I move—

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize, as we have indicated during the passage of this Bill, that we hope it will serve a useful purpose. The Minister, I believe, has agreed that in certain respects it is of an experimental nature although very great care has been taken in drafting it. I wish to express the hope that if experience shows that amendments are necessary there will be no delay in bringing those matters before this House. It is most important that in matters of this nature the law should be clear and beyond doubt, and I believe that in the present case there are some difficult points involved. I hope the Minister will keep the operation of the Bill constantly under his notice to ensure that it is serving the purpose for which it was designed.

I must correct one aspect of the matter raised by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker). It is not quite correct to say that this Bill is of an experimental nature. The hon. member will know very well that our law of evidence consists of two portions, in this respect that one portion of it is statutory, being contained in the various statutes passed from time to time not only by this Parliament but by the Parliaments of the former provinces. That is in so far as the statutory law is concerned. Then there is the common law, in so far as our law of evidence is common law—because our law of evidence was derived from the British common law, the British common law is also our common law in respect of the law of evidence; and all that this Bill now does—and the hon. member will note that from the Bill before him—is to put together in one Bill the various provisions contained in the earlier statutes, to adapt them to the changed circumstances, and further to provide that our com-con law will still be the British common law, without specific reference to the British law.

Why is it not being called a consolidating Bill?

No, it cannot be a consolidating Bill because the various provinces had different provisions in this regard, and that being the position one cannot consolidate, because one now makes it applicable to the whole of the Republic, in order to apply to the whole of the Republic that which was good in the various provinces.

That is why I called it experimental.

No, it is not experimental. These are established practices which have been recognized by our courts. We are dealing with established decisions given by all our courts in that regard, but that does not mean that we are simply passing the Bill in order to forget about it again. It is self-evident that not only my Department but also the Law Revision Committee and all interested parties will devote attention to this matter from time to time.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill, as it is before the House now, is the result of long years of consultations between my Department and all the interested parties. I believe that this is a Bill which gives expression to the feelings of all interested parties in regard to this matter. It was drafted by departmental officials who studied the matter for years, and I want to mention in particular that the Parliamentary Officer of the Department, Mr. Van Vuuren, has done particularly thorough and outstanding work in this regard. The profession outside has no objection, except in so far as I have mentioned, to this Bill, and I personally am strongly under the impression that it is unnecessary to refer this Bill to a Select Committee. However, I do not wish to impose my personal standpoint in this regard on the House, the more so because I have been informed that every time an amendment of the Insolvency Act has come before this House it has been referred to a Select Committee. That being the position, in spite of the fact that I do not think it is necessary and that I feel that on merit a case has not really been made out for referring it to a Select Committee, in so far that any objections which may exist may be debated over the floor of the House during the Committee Stage, I have no objection to the hon. member’s suggestion because it has evidently become the practice to refer a Bill of this nature to a Select Committee.

Mr Speaker, I would like to express my appreciation of the Minister’s decision. I know from private discussion with him that the Minister very strongly holds the view that these provisions in their present form are necessary and desirable. But there is no question that there are wide differences of opinion among persons who work with these things in practice. They believe that certain of these provisions are undesirable, and that certain of them can be improved. Sir, it is of the utmost importance that all aspects of our insolvency law, including the technical aspect, should be in the best possible form, and the aim of all of us is to have the most effective legislation we can possibly get. We on this side, on the Select Committee, will do everything we possibly can to see the other point of view and if we can we shall certainly attempt to improve the measure now before the House. I shall also like to say that we do not wish to delay this measure. We regard it as necessary, and we will do whatever we can to complete the deliberation in the Select Committee in as short a time as possible, so that the measure can be put on the Statute Book. There are wide private interests which are involved, and I believe that the hon. the Minister has set a splendid precedent by accepting this motion and agreeing that this Bill may go to the Select Committee, and I would like to express my thanks and the thanks of those who are associated with me and who feel very strongly that this measure should go to a Select Committee. I know that the various bodies which are also concerned will very greatly appreciate the fact that there will be an opportunity of personally making their views known before a Select Committee and playing their part in seeking to improve this measure.

Motion put and agreed to.

When last night the House adjourned I finished dealing with the question of the pollution of air by Railway shunting engines, and I had dealt with what I regarded as the unsatisfactory control in the future over this question of air pollution inasmuch as the inspectorate falling under the local authority would clearly not take action against the local authority in respect of nuisances caused by the local authority’s own vehicles. Those of us who have had anything to do with air pollution in local authority areas know that that air pollution is contributed to largely by heavy diesel vehicles owned by the local authority. Having dealt with that, I do not propose to pursue that particular point, except to say that I do hope that the hon. the Minister will see to it that efficient officers are appointed at the earliest possible moment and that the posts carry a sufficiently high remuneration so as to be able to attract efficient people, particularly during this period of manpower shortage in this country. We know what the position is today as far as traffic officers are concerned. We know that many of the traffic regulations are not being enforced as they should be; we know that motor-cars are driven through the streets making a tremendous noise at all hours of the night, motor bikes and motor-cars are driven through the streets at night without efficient silencers and no action appears to be taken against the owners. I cannot see how it is going to serve any good purpose if we put more legislation on the Statute Book without enforcing that legislation. I think it is essential that the hon. the Minister should realize that enforcement is the keynote to the successful implementation of this very important Bill, from the point of view of health.

But before I leave the Railway aspect I would like the hon. the Minister to explain to the House what is going to happen about the control of shipping. Does he envisage any control of shipping from the point of view of air pollution? We know that the ships in our harbours come under the control of the Minister of Railways; they fall under the Harbour regulations. We know that where ships have polluted the waters of our harbours by the throwing out of oil, prosecutions have been instituted successfully and they have put a stop to this curse which does so much harm in our harbours. Will the hon. the Minister explain to us what steps are envisaged under this Bill and under which clause control can be exercised over the ships in our harbours and by whom that control is to be enforced? Is that control to be enforced through the officials he will appoint as health inspectors under the Secretary of Health, or will that control be enforced through the harbour authorities under the control of the Minister of Railways? I think it is very important, before we get to the Committee Stage, that the hon. the Minister should tell us when he replies to the second-reading debate under which clauses he has provided for control. I cannot see any specific reference to it. I cannot see under what clause he is in a position to take any action against air pollution of any sort by any ship, whether it be a South African-owned ship or a foreign ship in our harbours. We all know that the problem of air pollution is made worse when there is fog and no wind to blow away the fog.

Then there is another purely health matter that I wish to refer to and that is the question of these Native townships. We know that there is a tremendous amount of smog in all our Native townships because of the unsatisfactory methods not only of cooking but, particularly in winter, the unsatisfactory methods of heating the Bantu houses in these Native areas or townships. I said “Native areas” and I think in this case I should say “Native areas” because many of these areas adjacent to the European cities are now being taken over by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, and I want to know if they are going to be responsible for the application of this Act in their townships, or if this smog is to be be allowed to continue unabated in those townships, where there is no control exercised by the health department or the health department of the municipality. The local authorities can be forced by the officials of the Minister’s Health Department to see that this smog is brought under control and that some steps are taken to minimize the trouble in the early stages and to do away with it completely in the end, I hope. We know that it is a question of economics. But we know that during the winter months these Natives make coal fires, using the most uneconomic type of stove with very low chimney pots, with the result that the smoke is emitted very near to the ground, in other words, very near to the windows of the houses—and there is a tremendous number of dwellings per acre in these Native townships—so that very large numbers of people have to breathe in polluted air. These Natives fill these open braziers with coal and they allow the coal to burn up outside before they take them indoors to warm their rooms. During the winter months particularly it must be dreadfully cold in these rooms with their concrete floors and one cannot blame these people who are often near the primitive stage and who do not know better. They have not yet been educated to use a better system of heating. and if we do not provide better education and a better system of heating for them they are going to go on using their present methods of heating. We do know that every winter numbers of Bantu families are poisoned by the poisonous gases emitted from these open braziers, which are taken into their dwellings where all ventilation is shut off so as to retain the maximum amount of heat from the burning coals of these braziers. All this smog and smoke is trapped amongst these houses when there is no wind blowing. Even in the High-veld the smog lying over many of these Native townships to-day is very thick, and I cannot help wondering what damage is done to the lungs of the children of those families who are already suffering from malnutrition and who are not fit enough to withstand this additional attack upon their constitutions. I do hope that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development will tell us what plans he has to deal with this problem, because he will have to deal with it in the Native townships which he is developing as part of his so-called border areas which unfortunately border on our cities. Sir, this development is going to lead to a lot of trouble as far as smog is concerned, smog which cannot be controlled satisfactorily by the local authority or any other authority in a local area. I just do not know what standing the hon. the Minister of Health has in that regard as the Minister of Bantu Administration appears to be a law unto himself in his own area, even though the townships are in what are presently White areas. I think it is very important that we should be told what is going to be done in this regard. Sir, I hope that when the hon. the Minister replies to the debate he will answer some of these questions so that when we get to the Committee Stage we can move amendments where we consider that to be necessary, in order to make this Bill work. It is most important that we should make this Bill work. Everybody in the country, both sides of the House, and all those who appeared before the Select Committee have said, “this Bill is long overdue; everybody is behind you, get on with it and implement this Bill.” Sir, I think it is essential that we should see to it that it does work.

It is quite clear that both sides of the House welcome this Bill. I think the reason for it is that in this Bill we have a breakthrough to the interests of the people outside the mining industry. It is a fact that the interests of people who live and work in the vicinity of mines and factories were in the past almost shamelessly neglected. There are a number of diseases which arise as the result of these mining activities, and hitherto no attention has been paid to the interests of these people. Therefore I say that both sides of the House have reason to welcome this Bill.

The provisions of the Bill are mainly concentrated on the effect of smoke and harmful gases. The major portion of this Bill, viz. Parts II, III and V, is devoted to it. Yesterday and the day before the attention of this House was concentrated almost exclusively on that. The report of the Commission of Inquiry mentions nasal and chest diseases like hay fever, asthma, bronchitis and lung cancer, which may possibly be caused by smoke and gases, but these matters are still obscured by a cloud of uncertainty and there is therefore a wide field for investigation by this National Advisory Committee which will be appointed, and for which provision is made in Part I.

I will leave that aside because I want to pass on to deal with a part of this Bill which in my opinion has not yet enjoyed enough attention in this discussion, namely dust as a second cause of air pollution. That is dealt with in Part IV. Only nine clauses out of 48 are devoted to it. In the first place it deals with mine dumps and slimes dams. This Bill seeks to combat this cause of air pollution everywhere where it causes a nuisance. Now. we do not know what a nuisance is because it is not defined in the definition clause, but if one reads the report of the Commission of Inquiry one comes to the conclusion that they particularly have in view the economic aspect of the matter because they say that the mine dump must assume the gigantic proportions of 20,000 cubic vards—I think that is provided in Clause 28 (b)—before it can be described as a nuisance. There is in fact a later provision which says that the mine dump may be smaller, but that gives us little satisfaction in view of what I am going to say now. What is more, the harmfulness particularly consists in the fact that this dust hampers other industries. damages machinery and spoils agricultural land, etc. The health aspect of it, as I have already said, is not emphasized enough, in my opinion. The hon. the Minister suspects that people in the vicinity of mine dumps may possibly contract pneumoconiosis, but we are not too certain of that either. What is somewhat disappointing to me is that so little attention is being devoted to the asbestos mining industry. It is not clear whether the Commission took any evidence in regard to this matter.

The only specific reference to this industry is to be found in Clause 1 (1) (xxii). There a definition is given of noxious or offensive gas, and towards the end of the paragraph we find“and includes dust from asbestos treatment or mining in any controlled area which has not been declared a dust control area”. Why it was actually inserted here under the heading of “noxious or offensive gas” I do not know. It is a fact that asbestos dust can be very fine, microscopically fine, but it still remains a dust; it is not a gas. Perhaps it should have been inserted under sub-paragraph (vii) where a definition is given of dust. In his reply the hon. the Minister should please tell us whether a mistake has been made here. Well, that is the only specific reference to asbestos dust. If one reads the report, one finds that in fact on page 4 there is reference to the danger of asbestos pollution. On page 4 a specific recommendation is made that the National Advisory Committee’s attention should be drawn to these dangers—

This is stated in the report, but nothing is said about it in the Bill as such.

I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that it is a fact that in regard to asbestos pollution there is no doubt to-day about the danger it constitutes to the health of people outside the industry: it has been stated beyond all doubt that asbestos dust outside the mining industry can not only cause asbestosis in people, but also that dreaded form of lung cancer, mesotelium. On a former occasion in this House I gave figures of people in the vicinity of asbestos mines in the north-west along the Orange River who died either of asbestosis or of the later complication that sets in. viz. mesotelium. That is on record and it is unnecessary to repeat it. But if there is still any doubt as to whether people in the vicinity of gold mines can contract pneumoconiosis. I want to emphasize that there is no doubt at all in regard to the effect of asbestos dust. Any amount, however trivial, of asbestos dust, when exposed to the wind and the weather, is taken up in the atmosphere and can give rise to this disease in people not connected with the industry. Therefore it is not a question of the size of such a mine dump; any amount, however little, is dangerous.

Now, in view of this I had hoped that even at this stage provision would have been made in this Bill for certain things to control this industry. I want to mention them here so that I can hear from the Minister whether it is possible perhaps to do something in regard to this matter in the regulations to be framed in terms of this Bill: In the first place, stricter control over the storage of waste matter of asbestos. If this waste matter cannot be thrown down a mine-shaft, I would like to see it being covered with a layer of soil so that it cannot come into contact with the atmosphere; secondly, a stricter prohibition on the use of the waste matter of asbestos in all cases where this waste matter can come into contact with the atmosphere or with water sources. In the past this waste matter was used on roads and tennis courts and the greens on golf links, etc. People did this in ignorance, not realizing the dangers connected to it, and I think it is time now to take action to prohibit it strictly. Then thirdly, a prohibition on the handling and processing of asbestos in densely populated areas. Here I particularly refer to asbestos mills which are often established in more or less densely populated areas for the processing of asbestos. In the fourth place I should like measures to be effected to prevent the pollution of water sources. In the Cape Province most of these asbestos mines are situated in the catchment area of the Orange River. We do not know much about the pollution of water by asbestos, but we know enough to realize that it constitutes a danger. I think of the thousands of people who live from the west of Prieska down to the mouth of the Orange River, and the danger it constitutes for them in the event of that water becoming polluted by the waste matter of asbestos.

Then I should like to ask the hon. the Minister please to ensure, when appointing this National Advisory Committee, that at least one member will serve on that Committee who is au fait with the industry and the dangers it may constitute for the people in the vicinity of that industry.

Finally, I want to point out that there is no compensation for a family which has lost its breadwinner in this way outside the mining industry. I do not know whether it is possible, in terms of our common law or any other legislation, for such a family to claim compensation. I realize that it will be difficult to pass legislation for the payment of compensation to such families because it is very difficult to determine the responsibility when there are various mines in the vicinity. But I have considered the establishment of a fund to which these mining interests may contribute; that with the assistance of the Government a fund may be established from which such a needy family may be assisted. I should like to point out that this would also be in the interests of the mining industry. This asbestos industry is busy developing into a very important industry. To-day already several thousands of Whites and non-Whites are being employed by these mines. Here I should just like to refer to the latest exports from the Cape Province. Everything I have said so far practically concerns blue asbestos. In 1964 R9,000,000 worth of asbestos was exported from the Cape Province, as compared with R8,000,000 the previous year, i.e. an additional million in one year. In the Western Transvaal, where blue asbestos is not mined on such a large scale, the exports also increased from about R600,000 in 1963 to R1,000,000 last year. Then there were also local sales amounting to approximately R100,000 by these two provinces, the Cape Province and the Transvaal. I want to emphasize that we are dealing here with a matter which we should approach very cautiously; we do not want to frighten people outside, but if hon. members know the conditions there as I know them, and if they know how many people have contracted this advanced form of asbestosis, they would agree with me that it is high time for us in this time to do something to alleviate the position.

Having listened to the debate over the last few days and heard the various aspects of this Bill. I think by now you are convinced, Sir, that this is an accepted measure. We have said on this side that we accept this Bill. We say it is overdue and that we should have had it years ago. Sir. hon. members on both sides of the House, including members of the medical profession, have dwelt on the importance of this particular subject. Emphasis has been placed on the importance of research. The question of air pollution is rather a new subject as far as this modern world is concerned. If you read the report on air pollution control you realize that investigations are taking place both here, in Europe and in America. Sir, if there is one thing of which we are guilty in this young, small country of ours—I say “small country” because we always measure the size of our country in terms of our White population—then I think it is our Government’s failure to recognize the importance of research. I do not think that we have prodded them enough. We have the C.S.I.R. But, when we come to our universities, where a great amount of research work is done, we find there is a very little money to carry out research of this type. This particular subject requires a lot of money to be spent on research. There is no doubt about it there will have to be travelling grants. Our experts will have to travel overseas and keep in contact with research overseas. We should also see that there is money available to send promising students to do this research. We should see if one of our bigger universities could not make a point, in conjunction with the C.S.I.R., of carrying on the research in regard to air pollution. It is a very big and very wide subject. When you read through this Bill and the report you realize that as a result of investigations overseas we are only really touching the fringe of the problem. We are putting a measure on our Statute Book which, we hope, will start something in this country.

It was also said that the movement to do something about air pollution was started after World War II. We have heard about the committee which was set up in 1955 and to-day we have this Bill before us. One might say the delay has been too long. I do not say that. Research work has been done and when we think of the good work done by the commission I feel we have come forward in remarkable time with a Bill such as this. The hon. the Minister provides in this Bill for the setting up of an advisory committee. I hope the Minister realizes that it will be necessary to have technically highly trained men on this particular committee, and that he should make it broad enough to cover all aspects of life in this country as far as the provinces, the local authorities and industry are concerned. The layman must be heard here. The scientists can be led by industrialists where the former go wrong and vice versa. I hope this particular advisory committee—we can’t accuse the Minister of doing this—will not be a job for pals. This is a most important committee and we require the very best brains whether they be technical or industrial.

The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) and other hon. members have spoken about asbestos mines and so forth. When you examine this Bill you find that it cuts across quite a number of Acts which we already have on the Statute Book and one wonders whether you could not have arrived at the same position by using the various Acts already in existence. It cuts into provincial and local authority control. The first Act affected is the Mines and Works Act. The Mines and Works Act. not only takes care of the safe operation of the mine, but the health of the individual. I am not so sure that the answer to the hon. member for Prieska’s problem cannot be embodied in the Mines and Works Act. Stringent regulations are laid down relating to the health of the worker in that Act.

You can say the same about the Explosives Act. The Explosives Act not only controls the misuse of explosives but also takes care of the worker in those particular factories. There are aspects of this particular Bill before us that could have been looked after by the Explosives Act.

There is one omission in the Bill which I think is a serious one and that is mention of the Factories Act, the Magna Charta of industry. This particular Act and the regulations promulgated under it spread so far as to control the type of building, the location of industry, the safety and the health of the worker. This particular Act, strange enough, is controlled by the Minister of Labour. There are aspects of this particular Bill which could have been controlled by the Factories Act. Talking about the Factories Act, the Minister has taken it upon himself to delegate authority to the Mining Engineer and the Chief Inspector of Explosives but he has forgotten the Chief Inspector of Factories. Mention of this is made in the report. I think the Minister should tell us why he has left out the Chief Inspector of Factories, the most important link in the whole of this particular Bill. I cannot see the Bill working without very close consultation with the Chief Inspector of Factories. He should have delegated authority.

As far as provincial control is concerned, the question of air pollution goes to the very heart of town planning. Our provincial administrations have their own planning sections and whilst the Bill mentions consultation with the Administrators, the accent seems to be action by the Government direct to the local authority. I feel, although there is precedent for it, that it is wrong for the Government to deal direct with the local authority and not via the Administrator. The provincial administrations are entirely responsible for local authorities. They control their town planning and everything else as far as local authorities are concerned. When we think of town planning we are inclined to think of new suburbs and towns being erected. But town planning goes very much further than that. When we come to the question of air pollution by motor vehicles in our cities we come up against bad town planning. Most of the pollution caused by petrol and diesel driven motor vehicles is confined to those areas in which we have inherited bad town planning from our forefathers. On our modern foreshore here at Cape Town you can see modern town planning and in the centre of the city you see out-dated town planning which will in due course be rectified by means of setting back the buildings. That is essential and it is a matter with which the provincial administration should deal. They can take care, without having an Act like this on the Statute Book, by having delegating authority to deal with the question of smog and so forth.

I should like to prevail upon the hon. the Minister, when dealing with local authorities, to bring the provinces into the picture and to allow them a say as far as control is concerned. The Bill provides for highly qualified inspectors and is in agreement with the report. I can imagine that the Administrations—I suppose the control of exhaust gases and vapours will probably be provided for in traffic ordinances—will have to have these particular gentlemen because it will not be good enough for a traffic policeman to stop a motor vehicle driver and say: “I think your vehicle is emitting too much smoke.” Because that will mean that a layman is telling you something about which he knows very little. The smoke emitted by diesel driven vehicles is probably not as dangerous as that emitted by a petrol driven vehicle. The local authorities will have to have measuring instruments and experts to tell them exactly what is happening in the case of every vehicle detained for inspection.

Reference has already been made to the domestic use of the coal and the smoke emitted thereby. In this country of ours coal is a very cheap commodity and over the years it has become a household usage. Perhaps not so much in the Cape because we live too far away from the coal mines and we have been trained to use electricity a long time ago. But further north, in the big industrial areas, you find that coal is the mainstay of life as far as heating is concerned. We talk about local authorities making a smokeless fuel available. I think the Minister realizes that here is another avenue of research, it will take a long time to educate the Bantu to use a smokeless fuel. I cannot see the Bantu converting to gas. To start with gas is expensive. Nor can I imagine them buying expensive coke. If electricity can be produced cheaply enough, probably by means of an atomic power station, that will probably be the answer. However, there is no doubt about it that it is along those lines that a lot of research is required and that is where the smog nuisance has to be tackled. These people must be provided with some form of fuel that will not cause all the smoke which is caused at the present moment.

Finally I should like to refer to the delegated authority the Minister is giving to the Railways. As I have said the Chief Inspector of Factories has been left out but the Railways have been brought in. I think we are all pleased to see that the Railways are rapidly converting to electrical propulsion or diesel. The greatest smog nuisance they have are their tugs, especially in Cape Town, but that can be overcome, and their shunting engines. The latter are disappearing very rapidly with the introduction of diesel. It seems strange to us that the Railways should be placed in the position where they can police themselves. I think it is all wrong to have them in this delegated capacity. I think that control should be exercised by an outside authority. There should be consultation but the Railways should not be in a position where they can be both the culprit and the judge of the offence. We have seen that in another respect. We find that the Government enforces the elimination of signs along the national roads but the greatest offenders are the Railways. The same could happen as far as smog is concerned. The Railways are a power unto themselves and I think it is time that some other outside interest should tell them what to do and how to do it.

We have already discussed this Bill in great detail. Although this detailed discussion may perhaps not have had any effect on the composition of the atmosphere around us, it may perhaps have had a psychological effect on hon. members of this House, an effect which may not necessarily have been beneficial. For that reason I just want to make a few brief remarks about this Bill.

The object of this Bill is clearly indicated because with this Bill we are trying to eliminate a nuisance which is injurious to the health of the nation and which can cause economic damage and losses. To keep watch over the health of the nation and to avoid economic losses are two important considerations. When you deal with two important matters such as these, Sir, the danger exists that you can make over-hasty decisions and such over-hasty decisions can easily lead to it that the solution you ultimately arrive at satisfies no one. When you study this Bill and the report of the commission there are fortunately a few reassuring facts. The first is that the problem we are dealing with here and which we want to combat has already been receiving the attention of various bodies for years, the attention of individuals, of scientists, local authorities and the Government.

Fairly intensive research has already been conducted in South Africa in this sphere. The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) has also referred to research and has said that we are really only on the fringe of the problem. I agree with him to some extent, Mr. Speaker, but surely there are many problems to which we already have the answer. There are also certain aspects in connection with which we know precisely what damage they are doing. There are new fields we shall have to enter upon because of the knowledge already gained from previous research. As far as research into the question of dust is concerned we are beginning to give the lead. Therefore, as far as research is concerned a great deal has already been done and we shall continue to build on that foundation.

This legislation is also based on a thorough knowledge of the problem as it has revealed itself in South Africa and also on knowledge of the measures local authorities have already taken to combat the problem and the reasonable measure of success they have had with those measures. Apart from the basis on which this legislation is founded our knowledge has been enriched by research conducted overseas, particularly that conducted in England and the U.S.A. A comparative study of our larger cities and the cities in those countries shows that there is very little difference between the conditions prevailing there and those prevailing here. We have therefore been able to learn a great deal from what has already been done not only as far as research is concerned but also as far as the legislation which already exists in other countries is concerned. For example they have the “Clean Air Act” in England and that legislation has been of valuable assistance to us. As far as pollution by exhaust gases is concerned we were able to benefit from the research done in the United States. The Americans believe they are on the point of discovering absolution to this problem and we can only hope that that knowledge will be made available to us so that we can build on it. As far as dust is concerned we are entering upon a new field, as I have already said. It makes interesting reading to read what the mining industry has already done in this connection. One is grateful to them for that. In the constituency which I represent you can travel through the city in August without really being aware of doing so on account of the smoke and dust. Fortunately some of the large mine dumps which have constituted a nuisance have already been put under grass and so forth and one is grateful for the work already done and for the huge sums of money those bodies have already spent.

Where this legislation rests on sound experience, sound research and sound prior knowledge we must not think that we shall not come up against new problems. There will be problems. We shall have to continue doing research. I do not foresee any problem in that connection provided a sufficient number of people will interest themselves in this problem. Not only a sufficient number of people who will be interested in the problem but adequate facilities to do the necessary further research. The success of this measure is going to depend on co-ordination between the Government, the Provincial Administration, local authorities, industry and the public. If that co-operation is lacking we shall run into serious difficulty and it may be that the wonderful things we have in mind will never materialize. One of the tasks of the National Air Pollution Advisory Committee is set out in Clause 3(c) and that is to promote interest in the question of air pollution and then the ways in which that interest can be promoted are set out. It is right and essential that we make reference to this objective. I do not want to meet trouble halfway nor do I want to dampen enthusiasm but I want to say that our problem is precisely going to be this: We in South Africa often reveal a peculiar contradictory characteristic in their attitude. For instance, when we are called upon to oppose something which is harmful in a certain direction or when we are called upon to support and promote a noble cause financially we are very enthusiastic and anxious to assist, we kill the adder in our midst or we nurse the little tree which must eventually bear the good fruit. But against that we are often called upon to promote other important causes and we often do not respond to it; it is like water off a duck’s back. I refer for example to the many appeals that have been made to observe road safety and to keep death off our roads. We have already become so used to it that it no longer has any effect. We must see to it that the dangers of atmospheric pollution become a reality with the public, that they appreciate the dangers, and that an appeal in that direction really bears fruit. We must see to it that local authorities, the Government itself, and every individual is spurred to action and that they do not also in this regard sit back and say: “I have no share in this; it does not concern me.” I believe that if that Advisory Committee draws up a programme for itself which is reasonably popular, and also rope in all the interested bodies, we ought to be setting a movement in motion whereby success will ultimately be achieved. I want to make a suggestion to them and that is that they should bear our schoolgoing youth in mind. We know that once you have spurred youth into action, once you have the co-operation of youth and they know what a certain matter is all about, you already have a strong force behind you. I do not think this Committee will find it very difficult in cooperation with our provincial authorities to insert a chapter somewhere in the hygiene syllabus of our schools. Because if we make the children conscious of the importance of this we shall have a strong force to act for us against it.

There is something else which worries me and that is Chapter II of this legislation in which reference is made to noxious and offensive gases. A great deal has already been said about noxious gases and the harmful effect they can have on the health of the nation but I do not think enough is specifically said about offensive gases. What is meant by it or how it will eventually be combated is not sufficiently explained. It is clear from the report of the Select Committee that this question of offensive gases did indeed receive attention. That is apparent from paragraphs 46, 60, 68 and 86 etc. The harm done by noxious gases can be determined scientifically. You have a definite basis on which to act if you wish to bring the offenders to book. But when it comes to the question of offensive gases you find that, according to the report of the commission, even the people who live next to a perfume factory find the smell of that perfume to which they are continually subjected, as offensive as for example, those people who live next to a fish and chips shop find that smell. It is, therefore not only unpleasant smells but also those which in the ordinary course of events would have been pleasant which eventually become offensive and which have a psychological effect, a psychological effect which is not directly harmful but which develops an attitude of mind, a mental attitude, in people which may have a harmful effect on their health. In Germiston, for example, there were so many complaints from the inhabitants of a certain factory area that the authorities were obliged in the year 1955-6, if I remember correctly, to spend an amount of R20,000 to combat the gases which gave rise to the offensive smell. They have been successful to some extent but the problem has not yet been solved completely. The inhabitants of the area concerned are still faced with this problem. I just want to say that if we do not also apply the measures provided for in this Bill for solving the problem of noxious gases to the question of solving the problem of offensive gases we should not airily ignore this problem because it is also a serious problem, a problem which may affect the health of the nation indirectly and which in many cases even cause property values to depreciate.

I give my blessing to this legislation; I welcome it, as I have already said, because it is based on the sound foundation of research and knowledge and because I believe that with it we are taking the instrument in our hands with which to combat those factors which constitute a nuisance and are harmful to health.

This Bill covers most important ground and is highly necessary. If I may say so, I think it is overdue. I have listened to a number of extremely sound speeches, but my object in rising is to attempt to prove that over-statements by experts on the case against smoking, which no doubt adds to the danger of lung cancer, has resulted in the attention being drawn away from other hazards which, in the opinion of experts, just as emi case against smoking, which no doubt adds to of lung cancer. I am afraid that attention has been drawn away from the real hazards for which this Bill provides and thereby doing a disservice to this Bill which aims at reducing the spread of disease.

I was amazed to see that it was allowed that, whereas we used to have electric buses in Cape Town, the authorities and public allowed diesel buses should be introduced. That is a step backwards. I know that certain people say diesel fumes do not cause lung cancer; that it is caused by smoking. And that sort of propaganda had perhaps made it impossible for the citizens of Cape Town to keep their electric buses. To hear certain dogmatic experts talk one would believe that by giving up smoking you will obviate your wife getting scabies, your dog getting rabies or your cook getting babies. Let me say straight away that smoking is a grave danger to health. There is no doubt about that and I shall never advise any young person to take it up. But it is merely one of the many contributory causes to lung cancer. It is by no means the only one or even the main cause. Air pollution might well be the main cause of it, as I hope to prove. Now I have read articles by one medical expert who, to advance his campaign against smoking, wrote that diesel and other exhaust gases merely play a minor part in lung cancer. That is nonsense! I have official figures to show, and I would quote them if I have the time, that whilst British immigrants going to New Zealand—(the British and New Zealanders smoke about the same number of cigarettes)—had a much higher incidence of lung cancer than the people who live in New Zealand itself. We know of course that cancer is a disease that takes a long time to develop, but it has been found that British immigrants have a much higher incidence of lung cancer than the people living in New Zealand. Does that not suggest that people who live in closely settled areas with tremendous amount of industrial development, and where therefore you get a lot of smog, are much more likely to get cancer of the lungs? The same applies to immigrants coming to Durban. If you take Durban itself, they show a higher incidence of lung cancer than people who have lived in Durban all their lives. If an immigrant goes to the countryside of Natal, again you find that the incidence is lower. Does that not suggest, as I have said, that people coming from highly industrialized and heavily populated countries, have had their lungs conditioned to lung cancer, by air pollution, by exhaust gas and industrial fumes? But to hear some so-called experts talk, this pollution is merely a minor factor. They suggest that air pollution has become an unwarranted dogma, and therefore any stigma is good enough to beat this dogma.

To emphasize their cleverness, these dogmatic experts come out with catch phrases and with epigrams. We have seen them all over the place. I know I got once into a Press controversy over this matter and I was attacked with a spate of epigrams. My opponents fail to see that an epigram is merely a cliche on its night out.

Mr. Speaker, they give what they call the facts. They say “these are the facts”. But, Sir, facts are merely half the truth. It is the interpretation of the facts that gives you the whole truth. May I give an example? Insurance companies find that grey-haired people have a higher mortality rate than blondes. That is a fact. But the truth is that grey-haired people, being older, die sooner. That is the truth. So it is the interpretation of facts that gives you the truth.

We are told that air pollution plays a minor part in lung cancer. Buckets of figures have been reeled off in this House to prove this, and the same has been done outside this House. The interesting thing is that the Veterinary Pathological Institute of Utrecht has proved that lung cancer is rapidly increasing amongst dogs. Will the anti-cigarette fanatics concede that canine addicts are in a minority. If so, will they accept Professor Ressang’s statement that lung cancer has increased in the short period from 1951 to 1956 very heavily in dogs; and that since then these statistics show a very marked increase, and as the incidence of diesel propelled vehicles shows also a large increase over that period, therefore Professor Ressang comes to the conclusion that exhaust gases are responsible for lung cancer in dogs. Cannot therefore the same apply to humans?

Statistics show that there is an increase in lung cancer in small children, young children who have never smoked. Though I must admit that the age when youngsters start to smoke has been considerably reduced. I had a personal example of this. I was standing outside a school gate the other day and I saw a small boy smoking a cigar. In horror I said to him: “How dare you smoke? Why are you not at school?”. He took the cigar out and puffed a large volume of smoke towards me and looked me straight in the eyes and said, “Look, do not be silly, how can I be at school, I am only four years of age”. But that is by the way.

Now some hysterical American politicians are demanding that a warning be inscribed on every packet of cigarettes. It has also been suggested here, and I hear my hon. friend at the back of me cheering. Splendid—I agree. But I suggest then that on every bottle of alcohol the same warning should be put. I go further, and say that the cigarette smoker is merely killing himself and usually in his old-age. What does it matter if I kill myself at my age? But the alcoholic destroys the security of his whole family when he drinks, destroys himself and brings misery to lots of people even when he is still young; and put him at the wheel of a car and he destroys another family too possibly.

We know that animal fats create cholesterol in the blood and that cholesterol is increased by eating animal fats. Therefore this increases the danger of coronary thrombosis. So on every packet of butter, a pound of cheese, lard, or on unseparated milk, or bacon, there should be a warning, and they should not advertise “Eat more butter and look fitter”, when as a matter of fact you are building up cholesterol in the blood. There should be a warning in regard to many things which endanger life. The trouble of course to-day is that the people who produce tobacco put one case and the producers of diesel oil another, and so you never quite know where you are. That is why I think it is very sensible to have a Bill like this which gives the Minister power to investigate.

But whilst talking about figures and statistics, the greatest killers to-day in the 41-60 years old group are diseases of the cardio-vascular-renal system, namely, caronary thrombosis and cerebral haemorrhage. A large insurance company shows that for these age groups (41-60) the death claims for this group is 57 per cent of the total deaths. For the same group from neoplasms (that is cancers and tumors), it is only 15 per cent.

Now we are usually given the percentage increase of the people who die from lung cancer “you have six thousand per cent more chance to get lung cancer if you smoke than if you do not.” They do not say what the percentage is of the total number of deaths in the country or even of cancer deaths. Sir, I remember how a mayor of a municipality proudly said that they had increased the number of street lamps by 100 per cent in the past year. On investigation I found that whereas the year before they had one, they now had two. Those are the sort of figures which are dished up and which are so ridiculous.

Those who give up smoking usually put on weight. I have known some men with slim figures giving up smoking and within six months they were a perfect example of the phenomena to which the human skin can stretch without bursting. Sir, many of my honourable friends opposite, I realize, must have given up smoking very recently.

Sir, I know you are a student of Shakespeare and you will remember him making Julius Caesar say just before the assassination: “Let me have about me men that are fat; sleek-headed men and such as sleep o’night. Young Cassius has a lean and hungry look; he thinks too much; such men are dangerous”. It is possible that the hon. the Prime Minister therefore did not ask my lean and cigarette-smoking friend, the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson), to be his Minister of Bantu Administration as opposed to the commanding regime of the present incumbent.

We have been told that the smoker has a much higher lung cancer mortality rate and also a much greater coronary disease incidence. I accept that as entirely true, and if one can stop smoking, well and good. But for heaven’s sake do not mask the danger of air pollution, which this Bill is trying to counter, by emphasizing too much the danger of smoking.

But it might also interest you, Mr. Speaker, to know that the smoker has also a much higher car and industrial accident rate. Now that cannot be due to his smoking. I can understand that the fellow who knocks the bottle having a higher accident rate, but not the smoker. Does it not suggest to you that the smoker therefore by nature is the impatient, tense, anxious-to-get-ahead type, who takes risks when driving, to overtake the next car; who overworks and is tensed up by nature and is likely, sooner or later, to overstrain his heart? And will he not therefore be the type who feels the need for a sedative? Will he not in fact be the type that would develop a coronary thrombosis whether he smoked or not? And that therefore the statistics of earlier or a higher percentage of deaths are misleading? In fact it is putting the cart before the horse, Mr. Speaker, in that his psychological make-up (which urges him to seek an anodyne, like smoking), would predispose him to coronary disease whether he smoked or not?

Now you can ask me why am I talking like this? Do I approve of smoking? Most certainly not! I am entirely against it, but I object to the danger of air pollution being masked by this misleading propaganda. My sympathies are with the individual indicated, the man who cannot give up smoking due to the stresses that he has to live with. Now he has the additional burden thrust on him by the hysterical clamour—day in and day out—of the horrible early death that awaits him if he smokes. I personally am largely a pipe- and cigar-smoker and have several times given up smoking for three or four years at a time. I can give it up quite easily. But I found I was getting fatter and so I took it up again, particularly when one day I found myself on a public platform having to listen to the same speech by a man who went round from place to place, and had to do something else with your mouth other than talking, and I took up smoking again. But I disapprove of this campaign in the same way that I detest people who frighten children in the dark or take pleasure in tying a tincan to a dog’s tail. It is a mild form of sadism.

To emphasize my point about some feeling the need for an anodyne, we are told that 18,000,000 Americans in the United States have given up smoking. But we are told at the same time that the sale of tranquilizers and sleeping pills has increased by 1,000s of per cent. Now is it better to have your tranquilizer in the form of a cigarette or out of a bottle? That is something everybody has to decide for himself. Many who cannot break the habit for psychological reasons, may well by all this scaremongering develop the very diseases they fear. Remember the old saying, “Fear not—lest that which you fear comes upon you”.

The experts most generally quoted are doctors. But they are also sometimes wrong. They also have fads, pet hobbies, and they over-state a case to make a point. There is an eminent professor in Cape Town who to ride his hobby-horse against smoking deliberately ignores pollution of the air as a danger. Sir, doctors are human, and will at times, to discredit an opponent, or to promote a theory, understate or overstate a case to that end. They are like artists and actors and scientists, men of the highest integrity in all walks of life, who to criticize a rival, bend statistics or sometimes even the truth to make their point in their own profession. I feel, Sir, you might agree with me that even politicians have been known here and there to have been guilty of the weakness of bending the truth to suit their case.

You will remember the perfect example of this in the Victorian era. Dr. Simpson discovered chloroform and recommended its use to deaden pain in major operations and in cases of childbirth. He was violently attacked by the churches and as violently opposed by the most eminent leaders in his own profession. In the end he won out and rose to the very height in his profession; he was made a peer and had the greatest influence. Then came along a young struggling doctor called Lister who was the father of anti-sepsis. His work was as important as Simpson’s, if not more so, because major operations made possible by chloroform usually turned septic because they had no anti-sepsis methods in those days. Well, Sir, one would have thought that now this all-powerful man Simpson, who had risen to the highest point in his profession, having been under the harrow himself when as a young man he discovered chloroform, would have helped the young Lister. But no: Simpson from his Olympian Heights tried to discredit and destroy Lister. I mention this to show that even the opinions and statistics of the most eminent doctors can be at fault.

In conclusion, I entirely admit that smoking is bad, that it increases the hazard of lung cancer, that it is an undesirable habit. But my object in speaking as I have is to prevent the anti-smoking campaign from masking the dangers of air pollution, and thereby preventing the public being warned against its dangers.

I don’t wish to follow the argument of the hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl), but I do wish to deal with a subject, which, like the hon. member’s subject was also described by Shakespeare. In the “Merchant of Venice” he talked of “the rankest compound of villainous smell that ever offended nostrils”. I refer, as the hon. Minister knows, to the now famous Durban-North smell.

I welcome this Bill and the people in Durban-North welcome this Bill because it will deal with these obnoxious odours which have plagued us over the last five or six years. Now particularly the craft processes which will have to be dealt with when this Bill becomes law, the craft process factories, the paper factories, will have to be dealt with in Durban very, very severely. I want to say this to the hon. Minister that he has in so far as his powers existed been extremely helpful, and his Department has been very helpful in tracking down the source of the smell. The source of the smell, Mr. Speaker, without any doubt at all, the main source of the smell, was the SAPPI mill at Manzini. Although this is not the only craft mill in this country, it is a craft mill which gives off a smell. All craft processes, all pulp processes give off this disgusting smell. It is not something which is confined to this country. You know, Sir, that because of the smell, what they did with this factory was to take it and put it right up on the Tugela. As the crow flies, nearly 50 miles from Durban. We have had this smell and I want to say that it is a smell which wakes one up at night in Durban, it sits there and wakes one up and you can’t get to sleep again. If there is anything more objectionable from a health point of view than this I cannot conceive what it is. But due to the researches made by the C.S.I.R., and the help given by the health authorities they traced the smell. No one could believe that the smell came from Manzini, but they traced it with the help of a low-flying aircraft and the use of gas chromatographs and they ascertained without doubt that it came from there. What worries me is not that this factory exists where it does. What worries me about Durban is that although Manzini is doing all it can by the installation of oxidizing towers to do something about the obnoxious gases which are emitted by this process, and they spent a lot of money on it, it is proposed to put another and bigger pulp mill in the centre of Durban. The thing that disturbs me is that it is not possible, as the hon. Minister is aware, by means of this process to have a factory which does not give off this disgusting odour. Sir, they have it in Springs, and they have it all over the world, in Canada, in America; they all give off this odour. Now we hear that we are to get this mill in Durban and the newspaper report at that time said, “that the project was believed to have the backing of the South African Government, for the sponsors have undertaken to obtain consent for re-zoning the proposed site”. I would like to ask the hon. Minister whether that in fact is so, whether in fact the Government has given its consent to the building of this new pulp processing mill in the centre of Durban, and if so, whether it has discovered a new and different process for producing pulp which does not give off this smell? If the hon. Minister has and knows of such a process, he will be a millionaire overnight.

Mr. Speaker, Durban, as the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) indicated, has that peculiar temperature inversion problem which for example Los Angeles has. The problem of smog in Los Angeles, where more money has been spent, I suppose, than in any other city of the world, is that it has this temperature inversion problem and that seems to duplicate itself in Durban. Whereas in a place like Cape Town you have the South-Easter which can blow away these smells, this pollution by obnoxious gases; in Durban you get the same temperature inversion and it does not blow away. You get the situation where above the normal air, sometimes as low as 100 feet, you get a layer of hot air and the lower it comes the more impossible it is for the air below to break through and to escape. You can imagine what in Durban this does with the smog, and I hope that the hon. Minister is going to give his attention not only to the creation as far as the Board is concerned, which will be created by this Bill, the creation of devices for pollution control, the controlling of all the industries, but I hope the hon. Minister is going to bring all the powers at his command, in liaison with the Minister of Economic Affairs who features very much in this Bill, as to the siting of industries and particularly the siting of industries in a place like Natal. You see, Sir, one of the other causes of the difficulties in Durban is a cause which does not fall within the purview of the hon. Minister’s Department, and not within the purview in fact of this Bill, and I am not going to deal with these other causes at any great length, but the question of water pollution is another matter which the hon. Minister of Water Affairs must give his attention to. It is a matter which concerns the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). But it is the same basic problem, the problem of pollution and it is a problem which can only be dealt with at State level. And if the State does not do all it should do in this regard, if the State does not have a determination to deal with this problem, then we can pass all the Water Bills and all the Air Pollution Bills in the world, but they are not going to help us. You see, Sir, there is every reason to believe for example that the smells that I have referred to—any one who has smelt the smell will know what it is like, it is like a sewage system gone wrong, it is like being at the wrong end of the wind and all the septic tanks right down the road for three miles out of order. This is the sort of smell that it is. I must say that the SAPPI people have done a lot of research in this matter and they have used these gas chromatographs and they have established that very often the smell that one gets, particularly in Durban-North, a most offensive smell, could not possibly come from Manzini; there are occasions when it cannot come from there. Well, what other causes are suggested? The causes that are suggested are various. One of the causes that is suggested is the question of the discharge of raw sewage as it is discharged out in Durban Bay. Sir, this goes into the sea. Where it goes from there, I do not know, and I do not believe that sufficient research has been done to know exactly what the currents do with the sewage when it goes out of the bay, when it goes out to the sea. It is discharged almost at the mouth of the bay, it is discharged into the bay on the outgoing tide. Where does it go? I don’t know, but I do not believe anyone can say with certainty what the currents do immediately around Durban. We are going to have a big pipeline. It has been mentioned here before. This is going to be a pipeline to take it even further out to sea, but what is the effect of the currents there? Does anybody know? That is why I say to the hon. Minister that I wish him the best of good British luck in the administration of this, because he is going to need all his determination, he is going to need all the co-operation of his colleagues if he is going to make it work, as the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Cruywagen) has indicated. What we need, and what we need desperately and urgently, is some research. The results of the research done by the C.S.T.R. so far have been excellent. The development of such techniques and such instruments as the gas chromatograph have made what five years ago was an impossible task, something that can now be done. With the gas chromatograph you can to-day determine what the source, the substance of a smell is. The research of the air and the research of the sea and the research into air currents and sea currents has got to be done and has got to be done very quickly. You see, Mr. Speaker, so far as the siting of industries is concerned, Natal, of course, is the one province which is going to get eventually all the important industries; it is the one place that can provide industry and can provide the development of South Africa with everything it needs.

It has got the water.

It has got the water, it has got the labour, it has got everything necessary. It has got the brains and the money, and the best provincial administration, but what happens in Natal, on the South Coast, for example, (I do not want to butt into the preserves of the hon. member for Natal (South Coast)), is that on occasion the froth from Umkomaas comes all the way down to Durban. I have seen it myself, I have seen it at the opening of the Bay in Durban. And, Sir, we are putting our sewage out in this. No one ever thought when they put that factory at Umkomaas that the currents would bring this down. But this is a health hazard as well and it is a hazard that the Minister of Water Affairs has not done very much about, and I hope the hon. Minister of Health is going to persuade him of the health dangers that exist.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30 (2) and debate adjourned.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

I move—

That this House views with concern the increasing shortage of skilled manpower and the subsequent dangers of inflation in South Africa and urges the Government to consider the advisability of taking steps—

1. (a) to abolish all measures which retard the expansion of the economy, more particularly the industrial colour bar and restrictions on the mobility of labour and on the right of collective bargaining; and
2. (b) to institute a crash programme of training, particularly in the industrial field, to enable all citizens to participate in the development of the country to the full extent of their capacities.

Mr. Speaker, I move the following amendment to the motion—

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House takes cognizance of the fact that—

1. (a) the maintenance of the traditional colour bar has contributed towards bringing about unparalleled labour peace in South Africa; and
2. (b) the policy of the Government has created great possibilities for advancement for the non-White population groups and has resulted in a real increase in the income and a general improvement in the standard of living of non-Whites;

and that this House, in approving the steps taken by the Government to meet the need for skilled labour, appeals to employers’ and trade union organizations to do their share by, inter alia—

1. (i) giving active support to the policy of border industries;
2. (ii) stepping up the productivity of the labour force;
3. (iii) encouraging the better utilization of existing manpower resources; and
4. (iv) contributing towards the training of staff”.

It is perfectly clear that the hon. member who has just sat down has a political motive in moving this motion. It is quite clear that she wishes to use the economic prosperity that we are enjoying in South Africa at the present time in order to attain her political aims in South Africa. She wants to make use of our economic prosperity to bring about full-scale economic integration in South Africa, and in that way she hopes to bring about a liberalistic political integration even if that political integration brings about her own destruction and the destruction of all Whites in South Africa.

She does not care.

She does not care if the whole of the existing order is thrown overboard as long as she can achieve her liberalistic political aims in South Africa. I am glad that she also mentioned the gold mines in the course of her speech because she made no reference to the gold-mining industry in her motion.

Of course I did.

She does refer in her motion to industries, but she did mention the gold mines in the course of her speech. I want to say at once that we all know what the position was in the gold-mining industry; we know that one of the biggest strikes in our history took place in the gold-mining industry, a strike in which South Africans resorted to arms against fellow South Africans. I want to repeat that the peace and quiet that we have to-day in the industrial sphere is due to the maintenance of the existing order. If we want unrest and disquiet to the detriment not only of the Whites but also to the detriment of the non-Whites, then we must throw the existing order overboard; then we will no longer have economic prosperity in South Africa but a constant process of friction and unrest, the ultimate result of which none of us can foresee to-day.

And chaos.

I want to point out that in spite of the difficult and complex composition of the population of South Africa, we have had unprecedented peace and quiet over the past 17 years. We have enjoyed peace and quiet here in contrast with the trend of events in most countries of the world, but I want to point out that the hon. member for Houghton refuses to learn anything from this lesson; she refuses to recognize that the existing order that we are maintaining is a form of co-existence which brings about peace and quiet in South Africa; that it is the only order which has succeeded hitherto in bringing about prosperity and in making possible peaceful co-existence in South Africa. Sir, I want to point out that the shortage of manpower we are experiencing is not confined to the Whites only. The hon. member referred sneeringly to the fact that we had said that there was also a shortage of non-White man-power but there is definitely also a shortage of non-White manpower as far as trained manpower is concerned. I want to point out that we have created a great many posts for non-Whites in this country as a result of the policy of this Government. In the Transkei at the present time, for example, there are not sufficient trained Bantu to cope with the work there; we do not have enough trained Bantu to fill all the posts in the Bantu townships. We do not have enough trained Bantu, for example, to fill the posts which are open to them in commerce. Sir, if there is one anomaly to-day it is the fact that we have to use the services of so many Whites to continue to help the non-Whites in South Africa along the road towards progress, and the hon. member now wants to use those Bantu in the service of the White section instead of giving the non-Whites the opportunity to serve their own people. What the hon. member really wants to do is to deprive the Bantu of the limited manpower that we have at the present time and use that manpower in the White areas. The hon. member says that there should be collective bargaining; in other words, she put forward a plea here to-day for the recognition of Bantu trade unions. We on this side contend, however, that the existing machinery created by this Government is the most effective under present-day circumstances. I am convinced that the time is not ripe yet for the recognition of Bantu trade unions in South Africa. The Bantu still do not have enough experienced leaders. I do not think that the Bantu workers themselves have reached the stage of development where they are able to use trade unionism as a weapon for the promotion of their economic interests. I think the developments in other countries on the African Continent confirm what I say here, and that is that these people are not ripe yet to make use of that weapon. Mr. Speaker, if the Bantu were given the weapon of trade unionism at the present time it would only lead to their exploitation by political fortune-seekers and by self-seekers, and in many cases the non-White working masses would be exploited by the communistic henchmen of either Russia or Peking. We have had that experience in the past. We contend therefore that the present machinery is much more effective and that it can do much more for the non-Whites than they could ever achieve if we recognized their own trade unions. I think the best testimonial as to the effective functioning of this machinery is to be found in the peace and quiet that we are enjoying in the industrial sphere; that testimonial is one which no Bantu trade union within or outside of South Africa can produce. This machinery has functioned so effectively that the rise in Bantu wages in South Africa in recent times has outstripped the rise in White wages. The machinery created by the Government has not only caused Bantu wages to rise more rapidly, but it has given them the opportunity to advance to higher and more advanced posts in our country without having to face the competition of the White man. Let me mention the old example again to the House, the example of the opportunity that we gave the Bantu to be trained as building workers. If the Bantu workers had been given this opportunity under the ordinary trade union setup we would have had unprecedented disquiet in this country to-day, but it is because we created an opportunity for them to do that work amongst their own people in their own areas that the opening of new avenues of employment for them has not given rise to friction and unrest in the industrial sphere.

Sir, I have said that we have a shortage of trained Bantu manpower. The development of the Bantu themselves is being hampered today because of this lack of trained manpower. In fact there are opportunities for them at the present time which are still beyond their capacity. We have given them opportunities which they are still incapable of using fully. The Government is doing whatever it can to give the Bantu the opportunity to equip themselves for these tasks because the Government will then be able to implement its policy of parallel development in this country much faster.

Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to deal at greater length with the position of the Bantu. The object of this motion is not to benefit the Bantu economically; the hon. member’s object in moving this motion is to see what political advantage she can derive from it.

I want to go on now to say a few words about the labour shortage. Sir, the labour shortage in South Africa is not a unique phenomenon. There is a labour shortage in other underdeveloped countries and there is also a labour shortage in developed countries. In the United States, for example, where they are faced with a chronic unemployment problem, they have a tremendous shortage of trained manpower. Western Europe also needs large numbers of trained men, and even there they are making use of large numbers of migrant labourers. Sir, the Government has done its best, in the interests of this country, to take measures to overcome this shortage, and I want to mention just a few of these measures: I want to refer in the first place to the steps which have been taken to keep our children at school as long as possible. This is one of the most important measures taken by the Government. Here I want to outline the position as it has developed in the Transvaal. The effect of the measures taken in the Transvaal to keep our children at school as long as possible is that last year there were 106,500 children at our secondary schools as against 43,500 in 1949, an increase of 145 per cent. When we look at the children who pass the school-leaving examination at our secondary schools in the Transvaal, we find that the figure has risen from 2,709 in 1949 to 10,200 last year, an increase of 270 per cent. When we look at the percentage of Std. VI pupils who reach Std. X we find that it has increased from 17.6 per cent to 36 per cent, an increase of more than 100 per cent.

Sir, in our vocational schools, which fall under the Department of Education, Arts and Science, the number of pupils in those schools has increased from 55,000 in 1948 to almost 80,000 this year. At our universities the number of students has increased from 19,700 in 1948 to 37,700. A great deal has been done in this respect in the first place by means of measures to keep our children at school as long as possible and in the second place by means of financial contributions given by the Government to our schools, vocational schools and universities in order to make this increase in the number of students and scholars possible. But the Government also took another measure which made a great contribution towards the solution of this problem; I refer to the measure that was taken to help our apprentices to undergo their final tests at a much earlier stage. Then there is also the attempt that was made to give the opportunity even to our adults to receive training and to undergo trade tests to qualify as artisans. We can be grateful for the fact that 4,000 people who were not formerly artisans were given the opportunity as adults to qualify as artisans. But I think the most important step taken by the Government was the establishment recently of the manpower, research and planning committee under the chairmanship of Dr. P. M. Robbertse, the director of social research under the Department of Education, Arts and Science. I understand that this committee has now been provided with staff and that they have started to do research. Mr. Speaker, there is one thing of which we can be sure and that is that one can only make a true survey of the manpower shortage in South Africa by means of thorough research. The surveys made in the past bristle with mistakes because they were done very superficially, and that is why one must always take into account the human factor. There are people like the hon. member for Houghton who seek to over-emphasize the shortage of manpower for political purposes, people who wish to harm the National Party Government; that is why they are over-emphasizing this shortage.

And also to harm South Africa.

There are certain people who hope that economic forces, as the hon. member put it, will force us to abandon our policy of parallel development of the races in South Africa. They want to have the colour bar removed so as to promote economic integration; that is why they constantly emphasize this manpower shortage for political purposes.

I want to conclude by saying that it is not the task of the Government only to find a solution for this problem of manpower shortage; it is a task that calls for a national effort, it is not only a question of integration. Sir, we are grateful for the fact that we are getting large numbers of immigrants. It is not just a question of training. It is also a question of deep-rooted customs, of established practices, of prejudices which have to be broken down, and to that end we need the full co-operation of both employers and employees. Let me point out what can be done by taking as an example the building industry, one of the industries which has been very badly hit by the shortage of manpower. In the latest annual report of the Master Builders and Allied Trades Association it is stated—

I do not like the idea of people having to work overtime, but this only goes to show that if one wants to do so one can find a solution for this problem. There are certain employers in South Africa, and one is grateful for it, who have already done their share in helping to find a solution for this problem, but there are still too many employers who stand on the side-lines and who make no attempt to find a solution for this problem. Mr. Speaker, full employment is in the interests of the workers too, and one is entitled therefore to look to the employees for help, in their own interests, to solve this problem. Moreover, it is in the interests of the White worker in South Africa to help to protect his sphere of employment. He must not look to the Government only to protect his job for him; that is why the workers in South Africa should help us by working harder and by equipping themselves for better posts. There are wonderful opportunities in South Africa at the present time for every person who wishes to equip himself for a better post. But the employers too should do more to increase the productivity of their employees. It was estimated recently—to what extend the estimate is correct I do not know—that if we can push up the productivity of our labour by as little as 5 per cent we will be able to meet our manpower requirements. We know that pleas are being put forward to-day for improved managerial methods and for incentive bonuses to be paid in industry. I was surprised to learn that in our industries the system of incentive wages was being applied by only a small percentage of employers and that where this system is applied, it is applied in some cases by people who have made no study of the methods that are being applied to-day under the modern system of incentive wages.

Then there is another matter in regard to which I hold very strong views and that is the question of training during employment. The prosperity that we have in this country acts as a suction pump which causes our children to leave school too early; it is an incentive for them to leave school early and to take up employment. When one finds that approximately 30 per cent of our children leave school with Std. VIII only or even before passing Std. VIII, one realizes that our economic prosperity also creates problems for our youth; that is why I say that in the case of these young people who leave school too early we should give them the opportunity by means of training during employment, when they become more experienced and realize the mistake that they made, to equip themselves better with a view to making them more suitable, more adaptable, for the labour market. A worker who is trained becomes more mobile; he becomes more adaptable and his services can be used in more senior posts. I say therefore that we must encourage the training of our workers, not only at school and at university but also later on when they are already doing their share in the labour market; we should regard it as a national task to provide them with training facilities. I think the Government should do something in this connection, and here I want to mention the following for the consideration of this House: A few years ago I had the opportunity of urging in this House that the Government should give tax concessions to parents whose children are at university; the hon. the Minister of Finance was kind enough to grant concessions to parents in respect of children at university up to the age of 24 years. I want to put forward the plea here to-day that the same concessions should be given to people who study in their spare time. The man who has the courage and the initiative to improve his educational qualifications in his spare time is a better worker in most cases than people who study at the expense of their parents. I feel that this would be a fine investment. At the present time we have to give bursaries and make large contributions to the universities and I feel that money invested in our youth, as it were, will produce better results than the results we are getting to-day from contributions that we make to the universities. I say again that what is called for here is an effort on the part of our entire nation; it cannot be left to the Government only or to a section of our people; this problem is one which constitutes a challenge to us. I just want to say that as long as we have economic prosperity we will have a shortage of manpower. A shortage of manpower is the result of economic prosperity and of growth. If a country has a manpower surplus it only goes to show that the economy of that country has retrogressed. We should do everything in our power therefore, since we are living in a period of economic prosperity, to see, not only that that prosperity lasts but that it is further increased in the interests of the entire population of South Africa.

This motion that we are dealing with this afternoon gives us an opportunity of considering what is happening in South Africa, who is to blame for it and what can be done about it. The hon. member who introduced the motion has stated in a motion exactly what she feels has brought about the present position and also what she feels can be done to put the matter right. I think we can also say that she has indirectly indicated whom she blames for the present position. Sir, one can always praise when things are going well, but when things are not going so well then it is a question not of praising the Government but blaming the Government. I think that is traditional in our South African political set-up.

The task that I have and I think the task facing anyone dealing with this matter realistically is one of trying to cover a very wide field in a very short while. I am going to endeavour to do that and in the process I think I shall reply more or less fully to the points made by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) and also the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt). Other speakers following me will possibly deal with other aspects of this whole matter. I want to say at the outset that the first thing that the hon. member for Houghon failed to establish in the eyes of the Government, judging by what the Minister of Labour said on earlier occasions, is that there is a serious manpower shortage. It is all very well to quote what others have said, but we have to get down to tintacks on this issue and discover whether the Minister of Labour will now admit that there is a serious shortage of manpower. That is the first thing, and in that respect I want to quote what the Minister had to say in June of last year. The Minister said—

Sir, what has happened since June of last year to this barometer. I find the following in an article published in the Natal Daily News of the 18th of this month—

I think that judging this case according to the Minister’s own barometer, we must have a serious shortage of manpower at the present time. The report goes on to say—

less than a month after the Minister made his statement in the House last year—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied now that there is a serious manpower shortage in this country.

He is slowly waking up to the fact.

Because unless we can get the Minister of Labour to admit that fact, all the suggestions made by the two speakers who preceded me are going to fall on deaf ears. We first have to know whether the Minister of Labour who is in control of our labour force is satisfied that there is a serious manpower shortage, and I ask the Minister now to give us his opinion when he replies to this debate on this important issue. Unless we can get agreement on this basic factor we are in fact wasting our time talking about the motion before us.

The next thing is what to do about the shortage of skilled manpower. The Minister will not indicate to me over the floor of the House that he admits that there has been a tremendous change in the position since he last spoke in this House seven months ago. I do not know whether his silence can be taken to mean consent. Sir, in the same speech to which I have referred the Minister said this—

What are the facts? Whereas 6,306 apprentices were indentured during 1962 the figure increased by 305 up to 6,611 for 1963. The Deputy Minister of Labour told us in the no-confidence debate that the figure for 1964 revealed a further improvement of 700 over the figure for 1963, in other words, a figure of 7,300 for 1964. There is no doubt about it that there has been an improvement during the last two years, but I believe that our shortage of skilled manpower to-day is due, particularly in the industrial field, to the inaction of the Government in earlier years. What was the registered number of contracts for 1951? By going through the Department of Labour’s annual reports I find that in 1951 6,773 contracts were registered. Twelve years later, in December, 1963, it was 6,611, a drop of 162 registrations. Last year the improvement in the registrations of 13 years ago amounted to 527. Is this a record to be proud of? There was a drop of 162 in 1963 compared with 1951 and an increase of 527 for the year 1964. In other words, after 12 years, a 2.3 per cent drop in the number of contracts registered and in the 13th year only an increase of 7.5 per cent over 1951 registrations. In the metal industry—I am dealing with the metal industry because I think that is the industry which best illustrates what is happening in the whole of the South African economy—there were 1,879 registrations in 1949 and 14 years later 1,859, a drop of 20 registrations. It is incredible when you look at these figures to discover what little activity there has been in the registration of apprentices, particularly in the metal industry.

In the Cape Times annual review of the South African economy—I think this is a very informative and valuable review—we find an article by Mr. F. C. Williams. Mr. F. C. Williams was formerly advisory secretary and today is consultant to the Steel and Engineering Industry Federation of South Africa. I find this in the article headed “25,000 lobs to be Filled in Metal Industries During Coming year”—

During this period of tremendous activity we have had a decline in the number of apprentices registered in the metal industry. An increase of eight times the wage bill without an increase in the number of apprentices registered. No wonder the writer goes on to say—

No wonder, Sir, that industry itself feels that if there is not this development in respect of the training of apprentices, for whatever reason it may be, it is obvious that there has to be a break-down in the work done by the skilled worker to enable the industry to continue with its work. Obviously that is what has happened but I shall deal with that later on. The writer also goes on to say—

One asks where are these workers to come from?

From the Railways.

I am sure the Railways will not be able to assist though the Minister of Railways has not got a bad record in regard to the training of apprentices. I want to emphasize what the writer says in respect of skilled personnel or personnel which may be utilized for operations that are traditionally within the sphere of craftsmanship. This statement I find in so many other articles. It may be that it is stated differently but the same implication is there. In the same review Professor Schumann says this—

The Minister of Labour will appreciate this—

To relieve the pressure, Sir, but not to meet it.

I find that Mr. Palmer had this to say in an article entitled “South Africa’s Continuing “Boom” demands revised Labour policies” in the December issue of Optima—

This was written and published in December 1963. I think the truth of that statement is now visible to all of us. All this, I think, adds up to one thing and that is the traditional work done by craftsmen is slowly being eroded away by the employment of semi-skilled labour and the use of improved machine tools. The degree of this erosion is dangerous to our future development.

The question arises what to do about it? I think the mover of this motion has suggested quite clearly that in her opinion we should do three things immediately: abolish the industrial colour bar; abolish influx control and recognize Bantu trade unions in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act.

Train and educate them.

I am talking about the things you suggest should be abolished. We shall deal with the other aspects a little later. In dealing with these matters this type of suggestion to abolish the colour bar, influx control and to recognize Bantu trade unions, is like comparing South Africa with a home in which we are all living. Because you want to bring about an improvement in that home you decide to blow up the foundations while all the inhabitants are still in it. That is the picture that I see in this suggestion. It may be that the hon. member has this ideal in mind. She would like to abolish all the restraint but if that were to happen, it would mean in the first instance, that we would have chaos. I do not think there is any doubt about that. I think that if these things were to be done the question that then arises is whether it would eliminate the shortage of skilled manpower. The hon. member for Houghton cannot prove the preamble to her motion by the steps she contemplates in (a) i.e. the abolition of certain things. As for (b), i.e. the second part of her suggestion“to institute a crash programme of training, particularly in the industrial field to enable all citizens to participate in the development of the country to the fullest extent of their capacity” it does appear to me that the hon. member would like to see (a) introduced before (b), if possible. Must they be done in that order? That before you can deal with (b), the positive side of the motion, you must introduce (a), the destructive side?

They must go together.

Oh, they must go together, but that does not take us very far, Mr. Speaker. I cannot see any merit in creating chaos and then taking steps to put the matter right.

You are beginning to become a Nationalist.

Sir, you must remember that the hon. Minister of Transport used to belong to the United Party. He is reminded of what he used to believe. I ask the question of the hon. member for Houghton: Is it the colour bar, influx control or the non-recognition of Bantu trade unions that prevent non-Europeans from being trained as skilled workers? What does the Minister of Labour say? I find that he said the following last year—

That was what the Minister of Labour had to say. He went on—

What about the present Minister of Transport? Earlier this year he had this to say—

So we have a former Minister of Labour indicating one reason why skilled workers cannot be trained and the present Minister of Labour indicating that there is another reason. What is the composition of the Apprenticeship Committee? It consists of representatives of employees, trade unions, employers and Government Departments. It is difficult to ascertain whether apprenticeship committees are against the training of non-Europeans by Whites or whether they are against non-Europeans working side by side with Europeans. The latest report of the Industrial Tribunal on work reservation in the motor assembly industry puts the matter this way—

It would appear then, Sir, that it is not the question of different race groups working together that causes the difficulty in terms of Government policy but rather that there is a difference of policy between the Government, employers and employees. From what I have quoted from speeches made by the Minister of Labour who says that the training of non-Europeans rests with the employers and the Minister of Transport who says the apprenticeship committees will not permit the training of non-Europeans by Whites, it appears that there is an urgent need for employers and employees to get together and consider what steps should be taken to meet the skilled manpower shortage. Therefore I move as a further amendment—

In further support of this amendment may I quote further from the Cape Times review published last Saturday. Mr. Ralph Horwitz and Mr. John Hampton had the following to say—in dealing with the economic development in the Cape—

Contrast this statement with the Industrial Tribunal report on page 21, paragraph 71.

There I find this—

What races are they referring to?

The Coloureds, Whites and the Bantu. There is no industrial council at all for any race group in the motor assembly industry. There is no trade union either. I think another extract that is of interest here says the following. This is paragraph 77—

The point I want to make here, Sir, is that unless we can get a far better understanding by all population groups, including the Government, of the crucial necessity of developing strong trade unions in this country, so that the conditions of change that must come about can be fully agreed to by the employer and the employee organizations, without the Government having to interfere, as they do with job reservation in terms of the amendment to the Industrial Conciliation Act, this problem of skilled manpower shortage will remain with us.

Does that include Bantu trade unions?

The problem of Bantu trade unions cannot be solved until we have all the Whites in trade unions.

That is voluntary, is it not? They decide for themselves.

That is why our motion calls on the Minister of Labour and the Government to initiate such a conference.

But the Government does not initiate trade unions.

No, not to initiate trade unions, but to initiate a conference between employer and employee organizations registered in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act, to consider the position that has developed in this country as a result of all sorts of factors which have had the end result of bringing about the manpower crisis which we have to-day. I believe that the Government must do everything in its power to see that trade, unions are encouraged, that the employer organizations are encouraged to work together rather than to call upon the Government to introduce legislation to bring about changes to meet our manpower difficulty. Unless peaceful agreement can be reached between employers and trade unions to solve our manpower problem our future will indeed be black. I say this advisedly, Mr. Speaker, because our whole industrial framework has been built up in the past on the basis of the recognition of both employer unions and employee unions. It is the only basis. No matter what steps the Government may decide to take to ease the manpower crisis, if the employers are against it there will be trouble; if the employees are against it there will be trouble. Whichever way we go there will be trouble unless there is agreement between the employers on the one hand and the employees on the other. To us on this side of the House it seems common sense that the Government should take the initiative in bringing these two groups together for them to formulate what they consider necessary to change our industrial set-up, our traditional way of dealing with matters in South Africa. It is for them to decide what steps should and must be taken to relieve the conditions which are obvious to everybody to-day in respect of our manpower shortage. Our amendment has been put forward with that idea in mind. It is true that they may suggest measures which eventually the Government will have to agree or disagree with, but at least we shall be getting the active co-operation of these two groups. They will at least be working together to try to bring about an understanding of what should be done at this juncture in the interests of our whole economy. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down and who spoke on behalf of the Opposition, has suggested in his amendment that there should be a conference of employer organizations and trade unions in order, as I understood him, to decide what amendments should be effected to our industrial legislation in order to bring about a change of present circumstances. In other words, this conference must decide whether certain controls which our industrial legislation imposes should be abolished or relaxed. Let me tell the hon. member and the Opposition that I am not impressed with that suggestion one little bit because the policy of the Government is quite clear. Firstly, we are opposed to the abolition of the colour bar; secondly, we are opposed to the withdrawal of work reservation, and thirdly, we are opposed to recognition of Bantu trade unions. That is the very basis of our industrial legislation. So that I cannot see how the hon. member can expect the Government, which has a clear-cut policy on these issues, to call a conference to advise them as to what they should do or what their policy should be. I say at the outset that we reject the amendment.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) completely avoided the issues raised by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). The hon. member for Houghton motivated her speech well and I must say she delivered a good summarized speech. She summarized the policy of her party, the Progressive Party. She has received no reply from the Opposition to the points she has put before this House on the various aspects mentioned in her motion.

Are you going to reply to them?

Yes. I do not intend evading the issue. The hon. member for Houghton raised three main issues. The first is that she wants, for certain reasons in which I need not go, the abolition of the colour bar.

We have replied to that.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana’s reply to that was that it was like living in a house and blasting the foundations with the result that the whole thing collapses. I assume therefore that the United Party is against the abolition of the colour bar. Is that so?

He made it so clear that we cannot explain it any further.

Secondly, the hon. member for Houghton pleaded for the withdrawal of job reservation.

They are in favour of that.

I am coming to that. The United Party has left us in no doubt as to where they stand on work reservation. They are and have always been opposed to it.

If you can give us a definition of job reservation, I shall reply to you.

Thirdly, the hon. member for Houghton pleaded for the recognition of Bantu trade unions. I take it the United Party is opposed to that.

We have stated our case again and again. You should know it by now.

Well, I do not know.

It is the most pathetic performance I have ever seen.

They state a different case every day.

Sir, I am asking a simple straightforward question arising from the speech made by the hon. member for Houghton.

Tell us what your policy is; it is important to the country.

I am going to do that. I am going to talk principally about job reservation.

You have given exemptions to the extent of 97 per cent.

Let me tell that hon. member that that is an untruth.

You said so yourself.

The hon. member for Houghton mentioned blanket exemptions. I have given no blanket exemptions to anybody.

You have given exemptions to most of the industries.

I will not be diverted. The only exemptions which we have considered, say in the last year, have been certain exemptions from the building industry determinations.

I have only got half-an-hour so I must try to summarize my remarks. Let me say right away, once and for all, that there is not the slightest intention on the part of the Government to abandon a single one of the work reservation determinations hitherto proclaimed.

Just allow me to put a question.

I hope the hon. member will give me a chance to make my speech. I listened with the greatest courtesy to the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) and I expect to receive the same treatment.

The hon. member is downright rude.

I want to say that these work reservation determinations hitherto proclaimed, without exception have the full support of the Government and of every single member sitting on this side of the House.

As you know only too well, Mr. Speaker, job reservation has become a hardy annual in this House. I have, nevertheless, closely followed this debate in the hope of detecting some new arguments on the part of the Opposition, the opponents of work reservation. The weakness of their case has, however, been amply demonstrated by their complete inability to produce any concrete evidence, or any convincing arguments, which might justify a review of the Government’s present policy in this connection.

The Opposition and the Press which supports them and certain public bodies have seized upon the manpower shortage as an opportunity for a renewed and persistent attack on work reservation. It must be obvious, however, that they have once again not been able to carry the matter any further than the slogan which they borrowed from the Trade Union Council “the rate for the job”. Those have always been the magic words used by the Opposition. Sir, the futility of this formula as a substitute for work reservation has been fully and effectively dealt with in previous debates by members on this side of the House, but I think the time is perhaps again opportune to deal with the source of the Opposition’s wisdom or lack of wisdom in this matter.

The Trade Union Council, as the hon. member for Houghton has shown, has always been extremely and quite unreasonably opposed to job reservation, and they still persist in the absurd and worn out assertion that the “rate for the job” is an adequate safeguard against the displacement of workers of one race by another. They have, however, not yet had the courage, nor apparently any grounds, on which to explain why White workers in certain occupations in various industries, such as clothing, building, engineering and other industries have been replaced to a considerable extent by workers of other racial groups, despite the fact that throughout the period of replacement the industries concerned have all been subject to wage regulations and that the so-called “rate for the job” has always been a feature of all the relative wage regulating measures.

Are any of them unemployed?

No.

They have gone to better jobs.

May I put a question to the hon. Minister? Is that process not still going on, despite job reservation?

I would say no, not in the trades where there is job reservation, except, as I have said, where there are a very small number of exemptions. This story which has repeatedly appeared in the Press that the Government is abandoning job reservation, that we are falling down on it, is so much nonsense.

I do not know, of course, how long it is since the Opposition was briefed by the Trade Union Council, but I think hon. members may be interested in one or two recent developments which throw some light on the weight to be attached to the official attitude of the Trade Union Council.

As recently as November, last year, it was reported in the Press that the Natal branch of the Amalgamated Engineering Union had informed the Natal Sugar Millers’ Association that it was opposed to a proposal to train Indians to perform certain operations in the sugar industry, and that should the proposal be put into effect, the union would have no option but to apply to the Government for work reservation. That was the Amalgamated Engineering Union.

A branch of it.

Of course a branch, but it represents the union, surely?

You tell us.

The sugar industry has for many years been governed by an industrial council agreement, embodying the “rate for the job”. The Amalgamated Engineering Union itself is a party to the council and, as hon. members know, it is one of the biggest and most influential unions affiliated to the Trade Union Council. I am sure the House will be interested to learn from the Opposition why this union should, in the circumstances and in defiance of the policy enunciated by its federation, that is the Trade Union Council, threaten to resort to work reservation to the embarrassment, I am sure, of the Opposition.

But that is not all. Towards the end of last month, I received a letter from the Durban Municipal Transport Employees’ Union—also a filial of the Trade Union Council—in which it expressed its apprehension at the possibility that the Durban Transport Management Board might resort to the employment of Coloured bus drivers on its European services. The union confirmed that it accepted the principle that the different races should serve members of their own race as far as possible. That comes from Durban. I have no doubt, and no member of this House can have any doubt, that should the Durban City Council decide on the employment of non-White bus drivers on its European services, the trade union would immediately ask me for work reservation in spite of the Trade Union Council’s official attitude.

Hon. members may have seen recently an interesting exchange of correspondence in the Natal Mercury on the subject of the “rate for the job” in which a certain Mr. Mossman who had affiliations with the Trade Union Council expressed himself as follows—

This is a man who speaks on behalf of his trade union.

Mr. Speaker, I am not influenced in the slightest by the Government’s opponents, including the liberal Press, in putting this latest propaganda of their’s abroad, the abolition of the colour bar. I have more than sufficient evidence on record that the people comprising the White labour corps of South Africa cherish the principle of work reservation and will always insist on the application of the relative enactment whenever they feel that they need protection.

But, Mr. Speaker, I go further. I say that there is ample evidence that the Coloured workers also desire protection. Just recently a non-European who is the general secretary of a comparatively important trade union and who acted as an assessor with the Industrial Tribunal during one of its work reservation investigations, admitted that there is only one salvation for the Coloured workers in his industry in order not to be ousted by Bantu, and that was job reservation. This is a secretary of a trade union. His union is affiliated to the Trade Union Council and he himself, before he was disillusioned, followed in the wake of the Trade Union Council by opposing the very thought of work reservation. I am going to mention his name. He is Mr. Louis Nelson, an Indian of Durban and Secretary of the Natal Liquor and Catering Employees’ Union, who assisted the Industrial Tribunal in its investigation into the liquor and catering trade and the private hotel and boarding house trade in the Western Province and Natal. There is this leading trade unionist who says that job reservation has been the salvation of the Coloured man as against the Bantu in Natal.

So much then for the origin of the Opposition’s policy in this matter, that is the rate for the job, but may I also remind members opposite that quite apart from the views held by the rank and file within the Trade Union Council, this particular federation (the Trade Union Council) is by no means the sole repository of trade union wisdom in South Africa. As hon. members know, there is in existence another federation of substantial strength which fully supports the principle of work reservation and the colour bar. I am referring to the South African Confederation of Labour which is composed of three federations of trade unions. They are the South African Federation of Trade Unions, the Co-ordinating Council of South African Trade Unions and the Federal Consultative Council of the S.A.R. and H. Staff Association. Together they represent 33 independent trade unions with a total membership of 189,071. On 27 January 1965 only a few weeks ago, this confederation adopted a resolution in Pretoria, fully supporting the principle of job reservation in the following terms—

When work reservation was placed on the Statute Book ten years ago, it was said that there would be disruption, that there would be industrial chaos and the prophets of doom prophesied all sorts of things that might happen.

You were one of them.

I voted with my party.

And now you are doing the same thing.

Let me say that I now really understand what work reservation means to the workers of South Africa.

To the industrialists I should like to say that employees of a particular race are as much entitled to a measure of protection against the sudden disruption which may be caused by competition of another racial group on the labour market as industry is entitled to tariff protection against disrupting competition from countries where the standard of living and wage levels are considerably lower than in the Republic.

Only three years ago when we had 30,000 unemployed the Opposition thought it was a golden opportunity for attacking job reservation. They said the unemployment position was essentially caused by job reservation. Hon. members will remember that they said that in the House. To-day, when there are only 9,000 people registered as unemployed and we are having difficulty in filling vacancies, we are told that job reservation is the cause of it. Surely the Opposition cannot have it both ways—they cannot eat their cake and have it; and I challenge them to say how they reconcile their statements that vast unemployment on the one hand is due to job reservation and that full employment, causing a shortage of manpower on the other hand, is also due to job reservation.

It is beyond my comprehension why there should be this hue and cry about statutory job reservation because it is a fact that a mere 2 per cent, as the hon. member for Houghton said, of the industrially active population who are affected thereby, that is by work reservation, whereas the greatest form of job reservation in South Africa, is conventional work reservation.

And that they support.

The pattern has been established by custom and by the attitude of our various population groups in certain occupations.

Is that not more powerful than job reservation?

We need both. It is a pattern built on the different standards of life and the background of the different races, a pattern that forms an integral part of our South African way of living.

You have got to change with the times.

I want to say once more, clearly and unequivocally in order to obviate any misunderstanding, that the agitation against work reservation or the abolition of the colour bar will never succeed because the present Government of the Republic of South Africa is determined to maintain order in this country of ours and is not prepared to allow chaos to be created such as must inevitably result from the policies advocated by the Opposition.

As far as Bantu trade unions are concerned, I want to say in reply to the hon. member for Houghton, that the Government is still convinced that, in general, the Bantu outlook is not reconcilable with the underlying principles of trade unionism.

Teach them.

We are teaching them. We are teaching them through the Settlement of Disputes Act, where we have work committees. Mr. Speaker, the average Bantu, I think members will agree with me, expects something in return for every subscription paid by him.

Does not the same apply in the case of the average White man?

If the Bantu’s conditions of employment are satisfactory, he has no further interest in any union. If his pay is right and his conditions of work are right, then he has no further interest in the union. The Industrial Legislation Commission found that in the case of some 13 trade unions, with a total membership of 6,651, only 40 per cent of the members were in good standing as far as subscriptions were concerned. An examination of the financial management of 35 Bantu trade unions revealed that the management of the affairs of 20 was unsatisfactory.

Why do you not allow them to join the ordinary unions?

The Industrial Legislation Commission was informed that in many instances Bantu trade unions were organized as a source of income for the organizers themselves rather than as a measure of protection and promotion of the interests of the workers.

To this day the Government is not prepared to encourage a movement of this nature by granting statutory recognition to Bantu trade unions. It is felt also that recognition alone would not be of any benefit to the workers unless they are able to use the machinery of the industrial laws which are intended for trade unions functioning on traditional lines and to settle any disputes which they might have. I am sure hon. members will agree with me that the overwhelming majority of Bantu workers have no knowledge of this legislation and they cannot appreciate trade union responsibilities and discipline. As pointed out by an industrial legislation commission, the theory and practice of trade unionism and the implications therein are matters which require the attention of leaders of experience and knowledge, qualities which are not readily found amongst Bantu workers. So I say that as far as the Government is concerned, we are not prepared to agree to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Houghton.

In answer to the question which was put to me by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, whether in fact there is not a very serious shortage of manpower, I would say that there is a manpower shortage, but I doubt whether it is serious.

Ask the Minister of Railways.

Although it is a fact that we are experiencing a shortage of manpower on practically all fronts, I am of the opinion that the shortage is not quite so acute and that there is a great deal of exaggeration. My department has found, for instance, that when a survey is conducted to establish the shortage of staff in any particular industry, employers are inclined not to furnish us with the details of their actual vacancies; they give us their prospective requirements too. An employer may be short of ten artisans, but knowing that if he were to be successful in getting a tender accepted for a new project requiring say an additional 15 men, he will then indicate that he has 25 vacancies. And if three employers were to tender for the same job on the same basis, we would find that they jointly required 75 artisans on paper, whereas the actual number of vacancies would only be 30. That is where you get these big figures from of 28,000, 30,000, 40,000. I think that if there was a suggestion of a labour crisis, as mentioned by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, it would lie not so much in a shortage of labour as in the wastage of the available manpower, and that is where the challenge comes in. There is a wastage of available manpower. There has of course been a phenomenal upsurge in the volume of industrial activities in the Republic, and it confronts all employers in all sectors of the economy with the challenge of using all the available manpower resources and developing it to the highest possible level of productivity. But unfortunately this challenge is not always accepted and the line of least resistance is followed quite often in the form of an exaggerated outcry for more labour. Sir, I can only say that this question of the manpower shortage was dealt with by my Deputy Minister in the no-confidence debate, and I think the case was quite clearly put as to what the Government is doing in order to help overcome this manpower shortage. In addition to training schemes and technical college facilities and immigration, which is assisting us in the shortage of skilled manpower quite considerably—all those factors taken into consideration we feel that we are on the right lines at the moment to assist in augmenting the shortage. It has been said that the Government itself is responsible for the shortage of skilled labour, but that is not so. Employers themselves should assist in the training of skilled manpower. They do so to some extent, but, as I have said, I feel that the matter is exaggerated, that the Government is doing its best, and that with the co-operation of certain employers’ organizations we are training more and more skilled workers.

Let me conclude by saying this, that it is not only a question of how many apprentices a year are indentured. The fact is that we are turning out thousands of skilled artisans each year in South Africa. We are increasing our output of skilled artisans, and the number of apprentices is of course also increasing quite considerably.

Mr. Speaker, it is not possible for me in the short time at my disposal to traverse all the points made by the hon. the Minister, but I want to say that I have never heard the hon. the Minister so weak as he was to-day, and I have never seen him so uncomfortable as he was to-day. I think the Minister spoke most of the time with his tongue in his cheek, and I think he spoke that way because the hon. the Minister has admitted that when he sat on this side he voted with his party, and now that he sits on that side of the House, however uncomfortable it may be for him, he has to support the policy of the Government. I think that accounts to a large extent for the poor way in which the hon. the Minister presented his case to-day, and I must say that I was extremely disappointed, and I think he was flogging a dead horse. He was trying to inspire the House with the Government’s policy, but the Minister, as a good lawyer, only quoted those cases which he thought were in his favour but very skilfully avoided quoting certain other cases which would destroy completely the case he put up for himself and his Government. Let me just quote one thing which I have mentioned before. When the hon. the Minister set up a tribunal in the building industry, he called for evidence. Everybody, including the trade unions and the master builders, all opposed job reservation in the building industry.

Who asked for it?

The Minister has asked that question before. Every trade union in the building industry, as well as the Master Builders’ Association, opposed job reservation in the building industry, but the Minister took no notice of all that evidence. They all asked the Government not to bring it in, but the Minister pushed them all aside and introduced it. Now I want to tell the Minister something which I could not do last year when he raised the very same question. There was one request, and only one, namely from the stonemasons, and the Coloured people said: Certainly, give them job reservation in that trade because we are not interested in it; we have never been interested in stonemasonry, so let the White man have it. But when it came to the other aspects of building, they and every organization of any standing, including the trade unions, opposed it. But the Minister was adamant, and because of this one little exception in the case of the stonemasons the Minister pushed aside all the voluminous evidence, the almost conclusive evidence, and refused.

But the hon. member knows that is not right, and that several trade unions asked for it. I have the records here.

I hope the Minister will bring the proof. If I am wrong, I will apologize, and I hope he will apologize if I am right.

The Blankebouwerkersunie.

I have never heard of it. Did they give evidence? Sir, I am prepared to tender my apologies to the hon. the Minister if he can show me in that evidence that the Blankebouwerkersunie asked for it. But even if they did, they were one organization out of dozens. The weight of evidence against the imposition of job reservation in the building industry was overwhelming. Sir, the hon. Minister must not make a bad case worse for the Government by trying to justify it. In fact, I am going to say to the Minister and to the Government: Throw off this mask of hypocrisy that you are all wearing …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I mean that in a political sense.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “hypocrisy”.

I withdraw it. Talking for the Coloured people who I represent I believe the Government cannot justify job reservation and they cannot refute the accusation that they are practicing job reservation in order to put up a facade before the voters but that behind the scenes they are not applying job reservation. Let us take the Tramway Company of Cape Town. The hon. the Minister quoted in support of his case the municipal employees of Durban. Why does he not quote the Cape Town Tramway Company?

It does not suit him.

The hon. the Minister knows that some years ago they had an agreement that only so many Coloured people would be employed by the Tramway Company. There was a strike the other day and the Minister had to give in and bring in more Coloured people.

But that was not on account of the strike. The strike took place long afterwards.

Let me put it this way. The Minister knows that he had to bring in more Coloured people, and he knows that what happened two or three weeks ago is a complete contradiction of the terms which the Minister imposed a few years ago.

It was a strike over wages; I dealt with that.

And a shortage of men.

It was a strike over wages.

I accept that, but did the Minister not increase the number of Coloured persons who may be employed by this Company?Did the hon. the Minister not agree to an increase in the number of Coloured people?

Yes, from 16 per cent to 24 per cent.

Job reservation in reverse.

That is what I am trying to say. I am trying to prove to the hon. the Minister that this has also happened in other Departments, in the Department of the Minister of Transport, and in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I want to say that people are quite happy in the Cape to have Coloured postmen. In probably every town in the Western Province, in Stellenbosch, Paarl and Wellington, there are Coloured postmen, but when it comes to a shortage of postmen in Pretoria, the Transvaal says “No.” However, they were forced to accept them.

The Minister did not tell us that.

They were forced to accept them and they will continue to force the Government to accept Coloured postmen because the Government simply has not got sufficient White people. I should have thought that the hon. the Minister would have done South Africa a service by saying, “We have seen the error of our ways; we now realize that in the Coloured people of South Africa we have a reservoir of servants (if you want to put it that way), a reservoir of artisans, of people who can be usefully employed.” You push out your chest and you say, “Look at the technical college that we have built for the Coloureds at Athlone; we give them technical education.” That is the story that was spread right throughout the world. That technical college is a showpiece, but what use do you make of the technical education that you give the Coloured people? Why do you continue with this sham immigration policy?

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

Sir, why does the Government continue with what I regard as a sham immigration policy? It is nothing but importation of labour to the detriment of the Coloured man in South Africa who is to-day being educated in that technical college. I want to repeat the question which I put here last time: Where do the Coloured people go from this college after they have received their technical education? Why do you not open the doors of employment and force everybody to accept the Coloured people? If you train them, as you are doing, then you do not have to import labour into this country. Sir, there is no defence to the case we put up for the Coloured people. The Government has no defence and I am surprised that the hon. the Minister whom I know to be an honest man, does not come out and say that the time has arrived when the Government must make use of this vast reservoir of labour that we have in the Coloured people. I am not bringing in the Bantu at this stage. I do not know sufficient about them but I do feel that these people too should have their place in the sun in South Africa. We are murdering our technical potential and for what? For the sake of gaining a few votes on the platteland. We should be honest with ourselves and say that the Coloured people are able, they are willing, they are capable and they want to do the work. The Minister tries to protect the Government by defending job reservation. I have read letters in the Press, letters not from uneducated people but from people in commerce, people in industry, people who can speak authoritatively on the subject, in which they condemn job reservation. Job reservation I say stinks in the nostrils of every decent citizen in South Africa.

We have to-day had a clear motion by the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). She has stated the policy of her party in regard to the arrangement of labour relationships very clearly, much as we differ from it. There can be no doubt about what her attitude is. After that the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) moved an amendment on behalf of the National Party in which he also stated the attitude of the National Party beyond any doubt. The hon. the Minister has clearly stated our attitude to job reservation. We are quite justified in asking what is the attitude of the United Party? The United Party say they want to abolish all statutory job reservation. The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), after having opposed job reservation for nine years, actually asks the Minister to-day to give him a definition of job reservation! Mr. Speaker, I ask you! After having fought the Government for nine years on the question of job reservation he asks for a definition of it. The United Party want to do away with statutory job reservation in industry but what about the colour bar on the mines? Do they want to maintain that? If the United Party want to abolish job reservation in industry but retain the colour bar on the mines then surely they are not consistent. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition told us the other day that the question of abolishing the colour bar on the mines would be considered if there were agreement between the employer and employee organizations. Is that correct? That is what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said very clearly. We are prepared to accept that as their policy no matter how irreconcilable it may be with the entire principle of job reservation but then the United Party must tell us what their attitude will be if the employer and employee organizations in any industry decide that they wanted to retain job reservation in that particular industry. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) nods his head; he says they will say yes. Job reservation can apply in that industry if the employer and employee organizations ask for it. But for the past nine years they have been opposing the Government on the principle of job reservation. They did so again this afternoon. Where is the consistency in the policy of the United Party in respect of this principle of job reservation? Of what significance is all the fuss they have been making about job reservation? Of what real significance is their policy of abolishing job reservation in industry then? Then surely it is nothing else than hollow sounding words. Then they are being led; they are no longer leading. They are no longer trying to lead the country. They are being led; as their amendment quite rightly discloses they do not know how to bring about labour relationships in this country, they do not have a policy in that regard; they want the employer and employee organizations to come together and tell them what to do, what their policy should be. Mr. Speaker, what must you do with such an Opposition? Put it on a train and let it get lost.

This accusation against the Government that it is really practising a policy of economic integration because it employs non-Whites is so much nonsense. The mere presence of non-Whites in our economic field is not economic integration. When races become integrated in the economic field it does not mean inter-racial dependence but it means that all races have become one in the economic field, an economic unit forming one whole in which no distinction whatsoever is made. But that is not what we have between the races in the economic field in South Africa today. A distinction is being made to-day in the economic field as regards salaries and wages, as regards the type of position a White man may occupy and the type of position a White man may not occupy. The different races are not allowed to do the same type of job in the same room. Surely the races do not work together on equal basis in all respects. The tap is not turned on full as the hon. member for Houghton would like it to be so that the streams meet and run together. No, there is proper control, the very control the hon. member for Houghton complains about and says she wants to have abolished. But the United Party says we are practicing a policy of economic integration. The mere presence of non-Whites in our economy does not mean economic integration at all. Not only are occupants reserved, by law and by tradition, but we have complete separation in the economic field; we have separate trade unions, separate bargaining instruments, separate training, separate residential areas. We have all that in the economic sphere. Nobody can deny that and it is for the very reason that we have that that the hon. member for Houghton has introduced her motion to-day in which she asks for the abolition of all colour bars and for the right of Whites and non-Whites to bargain together, to belong to the same trade unions. It is stupid to think that by turning the tap on full, by throwing the labour market open, we shall solve our problem of a manpower shortage. The friction and racial strife that will follow will only have a paralysing effect on our economy and we shall ruin our very economic growth and prosperity. In other words we shall wreck that which we want to achieve. And we shall be wrecking it not to the detriment of the Whites but we shall be wrecking the economy of the country to the detriment of the Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu. Where the non-Whites are today being enlisted to meet the manpower shortage in various fields, that is being done under proper control under National Party regime. It is happening while economic separation is being maintained, while ensuring that it is not to the detriment of the White worker and that it does not damage our economy; it is happening in the best interests of the Whites as well as the non-Whites. Where the Government provides training facilities to the non-Whites it does so with the idea that they will eventually serve their own community. It may indeed be true that the non-Whites still play an important part in meeting the manpower shortage in South Africa but it is equally true that White initiative is still by far the most evident in the rendering of services to the non-Whites. The greater the number of non-Whites trained to serve their own communities, the greater the number of Whites who are to-day rendering services to the non-Whites who will be released. That is the approach of National Party policy and that is why ample provision is made under this policy for the non-Whites to better themselves. That is why it has led to an actual rise in the standard of living of the non-Whites, so much so that it is far above that of other Africa states in Africa. When the Progressive Party talks about training non-Whites, the idea is, as has again become clear to-day, not to train non-Whites to serve their own community, but to train them so that they will be drawn into our economy permanently alongside and together with the White man, with no separation and no colour bar. It will and must lead to total economic integration, the total economic unification of White and non-White. What have we heard about the policy of the United Party? It really seems to me, Sir, that whenever matters of policy like this are discussed the United Party tries to cause as much confusion and as much uncertainty as they can as regards their attitude in the hope that they will be able to fish in troubled waters with a view to gaining some political advantage in both directions. That is always the game the United Party play in this connection. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition said recently that because they employed non-Whites in certain jobs, both the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs were following a policy which was a direct disavowal of the objectives of the policy of job reservation. In other words by saying that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition tried to suggest that the Government was not consistent in its application of the policy of job reservation. Have I stated it correctly?

Are they only serving their own people?

First answer my question. I am holding the floor at the moment. I take it that that is correct because the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) would have denied it otherwise. But only five minutes after having levelled this accusation at these two Ministers, the Leader of the Opposition, in the same speech, said job reservation was one of the main causes of the manpower shortage. Surely both statements cannot be true at the same time.

Why not?

If job reservation is not applied how can it cause a shortage of manpower in a country? The hon. member shakes his head. How can it cause a shortage of manpower if it is not applied as the Ministers have been accused of doing? Do you see, Sir, how also in this matter the Opposition are doing their level best to cause as much confusion and as much uncertainty as they possibly can. It is quite true that there is a serious shortage of manpower in certain industries, in certain works, to-day such as the Railways, the metal industry and the building industry, but I ask myself whether it is really as serious as suggested in some circles. The danger exists that this shortage may be exaggerated. I just want to give the example of the increase in the production of our factories. I find that between the years 1956-7 and 1961 the index for the physical volume of factory production increased from 100 to 122.6. Those were the years during which we experienced a fairly serious unemployment problem but from 1961, which is really regarded as the year in which new economic activities were started, the index figure rose from 122.6 to an average of 163.3 for the first months of 1964. But in spite of the shortage of workers in the manufacturing industry for example, of which they complain so much, the physical volume of production, over a period of three years, has increased from 122.6 to 163.6. That is definitely a particularly sharp increase.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing order No. 32 and the motion lapsed.