the Minister across the floor of this House? Because I want to point out that these people are either already serving a term of imprisonment and therefore are in the charge of the very people who assaulted them, or if they have been freed, run the danger of rearrest under the 90-day clause.

Do you accept that they were assaulted even though the courts did not find that?

I am giving the hon. the Minister the information that I have. It is not for me to assume anything; it is for the Minister to have proper inquiries instituted.

But you are assuming that they were assaulted and you said so in fact.

Sir, I tell the hon. the Minister that I am reading out statements, many of which were made by people who were prepared to give sworn evidence in court. I ask the hon. the Minister, if I quote from some of these statements, whether he will institute a proper inquiry? Let me enlighten him as to what I mean by that. I do not mean departmental inquiries. They do not have any value because again the same people who are in charge of these people conduct the inquiries and they are unlikely to give evidence against themselves. I ask for a proper judicial inquiry.

Proper inquiries are made at all times and will be made at all times.

Of course, the hon. the Minister and I disagree about the meaning of a proper inquiry.

I suppose you want Jan Steytler to investigate?

No, I want a judicial inquiry and Dr. Steytler is not a Judge. I want a judicial inquiry into this, a proper, independent inquiry. What is the hon. the Minister afraid of? After all, he told us that there had been 49 complaints made. Originally he said that there was not a shred of evidence. After wards he told me in reply to a question that 49 complaints had been made, that 32 had been investigated so far and that nothing had been found, as far as he was concerned, to give any foundation to these charges. I want a proper independent judicial inquiry because I cannot attach any importance to a departmental inquiry. Again I ask: What is the hon. the Minister afraid of? Why will he not hold a judicial inquiry into this whole matter?

Must I hold a judicial inquiry because you say so?

No, not because I say so but because everybody, every thinking person is suspicious of the implementation of this 90-day clause. Every person who values the Rule of Law is suspicious because allegations have been made in the overseas Press, not by me but by others, as the result of evidence given in court, and it is up to the Minister to disprove these statements. That is why I ask for an independent judicial inquiry. I want to point out to the Minister that if I give him these 20 statements he must not assume for a moment that these are the only statements available.

They are the only ones you have got from the Black Sash so far; you will probably get more.

The hon. the Minister is far off the beat again. This does not come from the Black Sash. I have statements here from all sorts of people, including attorneys who have been defending these cases, people whom the Minister will, of course, immediately describe as neo-communists and leftists. It does not occur to the hon. the Minister, with his idea of justice, that people are entitled to be defended against accusations made against them. If a lawyer takes a case like this he is not necessarily either a communist or a leftist but just somebody who happens to be interested in the maintenance of the Rule of Law. Sir, what the hon. the Minister must realize is that for every statement made, there are, of course, dozens of detainees who have made no statement at all, and there are lots who have made statements saying that they were not assaulted, and I have some of those as well. I am delighted, for instance, to be able to say that not a single White detainee was in fact tortured. They are simply left, of course, to the refined torture of solitary confinement. I am able to say also—and here I wish to correct an erroneous report which was made on my last speech; I never said it but it was erroneously reported—that no non-White female detainee had suffered any physical torture as far as I knew. As far as I can see from the statements that I have here nobody was tortured by the police in Johannesburg, either at the Fort or at any of the police stations falling under the Johannesburg police authorities, but I cannot say this about Pretoria Central, about Marabastad Mamelobie, about Middelburg, about Witbank, about Bellville and about many other police stations. What I think ought to be done is that every single one of the 566 non-White male persons who were detained under this 90-day clause should be called before an independent, judicial inquiry and asked about their experiences, and only then, with that protection which they will enjoy, will the hon. the Minister be in a position to say that there is not a shred of truth in the allegations which have been made about the implementation of this clause. Sir, I want to tell the Minister again that I for one attach very little importance—and I am pretty certain that I speak for everybody who believes in the Rule of Law—to the type of investigation which he says has already been instituted. They are carried out in secrecy in the prisons and by the very people against whom the accusations have been made. There is nothing judicial or independent about such an investigation and it is difficult to see how anyone can call these inquiries impartial. I want to say further that all the information I have adds up to the conclusion, the quite ineluctable conclusion, that the 90-day law is being used far beyond the purposes for which the Minister claimed it would be used—as if that was not bad enough in all conscience. Sir, the police themselves have made these admissions. They have made these admissions in the course of evidence given at the various trials. One man said that the 90-day law was a mighty weapon in the hands of the police. Another policeman, a detective-sergeant, said that he did not use the 90-day clause for questioning people; he used it to keep them in custody to prevent interference from outside. Sir, how does this tie up with the assurance which the Minister gave this House that the object of the insertion of this section in the Act “was not to isolate persons or to punish them; it was not to prevent them from conspiring with other people; it was to obtain information from them; that was the official and only reason”? How does this official and only reason tie up with the statement of a witness in one of these trials that he had been detained for 65 days before the police even took a statement from him, and then for a further 55 days before they returned to complete the statement? How does this official and only reason tie up with the overwhelming evidence of assaults and beatings? How does it tie up with the making of false statements under duress, with the threat of indefinite detention, with the re-arrest under the 90-day clause of people who have already been acquitted in the courts? The hon. the Minister is misinformed. He told me in reply to a question the other day that only one such person had been re-arrested. I have the names of 13 such people; I will give them to the Minister and he can check and see whether his information is correct or whether mine is correct. And this only applies to people who were immediately re-arrested after having been acquitted of the charges laid against them. If the intention was not to isolate and punish people why are detainees kept in solitary confinement? What has the security of the State got to do with the exercise and the diet and the reading material of detainees—reading material which the non-Whites find so difficult to get? What has the Minister’s assertion that this was not meant as a punishment got to do with the intolerable conditions under which most non-White detainees have been kept? If the intention was not to punish or to victimize people, can the hon. the Minister explain the position of detainees who are endorsed out of the urban area when they are released after their detention under the 90-day clause and who find themselves unable to get permission to take jobs again, even though these people have apparently acquitted themselves and have done everything which the Minister wanted of them? Will he explain to us whether or not it is in the spirit of this law of his that the non-White trade union movement is clearly being smashed; that dozens of officials of non-White trade unions have been taken into custody and detained under this Act? Will he tell us whether there is any connection between this Act and the fact that Mrs. Tlale, the wife of the chief witness in the Looksmart case, has not been allowed to renew her licence to trade in Alexandra Township? Finally I want to ask the Minister what inference one can draw from his dark statement about communist and leftist advocates and attorneys who are interested in the defence of these people, bearing in mind the fact that we know that the hon. the Minister intends to introduce legislation to restrict admission to the Bar and the Side-Bar? Can he tell us if there is any connection between this law and the warning recently issued to a woman, who is by no stretch of the imagination a communist, who has been warned to desist from activities promoting Communism when all this woman has been doing has been to assist 90-day detainees to obtain defence? Can the hon. the Minister tell us that the law is being implemented within the bounds within which he assured this House it would be implemented, although I have no good word to say for this law, however narrowly it is in fact implemented? Sir, I say that there is nothing in the world that hon. members opposite would like more than for all trials to be held in secret, for no defence to be provided and for no publicity to be shed on any of these things. I hope I am wrong and that as far as the Minister is concerned that is not his desire. If I am wrong and if the Minister does not share that desire for secret trials in dark places, for trials where no defence is given, for trials on which the light of publicity never shines, then I can assure the hon. the Minister, if he is interested in seeing justice done, if he is interested in doing more than just saving face, I say to him that in view of all the publicity abroad about the allegations which have already been made, he would do South Africa a service by instituting a completely independent inquiry into the 90-day clause and its implementation. Then and only then, if the allegations are dismissed, the hon. the Minister can face his accusers with the weight of evidence on his own side, and if they are not dismissed then at least the hon. the Minister will have shown that he and his Government take their responsibilities quite seriously and that they are not prepared to give tacit approval to what I can only call Gestapo methods of extracting information.

I did not want to waste my valuable time on replying to the hon. member who has just sat down but it has become almost impossible not to respond to her accusations. Mr. Speaker, one asks yourself what attitude the hon. member has adopted during the whole period when the two General Law Amendment Bills were before this House? How can you reconcile the attitude she adopted then with the sort of justice she pleads for here or can you only attribute the attitude she adopted then with a desire to step into the breach for people who break the laws of this country? I remember, when the first Bill was under discussion, that that hon. member moved six amendments. Of course she did not have a seconder in her own party but she got one in the ranks of the United Party, and on six occasions on one day she led the United Party with Leader and all across the floor of this House to vote for her amendments. When the second General Law Amendment Bill was discussed she led the United Party across the floor of this House on five occasions to vote for her amendments and every one of those amendments was aimed at paralysing that General Law amendment legislation. What was her object? Sir, when you state a case you have an object, and I am convinced in my soul—I am averse to fighting with ladies but they can be so obdurate at times that you have to do something about it—that the hon. member has adopted that attitude because she is sympathetically inclined towards Communism or towards law-breakers. If she says she is not sympathetically inclined towards Communism then she is sympathetically inclined towards law-breakers because she has consistently refused to give those laws a chance to rope in those law-breakers. The hon. member to-day said something very revealing. She asks the Minister for an inquiry but it must not be a departmental inquiry. She is not satisfied with an inquiry by magistrates or persons who have to maintain the law. She wants an inquiry that will absolve the type of person she protects here. She does not want a fair inquiry; she wants them to be absolved. That is the attitude she has adopted from the very outset up to to-day. She does not trust the Minister; she does not accept his word. She does not trust the magistrates of the country; she does not trust the Judges of the country. Whom does she trust?

Luthuli.

I do not trust her either.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to say a few words to the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan). He has made very serious statements in this House. I cannot devote too much time to him, however, because I have a long list of subjects I want to deal with and I really want to talk about agriculture to-day. That hon. member shouted very loudly simply because he wanted the Press representatives to hear what he had to say but he ignored what was subsequently said to prove that his statements were unjustified, unfounded and insulting.

I now come to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) who has now emerged as one of the main speakers on the United Party side for the simple reason that he has acquired the knack of not stating the true position; of saying things which are absolutely wrong. He came here with the greatest untruth you could think of, Sir, by stating that the Minister of Agriculture was supposed to have said that he did not want the farmers to get a reasonable price for their products. Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard greater nonsense that that? Have you ever heard greater rubbish than that? I apologize for the gross expression but what the hon. member has said is untrue, and anything that is untrue is rubbish. We get the untruth across the floor of this House that the Minister is supposed to have made such a statement, that Minister who is sacrificing his whole life and all his energies in the interests of the agricultural industry. Mr. Speaker, ask those of us who know, those of us who live in the drought-stricken areas. Do not ask those people who farm along the coast where there are no droughts. We know what the hon. the Minister is sacrificing in the interests of those farmers who get into difficulties. The hon. member made that allegation because there is nothing else he can lay at the door of the Government. We had the same thing in the motion of no-confidence debate. When they could not find anything on which to attack the Government, they selected an Afrikaner organization as something to get their teeth into. Mr. Speaker, I am a person who shows gratitude, and I belong to a nation who shows gratitude and I also belong to a party which shows gratitude, but I am grateful for the attitude the United Party has adopted during this Session and also during previous sessions, because what we have not been able to prove to the world, what we have found impossible to prove, they have now proved by the petty way in which they have acted. In other words, they have proved to the electorate that they have nothing to offer this House or this country. All they can do is to sow suspicion and to be petty. That old truism has again become very clear to me to-day, Sir, namely, that irrefutable facts are the weapon of the wise man, but rebuking, the sowing of suspicion, belittling, untruths and chattering are the weapon of the man who has no facts and they are also the weapon of the man without wisdom. That was what we had from the hon. member who made that attack on an honourable Afrikaner organization. I want to say this to the credit of the English-speaking members on that side: When that attack was made on that organization of the Afrikaners the English-speaking members on that side did not participate in it to the extent to which the Afrikaans-speaking members on that side did—the doctors and those people. The English-speaking section deserved to be praised for their behaviour. They expressed their agreement but these attacks on that group of Afrikaners against whom they could not prove anything came from the Afrikaans-speaking members on that side. It was a case of sour grapes, Sir. This sort of attack you only get from a certain group of people, as a matter of fact, it also came from people who were refused membership of that organization. It is a case of sour grapes.

Look how blunt your teeth are.

That hon. member should rather go and catch that rhinoceros which the Minister, according to him, is supposed to have wounded from a helicopter.

I now come to the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller), the former mayor of Johannesburg. The hon. member said the most terrible things imaginable, Sir. He spoke the biggest nonsense and he told the House that people made money and that they ploughed it back into the country “in spite of the Government”. Sir, are businessmen so stupid that they will plough back their profits in a country in which they have no confidence? Is that what the hon. member wants to tell the world? The voters in his constituency will now realize that he really cannot charge the Government with anything, and that was why we had that nonsense from him. It must be stupid people who, while they have no confidence in the Government, nevertheless plough back their money in the country. I do not believe that businessmen will be as stupid as that.

I am told that my first 10 minutes have expired; I want to return to agriculture. I would have liked to fight a little longer with that side but I cannot stretch out my remaining 10 minutes longer than they are. I want to talk about the greatest enemy of agriculture in this country.

The Government.

Had I been as simple as those members I would not have made such an interjection. As I have said, I want to talk about the greatest enemy of agriculture in this country, and that enemy is the drought.

The Broderbund.

No, you are. I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker, I should address the Chair but I was provoked.

The hon. member must not allow himself to be provoked.

That enemy is to-day destroying hundreds of irreplaceable farmers; farmers who cannot be replaced by other farmers. The biggest enemy of agriculture in the world is busy destroying those people. Those people who know something about the lowveld will agree with me that after four years of drought hundreds of farmers are destroyed by that enemy. They are consumed by the drought. I say we cannot replace those people and I should like to describe that type of person so that hon. members can understand him, because I understand him. He is the type of person who, when he walks behind the plough, picks up a handful of soil every now and then, holds it to his nose and inhales its fragrance; it is as if he wants to inhale the fertility of that soil. He is the type of person who, after a shower of rain, walks in his bare feet through his lands, between the plants, so that his feet sink into the loose soil. It is as if he wants to draw strength from the soil, the soil that gives strength to the plants. I do believe that he draws spiritual strength from it because he makes his living from the life that surrounds him, from the natural strength that flows from that natural life. You cannot replace that type of person, Sir. You can replace any artisan or any worker but you cannot replace that type of person in agriculture. It is a fact to-day that many of those people are destroyed by the drought, that enemy which I regard as the greatest enemy of all the enemies against whom we prepare our self in the military field. That enemy is busy conquering South Africa. The South African nation has not yet reached that stage. We must protect ourselves against that enemy to the same extent to which we protect ourselves against attacks from outside, because that is an enemy that wants to destroy our country. We have a large amount of brain power that can be used for that purpose. I do not think there is a group of people who is more grateful to the Government and the Ministers who have done everything in their power. You can ask me, Mr. Speaker, because I know; that was why I told you a few moments ago everything the Minister had done. I am a member of the committee that is trying to do something for those people. Never have they knocked at the door of this Minister and this Government without getting a sympathetic hearing. I heard it when the hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) said that the Minister was supposed to have said that the small farmer must leave the land. I have never before heard greater nonsense. Only a person with a hard heart can say such a thing and neither of those two Ministers has a hard heart. I know; I know what they have done.

Will it be wrong on my part if I ask that brain power that we have in this country, brain power that is concentrated in various organizations, organizations that were established with the object of trying to solve the problems of the country, to pool their resources to try to find some way in which to fight this great enemy of the farmer in South Africa? My reason is this: If we want to cope with the development that is taking place in this country we shall have to expand our agricultural industry. We are in urgent need of that type of farmer whom I have just described to you, Sir. We cannot do without him. We cannot import him. We can import other types, but not his type. That is why I am asking that they should be protected. My request is that that brain power, whether it exists individually or whether it is concentrated in a body, should come together and devise a plan, firstly, to fight that enemy, and secondly, to influence and to convince the country and the people, even those people who want to kill the Minister because of the good service he is rendering, that they must see to it that the Minister of Finance has enough money, even if a special taxation has to be imposed, to provide the Minister of Agriculture and Water Affairs with money, so that he will have the only weapon in the world, namely water, in his hands to fight the drought enemy; so that he will be able to make that weapon so strong in this country that he will be able to fight that enemy and do away with all fears for the future. I do not think I am asking too much when I ask those people who have had the God-given privilege of studying and developing a sound brain, those people who have formed large organizations, to utilize their brain power in order to assist in seeing that the funds are available so that it will not be necessary for the Minister of Water Affairs to say that he lacks the funds. I make this appeal to the brain power of South Africa, to the whole House and to the group opposite who can sometimes be so obdurate.

I am aware that it is part of the tradition of this House that a new member, speaking for the first time, is expected to deal with some matter that is not controversial. The same tradition applies, of course, in the Provincial Council from which I have just come. I am aware also, Sir, that the Rules of the House prevent me from reflecting upon any of the statutes already passed by Parliament. With those restrictions in mind it may still be possible to indulge in a piece of special pleading on one issue or another, although it becomes increasingly difficult in the field of South African public affairs to find any subject which is not controversial in one degree or another, if not to all then at least to some.

Sir, since one might be said to be in a stage of transition from provincial government to that of national government, I should like this afternoon to speak on the rights and powers of local government. Local government in this country has been in a state of what might be described as mild decline for some 15 to 20 years. The clearest symptom of this decline is the loss of powers and responsibilities by local authorities and the provincial councils. No one, I think, would contest the statement that the rights and powers of the provincial councils have been considerably curtailed in recent years. There are some, no doubt, Sir, who consider that to be a deliberate and even a desirable object of policy. It would be pleasant, of course, if one could off-set these losses by announcing gains in other directions but I can see none at all. Looking at the picture as a whole, Sir, the losses outweigh all else. But that is not all, for the position of local authorities, to-day, even in regard to the matters for which they remain responsible, is by no means what it was some 20 years ago.

The chief danger to local government here and elsewhere is that it will become, if indeed it has not already become, a subordinate agent, a rubber stamp merely of the central government, instead of a free and responsible partner within the sphere of its own activities. I think it is correct to say that our local authorities in South Africa to-day are controlled to a unprecedented extent by central government departments.

Hon. members may say that he who pays the piper will always call the tune. But the trend is unfortunate none the less, and for a number of reasons. I propose to deal briefly with the matter to-day on the basis of general principles and to leave it at that. Mr. Speaker, the decline in local government in South Africa, which we have all witnessed, has taken place during a period when there has been a vast expansion both in the economic field and in the functions of the State itself. No doubt most of us are agreed that the provincial councils, in conjunction with Parliament, should formulate the broad principles of policy which local authorities have to follow in providing services of general importance. The question at issue to-day, however, seems to me to be to what extent the provincial councils are consulted and to what extent they are given their orders. I am sure that hon. members on both sides of the House will agree with me that it is quite essential in this country, as in any other, to preserve and strengthen the qualities of local initiative, local civic pride and a public spirit, because it is from these things that the ultimate political activities and interests of the nation spring. I would say that we weaken them at our peril. It is not simply a question of being parochial or provincial in our thinking in these matters. I think it goes a great deal deeper than that.

Local government is, after all, the best instrument with which to distribute power in any country on democratic and sensible lines. It offers a fairly certain method of avoiding the dangers of what is known as a managerial society. In South Africa we have a very adequate machinery for this purpose, with the provinces exercising control on a regional basis and they, in turn, delegating authority to the municipal and divisional councils, village management boards, hospital boards, school boards and so on. There are those who state openly and unashamedly that they would like to abolish the provincial councils—that they consider them to be something of a constitutional anachronism at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that our thinking should tend in this direction at a time when a country like the United Kingdom, with a highly developed system of local government, has just appointed a Local Government Commission which is considering the breakdown of the country into regional councils (councils which would be somewhat similar to our provincial councils) for the more efficient control of local authorities—and the better to cope with local problems. I want to quote briefly from an article which appeared in the Spectator of August of last year written by Mr. W. A. Robson, perhaps the greatest authority on local government in the United Kingdom. It is headed regional councils. He says—

In other words, Sir, the tendency is towards greater decentralization and not the reverse. There is a marked and, I think, an unfortunate tendency in the higher echelons of government in South Africa to-day—and here I am not referring to any particular political party, it might be said to apply to them all—to regard with some degree of patronage, to dismiss with a wave of the hand even, those who are occupied with provincial or local affairs. I find that trend unfortunate, wherever it manifests itself. We have heard a good deal recently of the extent to which the mass of the people are losing touch with Parliament and those who have the privilege of representing them here. The most essential link in this chain is the direct involvement of the largest possible number of ordinary public-spirited South African citizens in local government, from which as I have said the national interests and policies inevitably spring. I know that there are those who will argue that centralized control makes for greater efficiency. It is a very old argument indeed. But it is the basis of my case to-day that efficiency was never intended to be the sole object of local government. It has always been considered important that ordinary people should be associated with the provision of local schools, roads, hospitals, municipalities and their attendant services and amenities. It has always been considered important, we accept that, that they should plan them, vote the money for them, pass the contracts, supervise their construction, and feel that they were really their own schemes, and not merely those of a distant benevolent Government.

Mr. Speaker, this process sometimes takes longer and is, to that extent, perhaps less efficient than if the central government decided what everybody should do and what everybody should have. But it is essential to the democratic process and its results have invariably been to produce good citizens as well as good roads.

Sir, not all problems are central problems. I think we sometimes forget that and we are making a very grave mistake if we think that they are. The systematic removal of powers from the provincial councils in recent years faces South Africa with a vital decision. Sooner or later we have got to make up our minds as to what we want: more and more centralization, leading to a high degree of impersonal, bureaucratic control, or genuine representative government at every level. If it is the latter, as, indeed, I hope it is, we must accept that it may involve compromise and difficulties, local inefficiencies and local inequalities, in some cases. I submit that that is one of the prices that has to be paid for the education of the electorate in the art of becoming active and responsible citizens. I think it is a price worth paying provided an intelligent balance is struck.

There is one last point I should like to make and it is this: Constitutionally in South Africa the Provincial Councils derive their powers from the central government which retains the right to reduce, extend or abolish those powers. In practice the ideal is accomplished by a partnership between the Government and the Provincial Councils—or should be. It is important never to lose sight of this partnership—I repeat the word “partnership”, Sir; I think we should reaffirm it as a vital principle, i.e. that the smaller regional body is not subordinate to the larger; it merely does a different job. In other words, there are two levels of authority responsible for larger or smaller areas and therefore undertaking larger or smaller tasks.

Constitutionally the Provincial Councils in this country are independent, parallel authorities. Their ordinances have the force of law as much as any Statute passed by this Parliament. They therefore govern in the legal sense. Our own experience should have taught us that Councils which are merely subordinate or advisory tend to lose interest—their members become apathetic and their functions meaningless. I regret to say that there has been a general tendency for the central government to act towards the provincial legislatures as though they were entirely subordinate and not parallel authorities functioning at different levels. We in the Cape, for instance, have on several occasions been placed in the individious position whereby large sections of existing provincial legislation have been rendered null and void as the result of legislation passed by Parliament over the heads of the Provincial Councils. For a long time now the trend has been also towards an increasing delegation of power, through Parliament, to the various Ministers to enable them to override local authorities and the Provincial Councils.

Mr. Speaker, in three out of the four provinces in South Africa the present Government has a majority. Can it not be left to the Provincial Councils to see that Government policy is implemented? No one, surely, would suggest that Natal has been as intractable as all that! I say further, Sir, that this unfortunate approach to provincial government and to local government is having a deadening effect and that people are losing interest. The repercussions are already becoming evident in the sphere of national politics, particularly amongst voters in the urban areas where the interference has been greatest You cannot expect public interest in the country’s affairs to be satisfactorily maintained merely by asking people to cast their vote in a general election once in every five years. That is not enough.

I will concede, Sir, that a genuine need for co-ordination in one field or another may from time to time exist, or that in the national interest the Government may feel obliged, in certain circumstances, to exert its authority to compel a local authority or a Provincial Council to fulfil its obligations, failing this to take the necessary powers to perform the work itself. If such legislation was confined to broad directives of national policy in the one instance, and to temporary measures of direct control in the other, it might be more acceptable. But the reluctance of Government Departments to lessen their grip is becoming increasingly apparent and local government is deteriorating as a result.

Our experience in the Provincial Councils is that this has led, in the last few years, to the formulation of a mass of supervisory and concurrent powers relating to such things as road and transport regulations, the administration of urban Bantu affairs, employment conditions, the designation and control of separate local authorities and group areas, population registration, slum clearance, the allocation of separate amenities, types of schools and the division of education, and so on. The list is endless. Many of the additional powers now exercised by the central government duplicate powers already conferred upon the Provincial Councils and set down in Ordinances passed by them. The disease is infectious, Sir, for whilst the Provincial Councils have been steadily losing their powers to the central government, they themselves have been busy depriving smaller bodies under their jurisdiction in a similar way.

In conclusion I regret to say—it is merely an observation of fact—that during the past decade the prevailing tendency has been to act on matters of vital importance to the provinces, not as though the Administrator and his senior officials did not exist, but as though the Provincial Councils themselves, as legislative bodies, do not exist. In other words, the South African people themselves are being disregarded. They have often been treated with a remarkable disdain. The tacit dismissal of the Roussouw Commission’s report on Separate Local Authorities in the Cape Province is a case in point. I am convinced, Sir, that in deciding how responsibility is to be shared between the central government and the Provincial Councils, it is a mistake to try to be too precise, or to cast the division of responsibility into a permanent mould. Local government, as hon. members know, like any other form of government, is not a static thing, and its relationship to the centre is constantly having to be adjusted to meet growing and changing situations. We accept that.

As a general rule, Mr. Speaker, it may be said that it is right that Government Departments should give guidance on national policy, should keep a watching brief to ensure that standards are maintained and should scrutinize expenditure where the national taxpayer’s money is involved. But it is bad, Sir, when guidance on policy degenerates into interference in details which provincial and local authorities can best settle for themselves. And it is bad when public-spirited local citizens are deprived of the right to make executive decisions on matters of immediate concern to themselves. It is therefore my contention today, Sir, that this unfortunate tendency of interference by the central government over a long period in the affairs of local authorities and of the Provincial Councils has weakened the whole fabric of democratic government in South Africa to-day. I plead that the Government give this matter the serious consideration it deserves.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity to extend my hearty congratulations to the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) on her maiden speech in this House. She chose a subject on which she can speak with authority. I admit that I do not agree with everything she has said. I think I have the right to say that because I was a member of the Provincial Council myself for a period of ten years. I also know something about provincial matters, Sir. She stated her case very well and in a calm manner and I trust she will continue to speak in that reasonable and calm manner in future. My sincere congratulations on your maiden speech.

The hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. G. de K. Maree) made a speech here last night which greatly impressed me. He expatiated on the potentials of that area. He pointed out the tremendous development that could still take place there. He then raised one matter which I felt should receive very serious attention. He referred, inter alia, to the building of roads in that area. Mr. Speaker, there is another part of the Republic also situated in the Cape Province, where the development is only in its initial stages and where it is impossible at this juncture to gauge what riches can be derived from it. I am, of course, referring to the Northern Cape Province. I want to say at the outset that hon. members need not be afraid that I will enlarge on the potentials of the Northern Cape Province, because everybody knows that the future of the Cape Province lies in that area. There cannot be much doubt about that. The possibilities are there. Very little is lacking. The only thing that is lacking is to tackle the work and to start the development. Under the policy of the Government to harness the waters of the Orange River tremendous development will take place in the Republic. That being the case we should, as it were, plan ahead so that when the proposed area of 360,000 morgen of land come under water and we reap the full benefits of it, we shall be in a position to meet that increased production of the country. Before the First World War, during the period of great development in Germany, she concentrated on two aspects in particular. In the first instance she ensured that her railways could transport the products of the country. In the second instance Germany concentrated on the construction of roads. That was why during the First World War Germany was in a position to offer the strenuous resistance she did offer.

What is the position in our country, Sir? As I say we too must plan for the future. Before Union we had the Republic, we had Natal and we had the Cape Colony as it was called in those days. Every one had its own system. The old Cape Parliament saw fit to introduce a system in 1855, known as the Divisional Council system, under which roads were constructed and maintained. That system was introduced in the year 1855. That means that that system has been in operation for a period of 109 years. You must take it, Sir, that if a system has stood the test of time for a period of 109 years it certainly cannot be a bad system, that it must have been a very good system otherwise it would have been done away with. The old Cape Parliament saw fit to allocate certain sources of revenue to the divisional councils, because the divisional councils were interested bodies. In order to fulfil their function the old Cape Parliament empowered the divisional councils to levy a tax on fixed property, to introduce a dog tax and a wheel tax. When Union was established the Union Government thought it fit to retain the divisional council system as a well-tried system that had served well under the jurisdiction of the Provincial Councils which were then created as new bodies. But before Union the traffic on our roads was of such a nature that it was not necessary to spend large sums of money on the construction and the maintenance of those roads, It may interest hon. members to know that when the first divisional council was chosen in Steynsburg my father was a member of that council. When I subsequently became a member of the divisional council I looked up the old minutes and I found that he had reported to the divisional council that he had given a stretch of 12 miles under contract to be constructed and maintained at the colossal amount of £7 10s. per annum. Where the divisional councils already had the power in those days to levy taxes, you will appreciate, Sir, that the circumstances with which they had to deal were of such a nature that they did not call for great expenditure. But as we developed the position changed completely. Then we had Union and as the country developed and as the cart and the wagon were replaced by mechanical means of transport that system, of course, became obsolete and there were radical changes. The divisional councils still retained the right to levy taxes and the provincial councils then said they would pay the divisional councils a certain amount as a subsidy to meet the increased expenditure and on the other hand the Union Government, of course, supplied the provincial councils with funds, or subsidized them, to enable them to fulfil their duties in that connection. That was how the system worked and how it developed further and further. It called for more and more money until we find today that tremendous amounts of money have to be spent on the construction and maintenance of roads, roads that have to be suited to the methods of transport we have to-day. Where each province was responsible for the construction and maintenance of its roads the Union Government nevertheless found that the Provincial Council with its divisional councils in the Cape Province could not meet the costs and the Union Government decided to introduce a national road system. The costs in connection with the construction and maintenance of the national road were borne by the Union Government. That was a great relief to the provincial councils, as well as to the divisional councils in the Cape Province. But in spite of that relief, as the country developed further, the position became extremely difficult. When you think of it that we have about 1,000,000 motor cars in the Republic to-day using the roads in the Republic, Sir, it is understandable that the position has changed completely because the motorist who also pays his additional tax has every right to say: I want a road on which I can travel in comfort with the vehicle on which I also have to pay a tax. Where the Union Government has established the national road system we find to-day that there are 5,020 miles of national road in the Republic which were exclusively constructed by the Union Government and the Union Government also maintained them. But the Union Government realized that even that was not enough and it introduced a system of special roads under which it took certain responsibilities off the shoulders of the provincial councils. The Union Government also assumed the responsibility of financing that second system of roads. That brought further relief. As far as the Cape Province is concerned, however, it is very definitely not enough. There has been such development that that relief is not sufficient. I want to point out to the House that the Cape Province is larger than any of the other three provinces. The Cape Province has more miles of road than any of the three other provinces. We have the system of divisional councils in the Cape Province and those divisional councils with the assistance of the provincial councils, have to build a certain mileage of roads and maintain them. Let me just say in passing the costs the Union Government has had to bear in connection with the 5,020 miles of national road and the 453 miles of special road, amount to R252,644,059. That shows you, Sir, how essential it was for the Government to assist the provincial councils to build decent roads to meet the transport needs of the country.

Over what period?

I think the National Roads Act came into operation in 1937 and the amount I have mentioned was for the period up to 30 June 1963. A certain distance of roads still has to be built and maintained by the Provincial Council and the Provincial Council in the Cape Province, and that distance is no less than 96,000 miles. It is impossible for them to finance that. I am sorry my time has nearly expired because I should have liked to enlarge on that, but in the Cape Province especially the position has become impossible. As far as traffic is concerned to-day provincial borders no longer exist. Motor traffic knows no provincial borders. Where we have these long stretches of road in the Cape Province that must be constructed and maintained, with the accompanying costs, I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to have the whole position inquired into. When you think of it, Sir, that it costs at least £10,000 to construct one mile of national road you will realize that it is an impossible task for the province and the divisional councils to keep pace with the tremendous development which is taking place. That is why I am asking the hon. the Minister to have the whole position investigated with a view of a new set-up as far as the financing of road building in the Republic is concerned. I am not talking about the Cape Province alone, but of the whole Republic. If we can place the road system of the Republic on a sound basis I go so far as to say that we shall be able to reduce the terrific loss of life that we have on our roads annually and if we succeed in that I think we shall have achieved a great object. I want to ask the Minister, therefore, to try to devise a new setup for the construction and the maintenance of roads in the Republic.

I would like to say to the hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) that I very much appreciate the courteous way in which he thanked the hon. member who preceded him, and I would like to agree with him that his praise was well merited and that we are looking forward to many youthful contributions by the hon. member in this House.

Before dealing further with the hon. member’s speech I would like to say a word in respect of the speech of the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) who referred to certain matters which, so far as this side of the House is concerned, were dealt with exhaustively by my Leader earlier in the Session during the no-confidence debate, and I do not propose to follow the hon. member when she raised those matters to-day.

I would like to join with the hon. member for Kimberley (North) in regard to the importance of roads in this country. I think all of us in this House agree that it is tremendously important that we should continue to build on the very sound foundation which has been laid. It is quite obvious that in a modern state one of the most important services which can be rendered is that you have adequate road services. I would like to carry what the hon. member said a little further. I believe that quite apart from the building of adequate roads in the rural areas, there is a tremendous job of work waiting to be done in many of our great urban areas, and I would say that so far as the Witwatersrand is concerned, I am entirely dissatisfied with the slowness of the progress in the provision of trunk roads along the length of the Reef, through the large urban areas, and by-pass roads which will remove a great deal of the traffic which is tending to choke up the centres of our large cities. I have been trying for some time to get something done about the airport road, and I am glad to note that a start has been made with the double track, but examination has shown that it is quite clear that unless work is speeded up to a great extent, even that development is going to be inadequate before the time is reached when the six main highways are completed according to the present programme. I believe that the building of these trunk roads in our major urban areas is something which is an urgent necessity; certainly in many of these large urban centres in the event of an attack on this country, there is no question that there would be chaos from the point of view of the traffic which the roads in many of our great centres can bear. Therefore I join with the hon. member. I believe that it is absolutely essential to get down to this job and see to it that the road system which we have is worthy of this country.

The hon. member mentioned that the cost of our national roads up to date has been the sum of R252,000,000. I would like to point out that the gold-mining industry, in respect of which I wish to say a few words this afternoon, actually spent in stores last year an amount more or less equal to the sum quoted by the hon. member. The amount which the gold-mining industry spent in respect of stores last year was R253,500,000, and the amount which was spent out of that amount on South African stores was R235,347,873, of which of course a great portion came from our great farming industry. I mention that figure as a comparison to the figure quoted by the hon. member, to show the very great importance of that industry.

There were a number of matters I wished to refer to in regard to the mining industry, and the one I want to mention now is pneumoconiosis. It had been hoped to deal in this debate rather exhaustively with some of the complaints which have come from miners in this regard, but the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher), who is particularly well qualified to deal with this matter as he is a medical man who practises in an area where there is a large number of miners is not here, and we will have to reserve that matter for the Budget debate. But I would like to say to the hon. Minister very seriously that we are not satisfied that the new Pneumoconiosis Act has provided the solution to this problem which the hon. Minister hoped it would provide when he introduced it a couple of years ago. We believe that there are still cases which require to be looked into. But I do not intend to carry that matter any further at present.

What I do wish to refer to is the very great importance of the fact that I believe that this Government should wake up to the fact that we are losing very great assets by reason of the fact that it is impossible for some of the older mines to carry on, because the Government is not giving realistic assistance, and extract some of the gold which they have to bypass because it is of too low a grade, and once it has been bypassed (as the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) will agree) is probably bypassed for ever. Sir, we know that there are many mines, and Crown Mines is one of them, which are in that position. We had the privilege of visiting the Crown Mines during the visit to the mines arranged by the Chamber of Mines during the recess. In passing I would like to say that those visits were of the utmost value, I believe, to members of this House, and I most sincerely hope that they will be continued, and I would like to express my appreciation and that of members on this side of the House to the Chamber of Mines for having arranged those tours, which were tremendously instructive and, I believe, have better qualified all those of us who are interested in mining to do our job as members representing mining constituencies. We are very grateful indeed to them. But those who were on the same tour as I was, will remember that in the case of Crown Mines, the facts of that mine were put to us by the manager. It is a well-known fact that as the reef begins to dip, the tendency is for values to lessen. The cost of extracting gold in some of the older sections is relatively high, for various reasons sometimes, and it is perfectly clear that in respect of the Crown Mines alone ore running into tens of millions of pounds will be bypassed, and we are assured that once that has been bypassed, never again will it be possible to return and extract that gold. There are great assets that may be bypassed in that way, and I do beg the hon. Minister that as a matter of urgency he should go into this question, because it is clear that this and other of the marginal mines and the dying mines are bypassing and leaving buried in the ground gold which obviously could be of great value to this country.

Are you now accusing the management of the mine?

The complaint is not against the management of the mine. I believe they are doing all they can. It is the job of the Government to see that they are not wasting assets. But my belief is that these mines desire to get those assets but that in the circumstances of to-day and without Government assistance, much of that gold will have to be left underground for ever unless this problem is faced. I would like to pay a tribute to the workers in the mines. We saw the conditions under which they work and they unquestionably deserve the thanks of this country for the magnificent job which they are doing. But to come back to this question I would like to quote from the speech of the then President of the Chamber in 1962—

Sir, the prosperity of this country, we know, is based in a remarkable degree on the mines, and I would like to make a plea for those towns which exist as the result of the mines, and I believe that it is vital that their prosperity should be maintained, that it should be the aim of Government policy to maintain that prosperity and that they should ensure that they will not at any time become ghost towns. It is utterly unnecessary if there is a sufficient encouragement of industries. There is no reason why we should have any ghost towns in this country if industries are developed, and while I am pleading for towns in the mining areas, exactly the same applies to any town which may perhaps be retrogressing in another part of the country. I am not making a plea for the concentration of industries only in those areas, but I do plead that the policy of the Government should be such as to ensure the maintenance of the prosperity of those areas, and unquestionably in the absence of a more sympathetic policy on the part of the Government, in the course of time some of our towns which are mining towns and which have played a very important part, will obviously have to go backward instead of marching forward. That is quite unnecessary, and unquestionably this can very easily be done through the following of a proper policy on the part of the Government. I would draw attention to the fact that in those areas we have the electricity, we have the water and through keeping the existing mines going as long as possible and following a policy which does not extract industries from these areas, but will encourage adequate industry to go to those areas, it is quite possible for us to maintain the prosperity of those areas for all time.

May I ask the hon. member whether he is aware of any ghost town?

No, Sir, the position is that industrialization through the great work of the city councils of a large number of reef towns, a great deal is being done in this regard, but it is perfectly clear if one examines the number of mines in that area which will close over a relatively short period that the tempo of industrialization in those areas will have to be stepped up, and I personally believe that apart from the efforts of private enterprise, the sympathy and full support of the Government is essential if the prosperity of those towns is to be maintained.

Is the hon. member advocating that the Government should take powers to force industries to these towns?

No, I do not believe that that is necessary, but the hon. Minister will not deny that there are cases of industries that wish to come to these towns but who have been encouraged by official circles to go rather to other areas. The policy of the Government some ten years ago in respect of the provision of Native areas, has, I am very glad to say, undergone a change, because that policy was such that if it had been continued it would have led to a chaotic situation on the Witwatersrand. Fortunately there has been some change, but even at this stage I believe that while it is necessary to diversify industry, to spread industry, and while I do not raise the slightest objection to the building up of new industrial areas, I believe that always the Government should keep in the forefront of its thoughts the idea of maintaining the prosperity of those areas which are prosperous. Sir, I would say this in respect of many areas on the Witwatersrand that without this what is called a boom which has come on us during the past year, the situation would have been difficult. But the situation quite clearly is this that an enormous responsibility rests upon the Government in respect of this matter, and I believe that if that responsibility is discharged the prosperity of those areas can be maintained and that it need not hamper the development of other industrial areas in other parts of the country. It would only assist in the more rapid development of South Africa as a whole. That, Sir, is my plea. Other matters in this connection, I feel, we will have to leave over until we come to the Budget debate, but I hope that on that occasion it will be possible to go into very much more detail in respect of the matters on which I have just touched this afternoon.

Hon. members will realize that it is quite impossible for me to reply in 30 minutes to all the questions that have been put to me by hon. members in respect of my Departments. But I do undertake if I cannot do so now, to do my very best to give personal replies to the hon. members concerned. I want to give the assurance to the hon. member who has just sat down that we as a Government view the matter just as seriously as he does, that we realize the danger of losing our gold and of the social effect upon communities if the mines there die out. During the discussion on my Vote last year I gave the assurance that we would give our earnest attention to the matter and I said that the Government had already decided to assist the marginal mines by giving them a subsidy in respect of their water problem. In the past we have had consultations with the Chamber of Mines in this connection. But to return to the general debate of these two days, I want to express the view that we have listened to a debate that will probably always have a historical importance in the life of this Government. We have listened to speeches by the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) and others which will probably always be remembered in the annals of this Parliament. For the first time in all the years that I have been a Member of this Parliament I have been able to listen to a speech by a front-bencher of the United Party in which he openly admitted to the world that things were going well with the economy of South Africa. After everything that we had heard in the past about the weakness and the deterioration in our economy and the sombre predictions about the dark times lying ahead of us, this has been a refreshing change and, as the poet has it, it is almost a new spring. The Opposition have now admitted that things are going well with our economy but they have not been able to do anything else. The prosperity in the country lies about them for all to see, and everyone knows it. Yes, so strong is the stream of prosperity that even the United Party have had to admit it, even though they have done so unwillingly. And not only have they admitted that things are going well with us to-day. Even the hon. member for Constantia had to admit that the signs were there that this prosperity would continue. As though they now realize that they have gone too far, they stand still and warn the Government about the dangers that may spring from this prosperity. Previously they always spoke about the stagnation of our economy and warned us about the dangers that might arise from that weakness. Now we find the strange position to-day that they are telling us about the dangers that may arise from this prosperity. I am reminded of the words of Shakespeare—that we find ourselves to-day amidst the “slings and arrows of outrageous fortune”. Previously they tried to advise us in regard to the way in which we should handle our economic stagnation; now they advise us how to handle our economic prosperity. They have also made the childish allegation that the economic growth in the country is not due to this Government and that if they had been in power this country would have been even more prosperous. When people ask them to what the great revival in the country to-day is to be ascribed to, we find the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) making childish allegations that it is due to the riches that have been collected in this country and which are manifested in this revival. I wonder where those riches have come from if they have not been produced over the past 15 years under the policy of this Government? They said that if another Government with an ideology like that of the United Party had been in power, things would have been better in this country. Do they contend that the boycotts and the sanctions with which we are threatened would not have existed under their Government? If they do contend this, I want to remind them that the first boycotts against South Africa were started in the last years of the Government of Genera] Smuts by India and Pakistan, countries which boycotted South Africa because of the colour policy of the then United Party Government. Do hon. members opposite not know that these boycotts and threats of sanctions spring from the fact that certain nations want to compel us to give up our policy of discrimination or differentiation on the grounds of race and colour? I want to ask this question: Is the United Party prepared to do away with that discrimination in such a way and to such an extent that it will satisfy those nations? I contend that if they follow the policy which they maintain they are following to-day and if they act in accordance with that policy if they come into power, that pressure will also be exerted upon them and they will also be threatened with boycotts and sanctions as long as they still cling to that policy of discrimination. That pressure will never stop until all discrimination in South Africa has disappeared and we have full equality as the policy of the country. I want to contend that under a United Party Government that pressure will be far greater than it is now under the National Party and that if the nations of the world that demand these things from us discover that there is a Government here which is prepared to give way under pressure, as will be the case with the United Party, that pressure will become even stronger. The more pressure is applied to them, the more they will give way, and the more they give way the more pressure will be applied, until eventually they will not be able to give way any further.

I want to add here that under a Government such as that following a policy of that nature investors and entrepreneurs will hesitate to invest in this country because something which is essential to promote confidence and economic growth will then be lacking; political stability and continuity of policy will then be lacking. Over the past-decade we have seen how the United Party has changed its colour policy from time to time. What will be the position if it is in power and it is exposed to the pressure of the Afro-Asian countries? It will change its policy from day to day. Businessmen will not know to-day what the policy will be to-morrow. The political stability and continuity of policy which is so characteristic of this Government will then be lacking. I also want to ask whether by giving way more and more as they are always demanding of us here, for the sake of our economy, the United Party Government will not eventually reach the stage where they will do away with differentiation in our country completely. This will lead to the destruction of the political authority of the White man and of our economy, and who then will invest in such a country? They speak so often of the disadvantages of apartheid for our economy, but who will risk investing in a country which runs the risk of losing its White leadership? That is why we have already noticed that people are withdrawing their investments from other Africa states or refusing to invest their money in those states unless their governments guarantee those investments for political reasons. That is why we hear to-day of people who say that they are not actually in favour of apartheid in South Africa but that if apartheid is not followed they will not invest their money here. The policy of the United Party may not as yet be one man, one vote but there can be no doubt that it will eventually lead to this.

As far as our internal problems are concerned have the Opposition ever considered what the effect of their economic, social and political policy will be on our own people? They so often express their opposition to work reservation and to influx control and other measures that we apply. Have the Opposition ever asked themselves how our workers, our White workers, will react if their social and political policy is put into practice in our society? Have they ever considered the dissatisfaction and the social unrest and the disorganization that may arise as it arose in the past under their policy? I believe that the social unrest that their policy will bring with it holds greater disadvantages for our economy than is the case to-day under our policy.

In conclusion, I want to say in this connection that even if we admit that the policy of the United Party may possibly hold certain advantages for the economy of our country, these advantages will only be of a temporary nature. The abolition of work reservation, the unimpeded influx of Bantu to the cities may temporarily line the pockets of certain people but in the long run they will lead to the undermining of the authority of the White man and the undermining of the authority of the country.

But now the Opposition say that the economic revival in the country has only been of recent duration—“a sudden upsurge”. They try to make us believe that the progress in the country is only visible now and has not taken place over the past 15 years. No, the past 15 years period of National Party Government has to their minds been a period of economic stagnation. I contend—and hon. members opposite cannot deny it—that the past 15 years of Nationalist Government have been some of the most prosperous that South Africa has ever experienced in the economic sphere, compared with any other comparable period in our history and compared with any other comparable country in the world. Is it not important to hon. members to know that during this period the national income of South Africa has trebled? Is this not something that is of some importance to them? Is it not of importance for them to know that during the period of National Party Government the national income of the country has risen on the average by 8.1 per cent per annum which is more than the case of Canada, New Zealand, Britain, the United States of America and Belgium? It is true that certain European countries have shown a higher rate of growth, but the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. van den Heever) proved to us yesterday that the circumstances are not comparable because those countries in Europe started on a different basis. They were old industrial countries and started with an experience and a knowledge and a manpower that we did not have. Have hon. members not considered that we have not been able to develop as quickly as those countries have been able to because we have not received foreign assistance in the form of Marshall Aid and so forth, and that our growth has had to come from our own resources? Have they considered that those countries had to grow more swiftly because they were mainly industrial countries while we were chiefly a country producing primary products; that the prices of industrial goods rise more swiftly than those of primary goods and that the rate of exchange has always been against us? Have they considered—a fact which we have so often had to mention in this House—that we are primarily a gold-producing country the dollar price of which has remained static for more than 30 years? Do hon. members know that the formation of capital in our country rose by 105 per cent and that South Africa is in the fortunate position that where previously she was dependent for most of her growth upon foreign capital, she is able today to raise all her own capital herself? Do hon. members not know that our industrial production has trebled during the period of National Party Government? And this is excluding our motor spares, an industry which is growing by leaps and bounds. Do they not know of the large variety of industries that we have and of the numbers of new ideas to which up to the present we had given no thought but which we are now exploiting in such a way that South Africa is now becoming industrially self-supporting? Do they not know of the tremendous increase in building construction over the past 15 years, to such an extent that cities like Johannesburg and Pretoria have become practically new cities? Are they not aware of the multitude of services which this Government has provided in the form of power and water, housing and transport, telecommunications and education? It is this infra-structure on which the Government has spent millions that has made our industrial growth possible. Do hon. members not know of the tremendous growth in our transport network, the increase in our exports of 46 per cent over this period and the fact that our industrial production has increased to such an extent that to-day it makes up almost 50 per cent of our exports? Do hon. members not know that steel production has risen from 700,000 tons in 1948 to 2,500,000 tons and that the electricity generated has risen from 9,500,000 kilowatt-hours to 26,000,000 under our Government? Do hon. members not know—to mention only one significant factor—that the unfavourable balance on current account—and this is very important—amounted to R341,000,000 in 1948 and that in 1962 we had a favourable balance of R307,000,000, a difference of R648,000,000? Is this progress or do hon. members not want to understand it?

In the time left to me I want to give a brief outline of what I believe the future holds for us. I think that it would be a good thing on this occasion to try to obtain a glimpse into the future and find out what awaits us. I know that the future is always uncertain but I also believe that if there are no unforeseen unfavourable trends for South Africa in international politics, the present growth will continue into 1964—no, longer; that in 1964 it will develop a stronger driving force and will continue for a longer period. I base my feeling that we are going to have a further upward trend for a considerable time upon the encouraging signs in international economic conditions as well as favourable internal factors that will have a stimulating effect upon the economy of our country. I believe that we are going to progress even further, in the first place because of the great plans for expansion of the Government and of private enterprise that have already been started and are to be started shortly and which will strengthen our economy. I think of the influence of the large State corporations which will over the next decade spend thousands of millions of rand. This will create purchasing power and have a beneficial effect upon other industries. I think of the tremendous plans that are getting under way in the private sector in connection with the steel and chemical industries, the textile industry and the engineering industry, and particularly in connection with the motor industry, all undertakings that were started by this Government. I should like to give the hon. member of Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) some information in this connection. In the second place I want to deal with our expectations in regard to the influence of the Government’s short-term financial policy which is deliberately aimed at promoting expansion. I think that in the third place one of the factors in our future growth will be the relatively liquid position in our banking and financial institutions which will ensure the availability of adequate capital for expansion purposes. Capital should cause us no problems in our plans for expansion. I think of our favourable position in connection with our balance of payments on current account which gives us room for further increases in imports or even a falling-off in our exports, or both. I think fifthly of the high level of our gold and foreign reserves which gives the Government an adequate margin to enable it to combat both a setback in regard to our balance of payments’ position or a drop in liquidity. We know that the swift development awaiting us will impose a greater strain upon our balance of payments’ and foreign exchange position but we also know that our foreign exchange reserves are to-day in such a strong position that this will not form a bottleneck in regard to our further development.

I base my belief in the sixth place on the upward trends in the production of gold and other minerals. We anticipate that for the next few years our income from gold will continue to rise, as it will in regard to other minerals too, and that this will be a contributory factor towards our growth. In the seventh place I base my expectations upon the present activity in the building industry which may even increase in the future. Hon. members know the influence that the building industry has on the economy of a country. In conclusion, I base this profession of my faith in the future growth of our economy upon the general optimism that is revealed amongst our own people and the confidence of our own and foreign businessmen in the economic and political future of our country. These and other factors support my belief that the period of growth that we are now experiencing will not only be of temporary duration but that it will continue for some time yet.

One of the questions put to me and to the hon. the Minister of Finance was: What about inflation and price rises? My reply to this is that we must expect price increases. We have had price increases over the past years, even when there has been no inflation. No Government has ever been able to stop it, not even the United Party Government. There were tremendous price increases during its period of office. That is the price that we have to pay for prosperity. It is a problem that is experienced in many countries to-day—to equate prosperity with price stability. Hon. members need only study the literature as economics in Europe to-day. The economic problem in Europe is to equate a rise in prices with economic growth. But in South Africa we do not have inflation as yet. I think that we should say less about inflation. The Government has to consider all these matters and take the necessary action but we can talk ourselves into inflation just as we can into a depression. I do not know whether the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) said anything in this regard but inflation is psychological, to a large extent, just like a recession. Once we start talking about inflation, we will promote it. I want to point out that prices in South Africa compare favourably with those in comparable countries, that the relative rise in prices in South Africa compares favourably with other comparable countries and that the price level of our goods also compares favourably, as does the purchasing powers of our money. I challenge those hon. members who shake their heads in that way to deny that the cost of living in South Africa is far lower than that in any other comparable country. Not only have prices risen but wages have also risen over the past years. Wages and salaries have risen more swiftly than prices have with the result that the real capital income of our people has increased considerably over the past years. If we take a given quantity of services and goods and the number of man-hours that are required to produce those services and goods in South Africa, we find that the number of man-hours required in South Africa to produce given quantities of service and goods is far less than is the case in practically all other comparable countries. [Time limit.]

When the hon. the Minister stood up to reply, he prefaced his remarks by saying that he was going to reply to the various points made by hon. members on this side of the House. But instead of replying to us we found that he delivered a political speech which one would have expected him to deliver on the platteland, and certainly not on an occasion such as this. During the course of his speech the hon. the Minister said that the policy of the United Party was a policy of “yielding” and “yielding every time”. Sir, if we can accuse the Government of anything, then it is that its policy is to yield. What is the Bantustan policy other than a policy of yielding to outside pressure? That is the very point that was conceded by the hon. the Prime Minister when he said that Bantustans only came about as a result of outside pressure. There we have a typical example of “yielding”. Sir, if you want further evidence of a policy of yielding, it is to be found in this 650-page report on South West Africa. Is this not the result of the Government’s yielding to outside pressure, and to world influences? Was it ever the Government’s policy to cut up South West Africa into ten independent states? Here is the Government’s monument to its policy of yielding! The hon. the Minister talks about our policy leading to “one-man one-vote”. I do not believe that the hon. the Minister is politically sincere when he says that. He knows that that is not so.

Order! The hon. member cannot say that the Minister knows that he is being insincere.

I think he is politically incorrect in making that statement.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that statement.

I withdraw it. I think he is politically incorrect in making that statement, but where he is correct, is in saying that that is the policy of his party. They have introduced the policy of “one man one vote” in this country! They have introduced that policy in the Transkei! How long are you going to stop that from spreading elsewhere? May I also remind hon. members opposite of a fact which is little known, outside this Parliament—and when it does become known it will certainly have political ramifications of a serious nature—and that is the fact, that the Xhosa women to-day have the vote. Yet hon. members on the other side come along and tell us that we stand for a policy of “one man one vote”. I do not think the hon. the Minister was on safe ground when he attacked us on these lines. I think it was a case of running away from the faults of the Nationalist Party.

The Minister referred to the fact that there is a large amount of capital available in this country to-day, and that we can depend on our own local resources. That is so, but what he forgot to tell the House is the reason why that money is lying idle in this country to-day. That money is lying idle because the hon. the Minister and his Government have imprisoned capital in this country. They have not allowed capital to leave this country.

Do you want to send it out?

If there is any confidence in this country, let me remind the Minister that that confidence comes about only as a result of the fact that the outside world knows that we have a strong Opposition in this country, an Opposition that is not afraid to express its views, an Opposition that is prepared to face the realities of the political situation in this country, an Opposition which has the courage of its convictions to speak up. That is what has given the outside world confidence in this country. If you want to destroy this party by advancing the type of argument which the Minister has now resorted to, then I say that you are using one of the means of destroying confidence in this country in the outside world. Sir, what is another factor which is responsible for the capital which is available in this country to-day? Let me remind the hon. the Minister that it is not because of this Government that capital is available here to-day in such large quantities; that state of affairs is due to outside factors, factors such as the possibility of a Labour Party victory in Britain and the fact that this country is regarded as the last bastion of capitalism in this part of the Continent. That is why money is available here to-day; it is not because of the policy of the Government.

Sir, the hon. the Minister assured us that he was giving consideration to one of the points raised by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker)—that is, the question of the marginal mines. But he left it at that, and said nothing more. Sir he has been “studying” the position of the marginal mines since 1957! In 1958 the then Minister of Mines said—

The hon. the Minister repeated that at a Chamber of Commerce meeting in Brakpan. That is typical of the Government’s approach to this whole problem all along the line—procrastination. They are not prepared to face the issue; they are not prepared to try to find a realistic answer to the urgent problem of the marginal mines of the Witwatersrand. The only point that the hon. the Minister made in reply to the hon. member for Germiston (District) was that something was being done about the pumping of water from the mines. I accuse the hon. the Minister and his Government of doing too little and too late in that regard. In 1957 the Round-Table Conference suggested that that was one of the means which should be employed to assist the mines. The Minister waited until last year, and now we have to hear from him that the Government has not got enough money to give effect to that particular recommendation in a way which will be most beneficial to the marginal mines. At a time when this Government is planning to spend approximately R650,000,000 on various schemes in this country, such as the Orange River scheme, the Bantustan scheme, the South West Africa scheme, we are told that the Government cannot find money to assist the marginal mines on the Witwatersrand in connection with the pumping of water. We on this side have suggested different ways and means that can be used in order to give this vital assistance to the Witwatersrand—to give it now, not when it is too late in five or seven years’ time, because every year that you allow to pass you are leaving R15,000,000 worth of imprisoned gold ore underground, which is workable provided working costs can be reduced for the mines—R15,000,000 every year, and yet this Government procrastinates and refuses to get on with the job of assisting roughly 650,000 people who are dependent on the mines for their livelihood and who are resident on the Witwatersrand.

Sir, last year the hon. the Minister of Railways imposed a surcharge of 10 per cent on all railway goods. During the recess we found that he rebated that 10 per cent surcharge in the case of certain farming commodities. We submitted during the course of the debate last year, that that railway surcharge should not be imposed against the marginal mines as this would push up their cost of production. The Minister saw fit to do away with the 10 per cent surcharge in the case of certain agricultural commodities—and I am not suggesting that the farmers are not entitled to it—but I do say that this surcharge should not have been imposed against the marginal mines. That would have been a practical measure to cut down the production costs of the Witwatersrand mines. Sir, the hon. the Minister says that he cannot consider the payment of some sort of subsidy to the mines. I would ask him this: How is it possible for a small country like Southern Rhodesia to subsidize their marginal mines? How is it possible for a country like Canada, which is not so dependent on gold mining as this country is, to subsidize its mines? No, if the Government were not afraid of the fact that they may be accused of helping a so-called “capitalist” industry, they would do something to assist these mines. When the true facts of this procrastination becomes known to the people of the Witwatersrand, I say that they will give the Government their answer in no uncertain way. I ask the hon. the Minister: Why did he not reply in this House to a statement made by Dr. du Toit Viljoen, the chairman of the Board of Trade and Industries, on 22 August last year when Dr. Viljoen said that it was urgently necessary to find ways and means of absorbing 130,000 men per year in industry as a result of the closing of the marginal mines? Sir, where is the Government’s programme; where is their blueprint to provide for contingencies of this kind? Do not give us a blueprint of your policy of fragmentation of this country. Give us a blueprint of what you are going to do to assist the marginal mines.

When did Dr. Viljoen say that?

On 22 August last year.

Did he say “as result of the closing of the mines”?

These were his words—

What are you quoting from?

I am quoting from, I believe, “Commerical Opinion”, the journal of commerce and industry. Dr. Viljoen also went on to say that that will be the position for the next five years. I see the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) talking to the Minister. He is most probably reminding the Minister that Dr. Viljoen said that at a meeting at Krugersdorp. Sir, the hon. the Minister tells us that he has not got enough money to make provision for the pumping of water out of the mines, let alone the 101 other things that these marginal mines need. May I remind him what the position is with regard to taxation and here I hope the Minister of Finance will come to the rescue of the Minister of Mines. In 1962 12 mines in all operated at a loss on the Witwatersrand. They operated at a loss of R664,000. They produced gold, however, worth R42,125,000 and at the height of their productivity they brought into the coffers of the Treasury approximately R17,000,000 in taxation. This whole position is going to get considerably worse after 1970. The Minister can sit back now with some degree of satisfaction, Sir, for let me remind you that whereas in 1962 42 per cent of the total revenue of the gold mines went into the coffers of the Treasury, by 1970 60 per cent of that revenue will be going into the coffers of the Treasury. Ways and means will therefore have to be found after that date to assist those additional mines which will then be on the decline. Let me also remind the Minister that one mine like Western Holdings is to-day paying more taxation than the whole of the farming community of South Africa! Surely this matter deserves immediate attention. We feel that this procrastination on the part of the Government must stop; there must be some prompt and positive action and some indication must be given to the people of the Witwatersrand that the Government is concerned about their position. Sir, if the Minister of Mines stands condemned because of a lack of positive approach towards the question of the marginal mines, I am sure that the people of the Witwatersrand feel that he stands still more condemned because of the attitude he adopted with regard to the pneumoconiosis legislation. If ever there was justification for calling upon a Government to resign as a result of bad legislation which affects the working conditions and the livelihood of approximately 200,000 people on the Witwatersrand—50,000 miners and their families—then it is this Government. This Government would have had to resign but for the strong hold that its ideological policy has on the minds of the people of this country. Three years ago, the hon. the Minister bulldozed through this House a piece of legislation which he said was “an agreed measure”. We pleaded with him not to go ahead with the Pneumoconiosis Act, but to give the workers in the mining industry and everybody concerned, an opportunity to study this piece of legislation and its implications. However we were not given that opportunity, and to-day you have on the Statute Book legislation which is not acceptable to the mineworkers; it is not acceptable to the mining industry and it is bad legislation, as the hon. the Minister well knows. He knows full well that it is bad legislation, because within three months after the passing of that legislation he was forced to send a mission overseas to undertake research in connection with that legislation which he had bulldozed through this House.

You do not understand anything about it.

Let me mention this, to show the Minister how much I do understand the position: On 29 August of the same year after this legislation was passed, the then secretary of the Mineworkers’ Union, Mr. Ellis, said that “there were quite a number of clauses in the new Bill with which he did not agree”. I want to ask the Minister: Did the Mineworkers’ Union see the final draft of the legislation?

Yes.

Was this legislation referred to the Pneumoconiosis Commissioner, and did he approve of it? No, the hon. the Minister in introducing that legislation said that the Bill was the result of lengthy research, and three months later he had to send a mission to investigate the ramifications and the working of that legislation.

I say again that you do not understand it.

The Minister had to issue a directive explaining that this legislation meant; what its financial implications were as far as first-stage pensioners under the old Act were concerned. But when he was questioned in this House, he gave a written reply which was contrary to the directive which he had previously given. That is how little I understand it or how much the hon. the Minister understands it! Sir, there is no doubt whatsoever that there is great discontent and dissatisfaction amongst the mineworkers on the Witwatersrand and in the Free State in regard to this hasty, ill-conceived and misunderstood legislation. I do not believe that the Minister did this deliberately. I think the Minister yielded to immature recommendations from his Department. If he had listened to the more experienced views of the mining industry, we would not have had this bad type of legislation on our Statute Book to-day.

Did you vote for the legislation?

We voted under protest, because we accepted the assurance of the hon. the Minister that this was “an agreed measure”, but within two months of the passing of the Bill, the President of the Transvaal Chamber of Industries made a statement to the effect that he did not agree with the financial and the classification implications of this legislation.

The President of the Transvaal Chamber of Mines?

Yes, I mean the Chamber of Mines. If there is no dissatisfaction, can the Minister tell us why motions of no-confidence have been passed in him and the Government as far as this legislation is concerned? I expected the hon. member for Welkom (Mr. H. J. van Wyk) when he stood up here yesterday to deal with what has been happening at Welkom, and those motions of no-confidence. Instead of doing that, he delivered a political speech which had nothing to do with his constituents and their welfare. Sir, unless this legislation is amended, unless it is brought up to date in a more scientific and more practical way, I want to say that the mining industry and the miners—to whom all praise must be given for working under very difficult conditions imposed on them by the Department of Mines—will continue to be justifiably dissatisfied.

I want to start by raising a matter that is very prominent to-day in the minds not only of people in my constituency but also in the minds of everyone in the Cape and that is the question of adequate funds to place the road-building programme in the Cape on an equal footing with that in the other provinces.

The roads are bad.

Yes, every day we hear that our roads are bad, and unfortunately that is the truth. I think that we have now reached the stage when we can no longer tolerate the accusation that our roads are bad. I shall do my best to make a contribution to this debate, a contribution which will enable the hon. the Minister of Finance to give us a glimpse into the future in this connection when he replies to the debate so that we can find a solution to this problem.

On 7 April last year about 1,000 Vryburg ratepayers had a meeting to discuss divisional council rates. As hon. members know, these rates are only of application in the Cape and nowhere else in the Republic. That meeting took a resolution and I want to say immediately that those people went to great lengths to keep this matter outside the political arena. They appointed a committee and tried to have representatives of both parties on that committee so that there would not be the slightest hint of political influence. The meeting decided to request the authorities to abolish divisional council rates. The resolution stated (translation)—

I have tried to send a memorandum on this matter to every member of the House to make them acquainted with the case because representatives of other provinces do not always know how the divisional council system in the Cape actually operates. The position today is that rates are levied on landowners in the Cape, rates which place a heavy burden upon us. I want to continue by saying that the more the country develops and the more the demands for road-building increase, the heavier this burden becomes. It has already become almost unbearable. I can tell the House that a random test indicated that 160 farmers out of 195 in the district of Mafeking paid more in divisional council rates than by way of income tax. In other words, a double tax system is being applied here in the Cape. Higher taxes are imposed upon farmers in the northern parts of the Cape, that is to say, the northwest and the Northern Cape, through the medium of divisional council rates than in the form of income tax. I want to ask in all humility that something be done in this connection and I want to give the hon. the Minister the opportunity to explain to us what he can do to rectify this position. The divisional council must not be permitted to increase the rates year after year. Heavier and heavier demands are made upon them each year but they cannot simply continue increasing the rates that have to be paid each year by the landowner. I thought that it might perhaps be a good thing to bring these facts to the attention of hon. members and to try and deal with this matter calmly here this afternoon so that the hon. the Minister will have the opportunity of giving us an assurance in this regard. I can assure him that the land-owners who have to pay these rates as well as the normal income tax are deeply concerned. I know that the hon. the Minister has already taken certain steps in this connection but I leave it to him to explain to us what he has in mind. For the information of hon. members I may say that the rates which the landowner has to pay are not only intended for road-building. In a district like that of Mafeking for instance where there is a small White population and a very large Bantu population, the White taxpayers have to pay not only the expenses incurred in the building of roads through the reserves but also for health services. A tax is also imposed upon the landowner for health services and over the past few years that levy has been more or less as follows: In 1950 the expenditure on roads amounted to R3,920,000; in 1962 it was not R3,000,000 but R10,956,000, an increase of 179 per cent. The expenditure on health services was R366,000 in 1950 but in 1962 this expenditure rose to R2,751,000, an increase of 649 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary to say more about the undesirability of this position. I may perhaps be told that the divisional council system in the Cape is 105 years old. My reply is that something which is 105 years old is too old! Nothing in this country has remained unchanged over the past 105 years and we cannot leave these rates unchanged either. We must see these rates against the background of the times in which we are living. We cannot allow a man of 50 years of age to wear the same jacket which he wore when he was a lad of 14 years of age; it will no longer fit him and I think that the time has come when we should get to grips with and rectify this matter. My colleague sitting here next to me has told us that the Cape is larger than the other three provinces put together. As it happens, the northwest Cape and the northern Cape have derived very little benefit from the national road building programme because the national roads have been built to the large centres. Those parts of the country have therefore had the advantage of the national roads but not those extensive and developing areas of the north-west Cape and the northern Cape on which the future of the country may perhaps depend to such a large extent. Those parts of the country have derived very little benefit from the national road building programme.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to discuss this matter any further. I just want to give this House the assurance that it is not the intention of these people to drag this matter into the political arena. The two parties are very well represented on the committee to which I have referred and I have promised them that if they publicize the matter in a responsible and calm way, we as their Members of Parliament will be only too pleased to give other Members of Parliament the necessary information in order to try and rectify this matter.

I want to raise another point although my time is very limited. I want to mention the question of export maize. In our country today it is generally considered—and incorrectly so—that the country is suffering a tremendous loss through the export of maize at a certain price which, so it is said, results in that loss. That is wrong; that is not so. In reality maize has become a very important commodity. I want to make a quotation from Organized Agriculture. It reads as follows (translation)—

It goes on to say (translation)—

I want to make this point quite clear. The price of maize is fixed on two markets. We have the internal market that we control and the maize for this market is fixed at a certain price. But then we also have the foreign market over which we have no control. The two markets together are responsible for the profits of the farmer. That is why the maize that we export is not sold at a loss. It may appear as a loss on paper but it is not a loss. I want to emphasize this fact (translation)—

The board emphasizes the fact that the “export of maize is still a very great asset to the country”. I shall try to illustrate this by way of figures (translation)—

We all realize what this is worth in foreign currency. We must not overlook this fact. Maize is becoming one of the most important exports of South Africa. I want to go so far as to say that we expect the crop to be considerably larger in the future and the revenue derived from that source to be proportionately larger as well. This is a very good thing for our country.

I also want to point out that it is not our opinion that further increases in the export of our surplus maize will have a great effect upon the world market. Fortunately, there is generally a better demand in the world to-day for grain fodder. Because of this we do not think there is any danger that we will not be able to dispose of a larger crop at a reasonable price or that our own sales overseas will depress that market to such an extent that it will eventually become untenable. Mr. Speaker, I mention these things because I also want to pay tribute to what the South African Railways have done in regard to the export of this surplus. But I do want to make it clear that if our export surplus increases to 45,000,000 or 50,000,000 bags, that is to say, a crop of 70,000,000 bags and more in this country, the South African Railways will have to make use of all the facilities at their disposal to transport that crop to the harbours. It is of no avail to leave things too late and that is why I am discussing these matters now. We are erecting a grain elevator in East London for that purpose. All I am saying is that we must not think it impossible that our crop will increase to the stage where we will have to export 45,000,000 or 50,000,000 bags annually. Because I am pressed for time I will leave the matter at that.

There is another point I want to mention and that is that our farmers in the north become very worried when they read reports about the locust plague in the north-west Cape. I really thought that with the effective means that we have at our disposal to-day we would be able to combat very effectively a locust plague which constitutes a danger to the rest of the country. But I become disturbed when I learn that swarms of flying locusts come down in the mountains in areas which are almost beyond the reach of the teams that are trying to destroy them. I really want to make an earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister to do everything in his power in this connection. I think that the country should give him all the assistance that he needs to enable us to rid the country of locust infestation which can cause a tremendous amount of damage in the grain areas and the agricultural areas of the country—and not only in the agricultural areas, Mr. Speaker. I have already had the experience that a locust attack on a farm has had the result that the livestock that had been brought back to the farm for the night had the next morning to be driven away to fresh grazing because the locusts had eaten everything in sight. I have seen that happen. Accordingly it is not only the maize or wheatlands that suffer. This sort of thing can have such a detrimental effect upon any farmer in this country that he may not be able to withstand the shock financially.

Mr. Speaker, in listening to this debate over the last two days I think, perhaps the speech we have had from the hon. member for Vryburg (Mr. Labuschagne) is one which is a constructive contribution to the debate. He made certain suggestions and pleas to the Government. I hope to deal shortly with two aspects which I deem of importance. We have heard a lot about the expanding economy of South Africa, of a boom in South Africa, which has been lauded by members on the Government side. But what has to be taken into consideration is the overriding factor of sufficient manpower being available for the expanding economy and to accelerate such expansion. To my mind that is one of the most urgent problems, the inadequacy of manpower. I believe that the hon. Minister of Finance can take steps, by his policy to encourage those persons who have the aptitude and ability to further their studies and their education. A report by the National Institute for Personnel Research, which was included in the C.S.I.R. Report of 1962, brought to light alarming factors in regard to the educational qualifications of the young people in South Africa, and I believe particularly in the higher educational groups, the technical group and the technological group of persons that are required in that expanding economy that South Africa will have to look to its own South Africans to provide that manpower. I believe that the shortage of that type of persons is a universal shortage. Perhaps we have missed the boat in regard to immigration to a certain extent in finding suitable persons to fill these important posts. Therefore I believe that steps must be taken to encourage our young people to further their studies and their educational ability. For instance in the survey carried out by the National Institute for Personnel Research it was disclosed that of the persons that they interviewed only one-quarter of the male Whites had any intention of proceeding beyond Std. VII and one-eighth of the male White population had not proceeded beyond Std. VI. They then come to the conclusion in their survey that the higher level occupations would require between 22 per cent and 25 per cent of the male White population to meet the demand, and they say that serious shortages can be expected in that particular group. Now I believe that there are a number of persons who have the ability to further their education, but due either to economic difficulties or other difficulties beyond their control are often prevented from doing so. For instance the survey also showed that 25 per cent of the White population between the age of 17 and 20 years, could have attained a standard of education of at least one to three years higher than their present qualifications. I think this indicates the urgency of this particular problem, and how I think the hon. Minister of Finance can assist, is by encouraging persons and large industrial concerns and commercial concerns to be allowed to deduct from their taxable income the amounts which they donate as bursaries and scholarships to those persons who could benefit by furthering their education.

The incentive I believe would be there for these people to make available the necessary finances to assist these persons to attain a higher standard of education, and in making a study of the position as it exists to-day, I find that in terms of our Income-Tax Act only expenditure incurred in the production of income may be allowed as a deduction. However, I understand that as a temporary measure and as a special concession for a limited period, companies not exceeding 1 per cent of their taxable income in respect of donations for the purposes of technological training at a university represents a special concession which may be deducted. Similarly that such organizations and firms will be entitled to deduct such money that is made available for bursaries and donations to assist scholarships where the person is a member of the staff of that organization or is intended to be employed by that organization. However, if the person is not employed by that organization and where it is not the intention that he is a prospective employee no such deduction is permitted in terms of the Income-Tax Act. My plea to the hon. Minister of Finance therefore is to review the position as it exists to-day, taking into account the increasing acute shortage of the higher-level persons required in our manpower to develop our economy, and to try and encourage these persons to make available sums of money to those young persons who have the ability and the aptitude to further their studies. I do hope that the hon. Minister of Finance will give serious consideration to that plea.

The other particular aspects which affect our manpower really concern the hon. Minister of labour, and looking at the other scale, after considering the question of the young people who are coming into the labour market, we find that the position of the older workers is very unsatisfactory. I am now looking at the position of persons over 45 years of age, and in spite of the fact that unemployment figures have declined in recent times, it is an undeniable fact that a large number of those persons who are still unemployed are those in the older-age groups. Some of these persons have been displaced, sometimes due to reorganization of staff and other factors. However, they find it increasingly difficult to obtain employment, and I think that the Department of labour should make an effort to encourage employers to take onto their staff those older workers. I believe that a service can be rendered towards improving the manpower position by utilizing the over-45s who are still in the labour market. The interesting thing is that although prejudice has been built up against the older workers in many quarters, a survey was carried out in the United States of America by their department of labour, and that survey certainly proved that the older worker is just as efficient as a younger worker. The result of their survey dispelled many misapprehensions that persons might have in engaging older workers. For instance this survey found that the older worker was likely to be present at his work more often than the younger worker; absenteeism was at a higher rate amongst the under-45s than the over-45s. It is also stated that sometimes the older worker is less efficient in his work. However, the survey disclosed that in actual fact the over-45 year-old’s work was up to standard and in some instances superior to that of the younger workers. Sir, they have taken steps in the United States of America to see that that particular age group, the older worker, is fully utilized in their labour force. They base their propaganda and the steps they have taken to encourage the employment of the older worker on three bases. The one is that the worker should be employed on the basis of his qualifications, regardless of age or sex. The second principle is that the worker who knows his work should be allowed to continue on the job as long as he is able to work. The third is that the older worker should have available to him more special work-finding facilities. That is an aspect which we can study in this country. I believe that the vocational services provided by the Department of labour could be greatly improved upon and extended, and I think that in the extension of such vocational services due regard should be had to the training of the older worker to fit him into the labour market and to use him to the full. The question of dealing with the older worker and finding employment for him, as I mentioned earlier, is a pressing problem in the labour field to-day. However, I should like to mention another aspect which is related to the difficulty of the older worker finding employment. That is related to the amendment that was moved by the Minister of labour in this House in 1962 to the Unemployment Insurance Act. That amending Act came into force at the end of July 1962, and I believe it has caused increasing hardship amongst those persons who have made contributions to the fund and now find that after an initial period of 26 weeks’ benefits they are no longer entitled to claim any further benefits from that fund unless they have been in employment again for a period of 13 weeks. These hardships, I think, are reflected by a number of organizations which have complained about the difficulties being experienced by contributors to the fund due to these restrictions, not only by means of letters to their members of Parliament, but also organized trade unions have lodged objections to the implications of the amendment to this Act. I have little reason to doubt that hardship is being experienced by these persons, many of them being the older workers. Those who have made contributions to the fund for ten or 15 years have assisted in the accumulation of large sums of money in that fund and have accumulated to their own credit a certain number of weeks’ benefits which they would normally be entitled to receive for periods of 26 weeks. I believe their complaint is a justifiable one. The Minister of labour replied to a question on Friday 24 January and said that the fund now stands at nearly R115,000,000 and that in the period from 1 June 1963 to 31 December 1963 a further amount of R7,234,000 had accrued to the fund, the contributions being R4,500,000 and the interest R2,500,000. During the same period the amount of R6,290,000 has been paid out in benefits. So the overall picture is a strengthening of the fund by R1,000,000 over a period of six months. I believe this fact has a bearing on the position and it strengthens my plea to the Minister of labour to review and reconsider the whole matter of the Unemployment Insurance Act. The Trade Union Council of South Africa recently asked the Secretary for labour whether they would reconsider this whole question of the working of the Act, and they recall that the hon. the Minister said at the time the Act was amended that it was amended to stop abuse of the Act by certain unscrupulous persons, but more important than that, it was to stop the drain that was occurring on the Unemployment Fund, and that he would review the position in a year or two. Those were the words used by the Minister of labour. With the present employment position as it is to-day, which is even more favourable than it was during the last six months of 1963, I believe that the fund will continue to gain strength. In view of that fact, the Minister should give his consideration to reviewing the present position. We must realize that these persons who have built up this fund, particularly the older workers, who are genuine work-seekers in many cases, find that due to prejudice and other factors they are unable to find further employment and they are denied the right to claim any further benefits from the fund. I believe that these unemployed older workers are in a very serious position. They are genuine work-seekers and they are unable in many cases to provide for their families or for themselves after having exhausted the initial 26 weeks’ benefits to which they are entitled. They are then placed in a most difficult position of having no income whatever, despite the fact that those credits stand to their name in that fund. It is all very well for the Minister to suggest that they can obtain assistance from the Department of Social Welfare. Sir, the assistance they can obtain from Social Welfare, unless they are over 60 years of age in the case of women or over 65 in the case of men, which entitles them to the old age pension, is only poor relief, or what is now known as public assistance. Surely it is a disgrace to think that those persons who made contributions to the Fund should now have to rely on poor relief.

Cannot the Minister of Finance do something about that?

I certainly hope that the Minister of Finance will be able to give us some indication whether he can perhaps approach the Minister of labour or whether he can use his influence to bring about an alleviation of the hardship which is being experienced by these contributors to the Fund. After all, there are large numbers of contributors and the number is increasing. I believe that the number to-day stands at about 875,000. This fund has become a strong fund now and I believe that we have reached the stage where the whole system should be reviewed, because the older worker, particularly the person around 50 years of age, finds himself in a very difficult position. I saw a person only this morning who is in a difficult position, who is 50 years of age, who has dependants, who has been unable to find employment for a period of 18 months and who has only received the 26 weeks’ benefits from the Fund. That person who has contributed to this Fund over a period of 15 years, finds herself in a very difficult position of having no means of support whatsoever. Another 10 years will elapse before she could possibly qualify for an old-age pension. This person is physically fit and is therefore unable to obtain relief from the Department of Social Welfare by way of a disability grant. Some of these persons who have young families are also being adversely affected. I know that as far as the Durban Child Welfare Society is concerned, they have been placed in an invidious position from time to time, particularly since the amendment of the Act in 1962. They have had to remove children from families because the father has been unable to support the children, and the children are then declared in need of care. I think it is a disgrace that this state of affairs should exist in a country which is supposed to be enjoying a boom. These are the persons who are deriving no benefit whatsoever from this boom. The same applies to those people who have to live on fixed incomes and who continually have to reduce their standard of living. They have no alternative but to do so.

At 6.55 p.m. the business was interrupted by Mr. Speaker and the debate adjourned.