May I claim the privilege of the half-hour? The first item that I am going to ask the hon. Minister to consider is the problem facing us in respect of the very, very heavy increase in the cost of living, particularly over the last 12 months. Those who have been paying attention to this matter must have listened with interest to what the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing had to say. He said that he had received two pleas—one for an increase in producer prices, and the other for a reduction in consumer prices, and he indicated that this cannot be achieved by the application of any economic law. An increase in producer prices will automatically mean an increase in consumer prices. The question arises then: What does the Opposition want? Now I think we can say this: The producer and his workers should receive a fair return for their labour, and the wages of workers in our cities should be sufficient to purchase the necessities of life.

Now what is the problem facing the Government? The Government cannot see its way clear to authorize an increase in producer prices because this will lead to a demand for higher wages by workers. If higher wages are agreed to. then an inflationary spiral will start that will nullify both the increases granted to producers and workers.

The danger of inflation was referred to in the State President’s speech at the opening of Parliament. He said this amongst other things—

I emphasize the words “to protect the purchasing power of the citizen’s money”. The State President continued—

Mr. Chairman, a study of the consumer price index for March 1965. issued by the Bureau of Statistics on 23 April 1965. indicates that the weighted average of the nine urban areas has risen in respect of all items from 107.9 for the months of March 1964 to 112.1 for the month of March 1965. an increase of 4.2 points in the 12-month period. In respect of food alone the increase is from 106.5 to 114.6 during the same period, an increase of 8.1 points.

When we take into account the fact that the index is based on 1958 equals 100. it will be seen that over a period of six years the increase in respect of all items averaged out at 1.6 points per annum as against an increase of 4.2 points over the last 12 months: and in respect of food alone the average over the same period of six years (1958-64) was 1.2 points as against 8.1 points in the last 12 months, that is the period ending March of this year, a seven times greater increase in one year than the average over the six years from 1958. No wonder that there is an outcry for increased wages!

Sir. I think we have got to accept the fact that the basic reason why there is this demand for increased wages, is this increase in the cost of living.

Now if we convert this unprecedented consumer price index increase in terms of a decrease in purchasing power of the workers’ money, we find that it has been estimated at R26 per annum for each point increase in the consumer price index for all items—in other words, a loss of purchasing power of at least R9.10 per month over the year ending March of this year. This is a tremendous increase. I do not know whether the Minister has paid any attention to it or whether the Cabinet has taken that into consideration, but I do expect to hear something from the hon. Minister in this regard this afternoon.

To sum up: The average decrease in the purchasing power per month over a period of six years, from 1958, has been estimated at R3.46 per month, but in the year ending March 1965 this figure has jumped to R9.10 per month on average. Further increases in butter, cheese, milk and meat have been announced or are soon to be announced. We had an indication in the morning paper in respect of some of these increases. And I think everybody expects that there will be increases in the other commodities.

What is the Minister and the Cabinet doing to “protect the purchasing power of the citizen’s money” to use the State President’s words? Does not this phenomenal increase in the consumer price index call for the immediate reintroduction of the payment of the cost-of-living allowance? That is a question I put to the hon. the Minister and to the Prime Minister. The workers have no means of meeting the increase—particularly pensioners and all citizens on fixed incomes. The State has during the last year shown a tremendous Budget surplus. Is it not possible for the State to do something now to relieve this position? This is an urgent problem—I cannot think of anything as urgent. The Minister may say that subsidies should be increased. The weakness in the subsidy system is that all income groups benefit; whereas the reintroduction of cost-of-living allowance will certainly benefit the citizens who most need the financial help. It is true that the cost-of-living allowance system increases the burden on employers, and I include the State as an employer here. If cost-of-living allowance is paid by employers, why can the State not help to meet the cost by a subsidy to employers from the huge Budget surpluses? This will ensure that the most needy receive relief. The Minister may have a better plan. We want to know what it is. The workers are entitled to learn from the hon. Minister of Labour what steps are to be taken to compensate for the loss of purchasing power if wages, etc., are not to be increased. Remember what the State President said further on in his opening speech—

Mr. Chairman. I have shown that the price increases have and are taking place, and there are also demands for increased wages.

On this occasion I think we should all agree that the price increases have preceded the wage increases and, therefore, unless prices can be reduced to the 1963 levels, relief will have to be granted to the workers and pensioners generally. I hope the Minister will have a positive contribution to make to this real and urgent problem. This is his responsibility. He is in control of the War Measures Act which provides for the payment of cost-of-living allowances and to suggest, in view of the figures that I have quoted, that a crisis has not arisen in respect of the increases in prices, would be futile. I do not think that that is at issue between ourselves and the Government. The issue is: What is the Government going to do about it?

I now want to deal with the man-power problem, and strangely enough (or perhaps not strangely), in trying to get an understanding of the Government labour policy, I spent some time examining the recent speeches of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, who, I am glad, is in his seat this afternoon. I find that when the Minister speaks of Bantu returning to the Bantu homelands or Bantu areas, he does not mean that such labour is lost to the White areas—as long as the Bantu workers sleep in the Bantu areas, they may continue to work in the White areas. Under this policy the White areas get whiter by night and darker by day.

This is a very simple solution to the problem of how to make a census of the population show that White areas are White but it does not solve the real problem facing the Minister of Labour and the Government: How to retain Black workers in White industries in White areas, without having a racially integrated labour force, or what we term economic integration.

Now the manpower shortage is not only in the White areas. The Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has said that he could not supply 26,000 Bantu workers to Natal, and that work in certain Bantu areas was held up because so many Bantu are employed in the White areas. In this respect a recent comment in an Umtata newspaper, Umthunvwa, had this to say under the heading “What Africans are thinking”—

That brings me to the point. Here we have the crux of the manpower issue: How to get the additional skilled number of workers? How serious is this problem?

I think we can agree now that the Minister of Bantu Administration has made the issue plain that there should not be an argument about the utilization of Bantu workers in the cities: As long as they sleep in their own areas, they will be classified as living in those areas, and his conscience is clear in respect of that mythical date of 1978. But the real problem is: How do we increase our skilled labour force in this country? Sir, you will have noticed that in this morning’s paper, Mr. Harry Oppenheimer, in dealing with this question said, “that the rate of economic expansion could not be maintained by our outworn system of labour organization, and that also our capacity to earn foreign exchange could not be maintained”.

As an example of what is happening to our labour pattern, I intend dealing with one industry, the metal industry in the Transvaal. I have selected the Transvaal because Natal has an Asiatic population and the Cape has a Coloured population from which White workers are supplemented. Natal and the Cape are in a slightly different position to that of the Transvaal and the Free State. What do we find in this group, that is the metal industry? The group covers the iron, steel, engineering and metallurgical industries—there is one industrial council with 2,320 employers and a total of 160,367 employees as at the end of November 1964. This total of 160.367 is made up of 25,577 artisans and 5,107 apprentices and minors; 2,713 skilled workers who have been elevated to artisan status ("they did not serve their apprenticeship); 7,625 White workers who represent the present reservoir of White workers in that industry; then 105.416 Bantu workers; 13,929 positions formerly held by White workers whose places are being taken gradually by Bantu workers at the rate for the job.

This means that there is a comparatively small reservoir of 7,625 White workers as against a reservoir of 105,416 Bantu who are being used to fill the 13,929 former White jobs at the rate for the job. In other words, about 70 per cent of the workers are non-European, mainly Bantu. I am now referring to the Transvaal, and the other 30 Der cent are made up of 20 per cent skilled White workers and 10 per cent semi-skilled White workers.

In an editorial in the April edition of the Metal Worker (which is the trade union magazine of the group) they say—

That is the rate for the job. And further on, in the same editorial we find this—

The hon. Minister will know that a dispute exists in this same metal industry. I do not intend to go into this matter now, but I quote again from the Metal Worker, the March issue—

That may not have had much significance at the time, but since then what has the Minister done to help solve this skilled manpower problem? We have asked the hon. the Minister to call a conference between employers and employees and his department. We did that last year, and early this year again, but we got no response at all from him. The editorial also calls for such a conference, and we ask again what the Minister is going to do? This is a serious and urgent problem. Just how urgent, I will show in a moment. The trade union movement is asking, and I quote again from the March editorial of the Metal Worker —

This is addressed to the employers and it continues—

Mr. Chairman, you will remember what the hon. the Prime Minister had to say on his vote, namely that the workers did not need more, they only desired more, and we know what the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs had to say . . .

The Prime Minister did not say that.

Well that was the interpretation that was put on it.

A wrong interpretation.

I think in the Hansard report you will find these words, but I am not going to make an issue of it. I say that it is fair to say that the Government is discouraging the raising of wages of workers throughout the country. I think that that is a fair proposition to put, and I think the Minister of Economic Affairs addressed employers in that regard, and it would appear from what has happened in the metal industry that his plea has had some effect.

The trade unions are prepared to negotiate on the question of training and the use of semi- and unskilled labour, but they ask for wage increases. The employers appear to be tied by the policy of the Government not to grant increases in wages. The Minister will be in the position to say this afternoon quite clearly what the Government’s attitude is in regard to this question of wage increases. He has the choice in front of him: Either there have to be wage increases, or he has to reintroduce the payment of cost-of-living allowances. I don’t think he is in a position to tell us that there is going to be a considerable drop in the consumer price index, making either of these methods unnecessary. But, Mr. Chairman, when I interrupted myself, I was saying that the employers appear to be tied by Government policy not to grant wage increases; yet, without wage increases there can be no negotiations as to how to meet the shortage of skilled labour or the greater use of non-white labour. Again I ask what the Minister is going to do about this real problem. You see, Mr. Chairman, it is quite clear that there is a breakdown in negotiations in the metal industry, and I think it is going to spread throughout the country as a result of the non-granting of increases, and the trade unions in turn will not be in a position to negotiate for either new methods of utilising non-white labour or a new approach to the utilisation of labour generally unless they are in a position at the same time to negotiate for an increase in wages. There you have the problem facing the Government. They have got to give way on one side or the other. They have got to meet the position that has developed as a result of economic expansion and inflation. I have given the figures earlier on to indicate to what extent the consumer price index has increased, which in turn justifies the demand for increased wages. I dealt with that. I also dealt with the question facing the industries throughout the country in respect of the shortage of skilled labour, and this also affects the development of the Government’s Bantustans. It all boils down to the Government getting down and dealing with this question of the manpower shortage. I have not dealt with immigration, because immigration in itself creates some of the problems that it is designed to solve. We are in favour of immigration, for good and sufficient reasons. But it remains a fact that that source of labour is not going to make it possible for our industrial expansion to be sustained and at the same time to meet up with the problems which are being created due to the inflation that has already set in.

My plea this afternoon is that the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for all classes of labour once they become employed, that is all races, that he should say to us this afternoon what he plans to do to meet the two problems that I have put to him particularly, namely the cost-of-living problem and the manpower problem.

I have not dealt with a question which is very near to the heart of the Deputy Minister of Labour, and that is this issue of job reservation. for the simple reason that job reservation has almost fallen into disuse because there are no Whites to reserve the jobs for. So I don’t think that we could be challenged as we have been challenged in the past, by the Deputy Minister of Labour: Why do we not deal with job reservation to-day? We have gone beyond that. We have got to deal with the problems which have been created mainly due to the fact that we have not got the White workers to maintain our expanding economy at the rate laid down by the Government and by those who profess to know what is best in the interests of future development in South Africa. Therefore I say to the Minister: Tell us what is going to be done so that we will then be in a position to appreciate whether the Government has its finger on the pulse in South Africa or whether it is just going along with a policy of allowing things to develop?

I regret that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton), who always poses as a very reasonable member of this House, again tried to make capital out of the warning which the hon. the Prime Minister gave in this House to the workers of South Africa, and that he again tried to give a wrong interpretation to it. The hon. member and his party will derive no benefit from that, because I think this matter is already quite clear to the public, namely that the Prime Minister did not talk about pegging wages and did not say the workers should not receive an increase in wages. I want to ask the hon. member what he is really pleading for. He knows that the Government has no control over the machinery which exists in South Africa for increasing wages. In the first place wages for the organised workers are fixed by means of collective bargaining in the industrial councils. The Minister can exercise no control over that. The large number of workers who are organised are quite free to negotiate for higher wages. The Government can place no limitation on that. In regard to the unorganized labour which gets its wage increases through the Wage Board, the Government places no limitation on the Wage Board either. If the Wage Board makes certain determinations it is for the Minister to approve of them if they comply with certain conditions. In other words, also there neither the Government nor the Minister of Labour exercises any control over wages. The large mass of workers are therefore at liberty to try to obtain increased wages. But in addition, this Government has proved that it is very sympathetic towards the workers.

I want to mention in the first place what the facts are in connection with the State’s own employees over whom it has control. The State has control over two large groups of workers, and those workers have been fully compensated for the increase in the cost of living. I want to point out that since this Government came into power the cost of living in this country rose by 70 per cent at the most. Unfortunately I do not have the latest figures, but I know that last year we worked it out and arrived at a figure of 65 per cent, and I do not think the cost of living increased by more than five per cent this year over that figure. But I want to show how the wages of Government officials have risen. Since 1948 the wages of public servants have risen by 118 per cent. If we come to the railway workers we find that their wages rose by 122 per cent. I want to point out that the machinery the Government has created for unorganised labour has also resulted in great benefits for them. If one looks at the annual reports one sees that the central labour board achieved great success in regard to obtaining increased wages for the Bantu workers on whose behalf they act. In 1959 this Board obtained an increase of R5,604,000 for 183,000 workers, and in the succeeding year an increase of R7,000,000, and in 1962 R 1.850,000, and in 1963 an increase of more than R3,000,000. I want to say that much has been done in regard to granting increased wages to the workers of South Africa and that they have been fully compensated. Let me give the average wages for factory workers. The average wages in industry increased up to 1962— I do not even include the increases granted in 1963 and 1964—by 83 per cent since 1948, whilst cost of living rose by only 70 per cent. Therefore I say that the Prime Minister appealed to the workers of South Africa to show a sense of responsibility—because that is really what he was pleading for—so that wages would not increase out of all proportion and cause inflation, which would result in their losing the benefits given to them by an increase in wages.

I just want to say this still in regard to cost-of-living allowances. The hon. member is now pleading that the Government should introduce cost-of-living allowance. He knows that if that is done it automatically becomes an increase in wages; there is an automatic rise as the cost of living rises. In other words, if ever one wants to have an inflationary factor in South Africa, then one should act in this way, where higher wages are not negotiated but wages are automatically increased. I am convinced that workers who know what they are asking for know what they will get if they ask for a cost-of-living allowance, and they will not again accept cost-of-living allowance, particularly if they know that other benefits, such as pension benefits, will not be taken into account. I think that if they realize that it will create an inflationary tendency, they will not ask for cost-of-living allowance.

The hon. member again referred to manpower. I think the Government has done its duty. It is unfortunately true that to combat the manpower shortage is a fairly long-term policy, and it is not easy to catch up with the backlog. The hon. member says he is not opposed to immigration, but immigration is one of the speediest methods by which the manpower shortage can be solved. The other methods are long-term methods. There the Government has already been trying for years to combat the manpower shortage. The fact is that it is not only South Africa which has a shortage of manpower, and the fact that we still get such a large number of immigrants is really a miracle. It is something one should be glad about when one realises that there is such a shortage of skilled manpower in other countries. The Government has done much through the Department of Labour. The Department has created the machinery not only to provide work for our people but to make special provision for the best use to be made of our workers, to the great benefit of certain workers, like the physically handicapped. I think there the Government has done great things, by providing in our rehabilitation services and the psychological services of the Department of Labour for the testing of people and for assisting them to find other work if they are maladjusted. When I say, for example. that in 1963 the vocational services of the Department of Labour tested 13,000 youths in order to place them in the right work, it indicates the great task which has been tackled by the Department in this new direction. The Government has also done much in regard to the training of our people. Let me mention the Transvaal, which I know, and I want to mention what has been done to keep the children at school longer. In 1949 there were 43,000 high school students in the Transvaal, whereas to-day they number 106,000. Great attempts were also made by our universities to give our people the necessary training. The number of university students has increased from 17,000 to 38,000 in these 17 years. [Time limit.]

Anyone who tries to compare the figures of 1948 with those of 1965 in order to excuse the accusations made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. (Mr Eaton) is living in a dream world, because even the Budget in 1965 was about 40 per cent more than it was in 1948. The national production has doubled itself in this period, if not more. The economic advance of South Africa since 1948 has been fantastic, and it is not to the credit of the Government that this is so, but it is to the discredit of the Government that it has not taken the necessary steps to meet the situation which has been presented to them as far as manpower is concerned to meet this tremendous progress in industry. The hon. member who has just spoken has merely given figures, but those figures have no significance whatsoever when one has to meet the situation facing the Minister of Labour to-day. We have for some years now, since this Minister has occupied this position, had to be content, in reply to our realistic criticism, with assurances in regard to the justification for job reservation and the routine workings of his Department, but I think the time is ripe for this Minister to give us some policy statement in regard to the manner in which he is going to meet the manpower shortage, and how he is going to deal with this very real situation facing South Africa in regard to the wage-earner and the salaried man. This boom has included every entrepreneur. It has taken the State and the local authorities with it, but the man who has been by-passed and who has virtually had no value out of this boom has been the wage-earner. This is the issue with which every industry and undertaking in this country has been faced, and the fact that the Government now, through the mouth of the previous speaker, denies that it has in any way endeavoured to peg wages is not justified, because the Government has virtually set the lead by refusing to meet the demands which have been made. The Minister of Transport recently denied that there was any dissatisfaction in the service or any unrest in regard to an increase in wages. We know that certain bodies have been set up to provide the machinery. As recently as 16 May there was a statement in the Press to the effect that, in the iron, steel, engineering and metallurgical industries, there is already a dispute going on in regard to wages affecting 200,000 persons. The Minister of Transport is being faced in the Railways by the demands of one of his largest unions for increased wages, and so is every organization, and the trouble is that the Government is not dealing realistically with the situation that has arisen. In other countries of the world, where the standard of living is rising at the same rate as here, and profits are being bulit up on the tremendous scale on which they are being built up here, where we have this tremendous upsurge of industry, wages rise proportionately, so that when one talks of the fact that there are high wages paid in other countries and we say that is because their cost of living is high, is that not the situation here? The cost of living here is very high indeed. The hon. member has indicated how tremendously it has risen within one year as compared with the past seven or eight years. Here we have an interesting situation. A United States expert was called in to examine the wage structure of the Johannesburg City Council, and what does he recommend? He said that they had to start paying all their top men more because, in doing that, they would raise the entire wage structure in the whole of the organization. That is a matter I complained about once before. He suggested that the Town Clerk should get R 14,000. It is an indication of what is being recommended. I criticized the Minister of Transport in regard to the salary of the General Manager of Railways. The point is that the whole wage structure has to be lifted up. I spoke to a man from Rhodesia who laughed at the archaic method in which the Government is taking the lead in this manner. Once before we dealt with the question of raising the level of unskilled workers’ wages, because the whole of the wage structure has to rise to meet the demands of the cost of living. You cannot meet it in any other way. An hon. member opposite not long ago said that the reason why the salaried man must be satisfied with what he is getting is because he is making a sacrifice for the country, but in the meantime the industrialist and the entrepreneur, the businessman, the local authorities and the State authorities are all making enormous profits. Surely someone has to share in that. If the State, e.g., finds that its surplus year by year gets larger, it should pass on something, but it does not. The time has arrived for a completely different approach to the wage structure of the country. It is the obligation of the Minister of Labour, in co-operation with his Cabinet, to give a lead to the country and to take some positive, active steps. It is his duty to call conferences of all the representatives of industry and commerce to discuss the situation facing them.

What situation?

The situation where the salaried man and the wage-earner are not earning sufficient and are flitting about from job to job.

Surely you know about the wage-regulating machinery in South Africa?

Yes, but are we going to wait until we get 1,000,000 men involved in a dispute? Is that the correct way in which the matter should be approached? Surely there is a crisis in the country? You get a man like Mr. Adams, who lectures to the National Development and Management Foundation of South Africa, a body which is highly thought of even by the Government, and what does he say? He says you have to change the entire ratio of the wage structure in this country. We had a complaint by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. He says: “We train them, they take them”, but they take them because they offer them better salaries. The turnover of labour which is taking place will continue on a greater scale in every undertaking, and particularly in State undertakings, due to the fact that there is dissatisfaction with the wages. The wage-earner cannot earn more by himself; he has to wait for the bounty of his employer, and how long will that continue? For that reason the Minister*, must consider paying C.O.L.A. We know that will automatically bring in its wake increased wages, but we had that during the war. There was general economic progress, and the C.O.L.A. was laid down by a war measure as a compulsory payment. Somebody has to take the lead. We cannot just sit back and wait until we have a serious crisis on our hands. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) pleaded for salary increases, and the way in which he did so may be a very popular one, but whether it is a very responsible one I shall not say. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) also pleaded for salary increases, in addition to discussing the manpower shortage. The question of salary increases and cost-of-living allowances has already been dealt with by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt), and I have nothing to add in that regard, but I should like to say something about the manpower shortage, and in that connection I want to make certain observations in regard to what was said by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana.

I think both sides of the House are very glad about the prosperity prevailing in the country to-day, and all of us are probably anxious to preserve that prosperity and to stimulate the economic revival of the country further. I therefore think it is very necessary to adopt a system which would enable us to approach the economic revival in a more systematic way. The primary requirement is the utilization of the available productive factors, which are, firstly, the balance of payments and, secondly, the manpower resources. The country’s rate of economic growth can be slowed down by a shortage of manpower. I want to concede at once that our available manpower resources might perhaps be a restrictive factor in the economic development of the country to-day, and therefore I want to express a few thoughts in that connection.

The Department of Planning has drawn up an economic development programme for the years 1964 to 1969. I do not know whether the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has had a look at that. In that programme various demands are made upon the various sectors in order to make it possible to maintain a growth rate of 5| per cent per annum in our gross national production over the five years. The question that occurs to us now is whether the labour market will be able to meet the demands made upon it in order to enable us to have that development. The question is whether we shall not in some way or another reach a bottle-neck as far as the supply of labour is concerned. We find that to a certain extent there is already a bottle-neck in the building industry to-day. Consequently I want to adopt the attitude that it is very necessary for us to form some idea of the economically active section of the population. By that I mean that section of the population which is keen to work. Once we have that, an evaluation can be made of the available manpower resources in order to see what the labour requirements in the various sectors are. The problem immediately facing us then is to try and find a balance between the economically active group of the population and the supply of and demand for labour. By that I mean that there may be a need for labour in a certain sector, but that there may be a supply of labour in another sector. To illustrate that, I want to say that bricklayers may be required, but that there may be only fitters and turners available, which would then cause a labour shortage in that sector, but would not necessarily mean that there was a labour shortage throughout the country. But we must also take into account the fact that the demand for labour in any particular sector is not necessarily determined by an increase in production. An increase in production does not necessarily lead to a greater demand for labour, because an increase in production may be the result of improved methods of production, of mechanization or of higher productivity per labourer. Therefore we should not only pay attention to the provision of labour in our country, but we should also seek to increase the productivity of that labour and in that way to utilize our available manpower resources to the full.

Let us examine the labour requirements of the country. We have the various main sectors, and judging by the economic development programme, I do not think there will be a very great demand for labour in the agricultural and mining sectors in succeeding years, owing to the increased output per worker and mechanization. But the industrial sector is the one in which large and rapid expansion is taking place, and the labour requirements in this sector will be the main problem. It is anticipated that the demand for labour in this sector will increase by 23.1 per cent in the next five years. Over against this, however, it is anticipated that there will be a total increase in production of 50.9 per cent, provision being made for the higher productivity of labour. What does disturb one, however—and I am saying this on account of what was said by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana—is that one reads in this economic programme that it is anticipated that in the years to come there will be a greater increase in non-White labour than in White labour. It is anticipated that the ratio will drop from 28.2 per cent to 27.5 per cent. I nevertheless want to say that I am pleased to find the following statement in this programme (translation)—

Consequently the initial increase in the employment of non-Whites will be neutralized in due course.

But the other sector of our economy in which there will be a heavy demand for labour is the service sector. At present 39 per cent of all persons are employed in this sector, and it is anticipated that the demand for labour in this sector will increase by 21.4 per cent. I do not want to go into these figures any further, but I should just like to point out in passing that when there were nearly 11,000 unemployed persons in 1963 there was a shortage of manpower in certain sectors. We must therefore not confuse the demand for labour with the actual employment figure, because a shortage of certain categories of workers may reuslt in it not being possible to satisfy the demand for labour. I am referring to the fact that in 1963, when we had 11,000 unemployed, there were shortages in certain occupations. It was for that reason that the Government—and I wonder whether the hon. member for Umhlatuzana knows this—in 1963 appointed an advisory committee for manpower research and planning under the direction of the Department of Education, Arts and Science to co-ordinate the activities of all State and semi-State institutions concerned with matters relating to manpower. This committee also had to advise the Government on the supply, training and utilization of the manpower resources of the Republic. The problems which were mentioned here by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana are fully realized by the Government, and plans are already being made to meet those problems. [Time limit.]

I want to take a stage further the requests that we have made from this side of the House to the Minister to meet the problem of the rising cost of living and what we regard as the shortfall in the wages of people in the lower income groups. I now want to draw the Minister’s attention to the position of those people who are drawing unemployment insurance benefits and who have to meet the steady rise in cost of living. Sir, I think something should be done for those people immediately by the Minister. In the handbook issued by the Minister in 1962 he sets out on page 11 what he regards as a fair percentage of wages to be set aside weekly for food and quarters in relation to the amount of money that is paid out weekly to unemployed persons. He sets aside 90 cents a week for food and quarters for those people who fall in Group 1 and who receive R2.45 per week. As I say, this was drawn up in 1962. These were the figures then advocated by the Minister.

Sir, can the Minister honestly tell me that this figure of 90 cents for food and quarters out of R2.45 still is a fair figure. The Minister has pegged this sum and there is no possibility of these people getting any extra allowance. These figures increase according to the amount of money contributed to the fund by the employee. Sir, the strange phenomenon as far as this table is concerned is this: In respect of Group 12 the value of food and quarters is shown at R7.50 where as in respect of Group 1 the figure is 90 cents. Does it cost a person in Group 1 less to buy a loaf of bread than it costs a person in Group 12? Does a person in Group 1 pay less for his milk or butter than a person in Group 12? It is quite obvious that the plight of the unemployed individual receiving benefits from the fund has been overlooked completely, and we ask the hon. the Minister immediately to revise the tables of unemployed benefits payable to these people who are the neediest of the needy. These people should be given immediate relief. It is not as though the Minister cannot afford to give this relief, because in the year 1963-4, in one calendar year, the Minister collected R13,500,000, of which he paid out R9,700,000 approximately. In other words, in respect of that calendar year the Minister accumulated almost R4,500,000. The total in the Unemployment Insurance Fund to-day stands at R7,600,000. Very little of this money goes back to the unemployed person, and we say that the unemployed person is entitled to a better deal. If the Minister looks at page 3 of the departmental report he will see that there is a most interesting paragraph there.

What is the date of the report?

It is the latest report. Let me quote what is stated on page 3—

Approximately R750,000 more—

This was partly due to an increase in the number of persons paying contributions . . . Which, of course, is a very good sign because it means that there is less unemployment—

Sir, that is the amount of money to which I think the unemployed are entitled and which should be given to them. The Minister is receiving more money because he takes the unemployment insurance contributions and he invests the money at a higher rate of interest. These people are experiencing the greatest difficulty in making ends meet, even for short periods while they are out of work. Surely they are entitled to share in this bounty that is coming to the Minister. After all, it is their money; it is their contribution. Surely they are entitled to get something back. As long as these people have credits, surely they are entitled to assistance. I think the time has come for the Minister to increase the amount of unemployment benefits paid to contributors. What applies to the unemployed must apply to an even greater extent to the person who is not working because of illness and to the woman who is not working because she is either pregnant or has recently had a baby. In the case of those persons who are out of work because of illness, I again plead with the Minister to extend the period during which the unemployed ill person can draw unemployment benefits. The hon. the Minister knows that in the case of certain illnesses it is impossible to say that the illness will last so many months or weeks. He knows that many requests for assistance which have been submitted to his Department have been found to be genuine requests. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just spoken referred to the great need that exists amongst the unemployed, particularly those in the lowest income groups. Sir, I do not think it is necessary for the hon. member to make an appeal in this regard to anybody in this House. We would all like to see that greater benefits are paid out to the unemployed, but the hon. member knows that the scales of unemployment benefits are laid down by law. I will not have the time to deal with all the various groups, but let us take Group 1, for example. A contributor in Group 1 contributes 1 cent per week to the fund and in return for that contribution of 1 cent per week he becomes entitled eventually to be paid R63.70.

But the Minister himself reduced the contributions.

No, this has not been reduced. The hon. member can stand up in a moment and take part in the debate himself, if he wishes to do so. Sir, that is the amount that a contributor who contributes 1 cent per week can get out of the fund eventually by way of unemployment benefits. Surely it is unreasonable to represent this as unfair. Take a person in Group 12, for example. His contribution is 12 cents per week and he eventually becomes entitled to unemployment benefits totalling R364.

These figures were fixed before the rise in the cost of living.

Sir, these are the official figures and I am quoting them merely to bring it home to hon. members on the other side that the scale of benefits was laid down by law, and if they want to alter the scale of benefits, then the Act will have to be amended. However, that is not the main reason why I stood up. I want to refer to the first speech which was made here last week by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton). Following the old traditional Opposition tactics, the hon. member once again began by making an attack on the Unemployment Insurance Fund as a whole. Sir, hon. members on that side have stood up here year after year and attacked the fund because they want to lay their hands on it. If there is one thing which goes against the grain as far as the Opposition is concerned, it is the healthy state of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana now wants to change the Unemployment Insurance Fund into a pension fund, and I can think of no greater fraud that we can perpetrate against the workers of South Africa than to change the Unemployment Insurance Fund into a pension fund. The fund was never established with that object and the workers were never brought under the impression that the fund was going to be converted into a pension fund.

Whoever said so?

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said so.

When?

In the speech which he made here last week. Just as the late Mr. Sarel Tighy used to do here years ago, the hon. member again referred to the fact that certain people contribute to the fund for years without drawing a single cent out of the fund by way of unemployment benefits. Mr. Chairman, let us view this matter in the correct light. Any person who worked for a whole lifetime without drawing a single cent out of the fund by way of benefits can regard himself as fortunate because in return for a small contribution to the fund he made certain that if he ever became unemployed his unemployment insurance benefits would enable him to make ends meet.

The hon. member then went on to refer to maternity grants which are also paid out of this fund. Sir, you will recall that I made the point here three years ago that we had made a mistake in agreeing that maternity grants should be paid out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund. In the absence of another fund we have no alternative to-day and for the time being we have to be satisfied with the present position. But the plea which I made at that time did not fall on deaf ears because the hon. the Minister made provision in the Shops and Offices Act for the payment of maternity grants to be the sole responsibility of the State in the future, and not the responsibility of this particular fund. I want to emphasize this point again to-day to the hon. the Minister. I think the time has come for the responsibility for the payment of maternity grants to be borne by the State. Maternity grants should not be paid out of a fund such as this which is built up by the workers to provide them with security in the event of their becoming unemployed. As I have said, the hon. the Minister has already accepted the principle in the Shops and Offices Act that the payment of maternity grants is really the State’s responsibility. This type of benefit should never have been covered by a fund such as this. The Unemployment Insurance Fund is healthy to-day; it must be kept healthy and built up into a strong fund. There is a tremendous demand at the moment for increased production and for ever-increasing productivity and we have a situation of full employment, but the present position will certainly not continue: the time will come when the workers of South Africa will need this fund very urgently, and when that time comes the Opposition do not want us to have a strong Unemployment Insurance Fund out of which the workers will be able to draw benefits while they are unemployed. What they would like to do is to exploit the fund by telling the workers that the Government exhausted the fund in the good old days and that that is why the workers are unable to draw unemployment benefits out of the fund in. order to keep them going. Sir, if there is one thing which this Government has at heart it is the interests of the workers. I hope that it will never be the misfortune of the hon. the Minister of Labour to fall into the trap that is continually set here for him by the Opposition. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana tried here once again the other day to set a trap for the Government; they have often set this same trap here in the past; they have tried to camouflage it from time to time, but both the Government and the workers have spotted the trap year after year, and that is precisely why the workers have no confidence in the Opposition. The workers realize that the Opposition is trying to deceive them by seeking to use their unemployment insurance fund as a pension fund. Sir, there is such a thing as an old-age pension and most decent employers in South Africa make provision nowadays for pensions for their workers. We know that the old-age pension, although great improvements have been brought about, is still subject to the means test, but the fact remains that there is such a thing as an old-age pension which can be paid to elderly people. Have hon. members on that side ever thought how long this Unemployment Insurance Fund will remain healthy if it is converted, as suggested by them, into a pension scheme? I predict that the fund would then be completely exhausted within the space of just a few years, and that is what I want to warn against. [Time limit.]

I want to refer just in passing to what the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) said here when he pleaded for increased wages. Sir, I want to ask the hon. member what prevents any private employer in this country from paying higher wages to his employees? The wages which have been fixed are minimum wages. The hon. member for Florida himself is an employer. What prevents him from paying his workers higher wages? Why then does he not pay them more? Why does he come and complain in this House that his employees are being paid too little? After all, it is up to him and his friends in industry to pay higher wages to their employees. Nobody prevents them from paying higher wages than the minimum laid down.

I want to come back to the question of the shortage of labour. We are living in a period in which there is a general shortage of manpower and we must see to it therefore that all the available manpower is used in the labour market. Sir, last year under the Vote of the hon. the Minister I raised the question of the great potential source of labour that we have in the Western Cape particularly in the large numbers of Coloureds who are unemployed and whose services are not being utilized in the labour market. The hon. the Minister said on that occasion that a special division, a directorate of Coloured labour, would be established within the Department of Labour to pay special attention to this aspect. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister to-day whether the activities of this directorate within his Department have produced any fruitful results. Apart from the improvement that has taken place as a result of the fact that the position to-day is that there are practically more jobs offering than labourers to fill them, I have observed little change over the past year. I want to refer to a report that appeared recently in a newspaper with regard to the question of unemployed Coloureds. I quote the words of an official of the Department of Labour—

Then I also want to refer to a report which appeared in the Banier of 8 May—

Mr. Chairman, how can we equip these people for the labour market if the Department of Labour is unable to lay its hand on them? What can we do about them if the State is unable at this stage to give a proper account as to the scope of this problem, because we do not know how many of these people are unemployed and where they are to be found? As far as I can see there is only one solution and that is that the registration of unemployed persons should be made compulsory by law. Every White person, every Coloured, every Indian who is unemployed should be compelled to have his name registered, and so should Bantu living within the White areas. If a person fails to have his name registered when he becomes unemployed, it should be a punishable offence. Mr. Chairman, I am not pleading now for legislation. I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that we have legislation already in terms of which we can deal with this problem. I refer to Act No. 34 of 1945, an Act which was piloted through the House by the then United Party Government, the Registration of Workseekers Act, in terms of which every unemployed person is obliged to have his name registered. If he does not have his name registered within a certain period, then he is punishable in terms of the Act. I simply cannot understand why we do not make use of this Act so that we can lay our hands on these people and determine how many of them there are. People who do not work create problems for the State and for the community. The fact that large numbers of Coloureds are unemployed undermines the foundations of the efforts made by people in their own national group to uplift them. Sir, I just want to point out to what extent crime has increased amongst this group. I quote from the Banier of 24 April—

This is not the only problem that arises from the fact that such large numbers of people are unemployed. Another problem that arises from it is the misuse of State pensions and allowances drawn by these people. I quote from another report—

Sir, we are dealing here with a matter of the utmost importance to the orderly regulation of our labour force, in the Western Province in particular; it is a problem which cries out for a solution, and in my opinion we have machinery at our disposal to deal with this matter properly. I want to ask the hon. the Minister not to flinch back from the consequences that may result from any action that he may take. There is no reason in this country to-day why people who are healthy should not be able to find employment; the fact that some people have to bear the entire burden while others remain idle and draw benefits imposes a burden on the State. I ask the hon. the Minister to give his serious attention to this matter.

I wish to address a few remarks to the hon. the Minister on a specific aspect of job reservation. I have no desire to deal generally with the Government’s policy of job reservation in so far as it affects the Coloured people. We have done so from these benches on several occasions over the years and we have been told by the hon. the Minister and by his predecessor that the Government does not intend to change its policy in that regard. Therefore I do not wish to deal generally to-day with the Government’s policy of job reservation, but there is a specific aspect to which I wish to draw the Minister’s attention in the hope that he might be able to do something to relieve the unfortunate position which obtains in regard to that particular aspect. Before doing so I would like to say that it seems to me that since the pronouncements made by the hon. the Minister in regard to the Government’s policy in connection with job reservation there have been certain concessions and relaxation of this policy. There have been relaxations in so far as Government Departments themselves are concerned. Sir, the acute manpower scarcity in South Africa has made the Government realize that it can no longer continue with its rigid policy of job reservation. The Government itself has been obliged by force of circumstances to breach this policy. We know that the South African Railways in recent months have found it necessary to employ more non-Whites in White posts on the Railways. I do not condemn that. On the contrary I applaud the hon. the Minister for having faced up to the position courageously and for having agreed to allow non-Whites to fill posts which were ordinarily reserved for Whites. The Railway Administration was left with no alternative because of this manpower shortage. We also know that in the postal administration of this country that Department likewise was obliged to call in non-Whites again because of the acute scarcity. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs said recently that because of the lack of staff, non-Whites were being employed on a temporary basis in vacant posts where Whites were not available. Hore are two instances— there may be more—where the Government has found itself obliged, by reason of the extraordinary circumstances prevailing in the country to-day, to make these concessions from time to time in order to ease this manpower crisis in the Government Departments.

If the Government can do this in its own departments then surely it is not asking the hon. the Minister too much to ask him to apply the same principle as far as major municipalities are concerned. After all, the precedent has been set. The Government has allowed this relaxation in regard to its own departments and it seems to me that there is no valid reason why the same relaxation should not be allowed in regard to major municipalities. In that connection I want to deal particularly with one aspect of job reservation and that is the position which obtains in the City of Cape Town, indeed throughout the whole of the Cape Province, in regard to the terrific shortage of traffic constables. I say the hon. the Minister can make a concession in regard to this particular aspect of job reservation without in any way derogating from the Government’s policy of job reservation, as the Government itself has done in regard to the two Departments to which I have referred. The hon. the Minister can very graciously make those concessions and allow this relaxation on the grounds of the temporary labour shortage in this country.

In regard to traffic constables in Cape Town a recent survey has revealed that we are short of 101 traffic officers. It would appear that for the major municipality of Cape Town we need no less than 195 traffic constables and we only have 94 at the moment. Those posts simply cannot be filled. Cape Town has had experience of Coloured traffic officers. We have tried them out over the years and I am sure most of the hon. members of this House will agree with me when I say that they have been found to be very efficient in their work; they have been courteous; they have been diligent and they have a very keen sense of duty. I submit to the hon. the Minister that Coloured traffic constables will fulfil a much-needed want in the City of Cape Town to-day. The same shortage of traffic officers applies to the Provincial Administration. In the case of the Provincial Traffic Department a survey has also been made recently in the Cape—I do not know what the position is in other parts of the country—and that survey has revealed a tremendous shortage of traffic constables. Indeed the Provincial Council traffic chief has described the shortage as “alarming”. Surely in these days of tremendous numbers of road accidents which involve a large number of deaths and serious injuries to our citizens it is not asking the Government too much to ask them to relax their policy of job reservation in so far as Coloured traffic constables are concerned. I am sure that the greater the number of traffic constables we can put on the roads the less will be the number of accidents.

Without discussing the Government’s job reservation policy in general, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give specific consideration to this particular aspect. I am sure the hon. the Minister will realize that if he agreed to relax the Government’s policy in regard to traffic constables, he would be doing a great deal to ameliorate the unfortunate conditions which obtain in the City to-day. I urge the hon. the Minister to give the most serious and most favourable consideration to the appeal I have made to him to relax this job reservation policy and allow the Municipality of the City of Cape Town to engage Coloured traffic constables where they are unable to fill those posts by Whites. The same applies in the case of the Cape Provincial Administration where the position has been referred to as “alarming” as I have already indicated.

I do not propose to deal with other essential services but here is a very important service and I am sure the hon. the Minister can help without in any way derogating from the Government’s policy of job reservation.

The fact that the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) did not again make his customary “hardship” speech to-day about Coloureds who are allegedly thrown out into the street without any means of subsistence as a result of work reservation, is very significant. [Interjections.] We have had that story from that side of the House for many years, and it is good to remind hon. members of it. For many years we have had to listen how Coloureds would be wronged, how they would be thrown out of their employment as a result of work reservation. On two occasions now I have invited the Opposition and the Coloured representatives to give an example in this House or elsewhere of Coloureds having been deprived of their employment here in the Cape as far as the building industry is concerned. I extended that invitation to the Coloured Council last year, and I asked the Department only a short while ago whether one single complaint had been received from any Coloured person who had been prejudiced as a result of work reservation in the building industry, and the Department informed me that not a single complaint had been received. I can therefore appreciate that the hon. member no longer wants to discuss the matter, and consequently I leave it at that.

I now want to come to the question of manpower, which has been raised once again, and I just want to say a few words about the arguments which have been advanced. The other aspect I shall leave to the hon. the Minister to deal with. Firstly, the United Party actually hoped in the past that they could attack us about unemployment, and now they have to be satisfied with the second best, which is large opportunities for employment resulting in a shortage of manpower. We do not deny that problems are caused by this development of our country, this absence of unemployment, these large opportunities for unemployment. That is not something which we need deny. That is the position in all European countries in which boom conditions exist, and we are not different from them. We are experiencing that same position in South Africa too. We are encountering problems as a result of the shortage of manpower. But to ask naïvely, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) did, what the Government is doing to combat this manpower shortage as far as skilled workers are concerned, a question which really wants to suggest that the Government has eyes but cannot see, that the Government is doing absolutely nothing in that regard, that the Government does not realize the problem, is sheer naivety as far as I am concerned. Mr. Chairman, in the ten minutes at my disposal I do not intend repeating what I said at the beginning of this Session, when I outlined what the Government had done in various spheres to combat the shortage of manpower. I may perhaps just touch upon the subject very briefly once again. The extremely important matter of the training of apprentices falls under the Department of Labour. Considering the fact that, as a result of this Government’s streamlining the legislation relating to apprenticeship, we had more apprentices registered last year than in any previous year, considering the fact that, as a result of the improvement of our system of training apprentices, we are adding 38 out of every 100 apprentices to the skilled labour force a year in advance of their scheduled time. I think it says a very great deal for what the Government has done in that field. Now to come and ask what the Government is doing, in the light of all the steps we have taken to have unskilled Whites trained as operators so that they can do semi-skilled work, and in the light of what we are doing to provide training to adults at Westlake and elsewhere in the country in order to enable them to become skilled workers, is really ridiculous, to say the least. If one considers what we are doing, not only to equip unskilled and semiskilled workers better, but also to enable skilled workers to improve their qualifications, then I think it speaks volumes for the willingness of the Government to do everything possible in order to strengthen our manpower position. If I consider what we are doing under the Department of Education, Arts and Science to provide training at our technical colleges and technical high schools to post-matriculants and to skilled persons who want to undergo further training as technicians, if I consider the fact that last year we enabled 4,500 matriculated skilled persons to improve their technical qualifications, then I do not think this Government can be accused of adopting an indifferent or disinterested attitude as far as this matter is concerned.

The question of immigration is as important. If we consider the fact that last year we had an addition of 30,000 economically active immigrants who have meant a very great deal to our skilled manpower position and that we are maintaining that rate, then I also do not think that this Government can be accused of adopting a disinterested or indifferent attitude in this matter. If we consider all the steps being taken by the Government, whether it be the better system of training apprentices, or the opportunities being provided for training the unskilled, of providing further training to the semi-skilled and for training skilled persons as technicians, then I think the most important contribution being made by the Government to stabilize our manpower position, to achieve and to maintain maximum productivity, is the preservation of industrial peace in this country. I regard that as quite the most important contribution. Manpower is not concerned with people alone; it is not concerned with numbers alone; manpower is concerned with the attitude of the workers towards their work. If one does not have the right attitude amongst the workers, one cannot get maximum productivity from them. If one creates a lack of security amongst the workers, if one creates uncertainty amongst them, those workers, whether they be Whites or non-Whites, cannot achieve maximum productivity. I think that during a time of tremendous technological development this Government has had remarkable success in preserving industrial peace in this country which we are being envied by the whole world. In my opinion the industrial peace we have preserved in this country is contributing very much to strengthening the manpower position.

I think it was the hon. member for Umhlatuzana who said that we had economic integration now. The hon. member for Peninsula stated that the colour bar, or work reservation, had now in actual fact become useless and unnecessary. That is of course sheer nonsense. The fact of the matter is that we can preserve this unprecendented industrial peace in South Africa only because this Government organizes labour matters in such a way that, in spite of the entry of non-Whites to the labour market, it preserves contentment in the labour world. It is true that non-Whites have entered. Our policy has never been opposed to the employment of more non-Whites in our economy. As a matter of fact, it is as a result of our deliberate policy that more and better opportunities have been created for Coloureds, Bantu and others to do better work in this country. But what is significant and what is of the utmost importance, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that the increased use of non-Whites on our labour market has taken place without any labour unrest being caused in the country. That has only been made possible by the fact that we are maintaining a labour pattern in this country which is based on the colour bar, in other words, work reservation. It is only because we have that labour pattern that we can employ non-Whites and still give the Whites a feeling of security. The policy as well as the course of action adopted by this Government is to have controlled employment. If one considers the fact that during the past five years 100,000 more Bantu were employed in industry than before, but that in spite of that the percentage of White workers in industry remained constant at 26 per cent, then one realizes that that means that 50,000 Whites entered the industrial field during this same five-year period. One could only bring about this entry of 100,000 Bantu into industry without any labour unrest because one applied controlled employment in this country and because one continued to give the White workers the security that the increased employment of non-Whites would not destroy their entire livelihood overnight. One controls that employment in such a way that one gives the Whites that feeling of security which enables them to maintain their productivity. [Time limit.]

I want to deal with the points made by the hon. the Deputy Minister but before doing so I want to say, in passing, to the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) that I never expected to hear the hon. member, who has for years fought for the interests of the workers in this House, pleading for plain and unadulterated exploitation of the working mothers of the industrial labour force of South Africa. The hon. member’s plea was that the contributions made by these working mothers to the Unemployment Insurance Fund should not be utilized to confer any benefits on them.

He never said that.

Had the hon. member for Brits (Mr. J. E. Potgieter) been here to listen to the debate and to take an interest in the workers of South Africa he would have heard the hon. member for Krugersdorp say that. That was the gravamen of his charge.

You are telling a fie!

Order!

I withdraw it, Sir.

As I understood the plea of the hon. member for Krugersdorp he pleaded that the benefits paid to the working mothers of South Africa should come out of a separate fund altogether and not out of the Unemployment Insurance Fund.

I want to come back to the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister. The hon. the Deputy Minister says the Government has taken every step to relieve the manpower shortage. He says one of the steps taken by the Government, for example, has led to a great increase in the number of apprenticeship agreements. What are the facts, Sir? In the metal industry* for example, we have only one out of every six of the entire labour complement employed as apprentices. That is one of the basic industries in the industrial sector in this country. What does the Minister’s own report say? It says that in the year 1962 there was a decline in the number of apprenticeship agreements and that the increase was only about 200 in the year 1963. So over this period, during great economic expansion we have this eventual skilled manpower shortage. The Government really did nothing to increase the number of apprentices. The increase of apprenticeship agreements which has taken place has been due to the natural growth of our population and our youth seeking employment in industry. They have not been due to any steps taken by the hon. the Minister.

The hon. the Minister talks about the training of unskilled labour but what does his report say? It says that in terms of the Training of Artisans Act only 36 were trained as operatives and that in 1963 only 82 reached a stage where they could be given proficiency certificates. When you look at the facts, Sir, you get a completely different picture from the one the hon the Deputy Minister has tried to paint. I submit to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he must not come with broad general statements but that he must deal with what his departmental report says and in the light of the actual facts. The hon. the Deputy Minister also talked about the wonderful industrial peace that prevailed in South Africa. I wish to take that up because I think the time has arrived for us to realize that, in view of the limited resources of White labour in his country, any further expansion of our economy must in fact rest in the hands of the non-Whites. Arising from this I then ask myself what, in fact, is the proper role of trade union organizations and employer organizations in the future economic expansion of our country?

In reply to the first question, I think that, in present-day circumstances, the old attitude of trade unionism has largely disappeared. They existed formerly to defend the weak against exploitation and to defend the poor against exploitation in the labour market. Their main purpose was to fight for better wages and better conditions of employment for their members. Has this position not been somewhat undermined in a time of economic buoyancy because of full employment? Is one not entitled to say that the industrial agreements which are agreed upon really only fix the minimum standards which the workers in any particular industry demand? Are the trade unions and these national agreements not losing their actual significance? When one looks at the departmental report you find that the 83 agreements registered, affecting something like 500.000 workers, give protection in terms of Section 48 of the Industrial Conciliation Act, give protection largely on the basis of no exploitation of Bantu labour to the detriment of White labour. I think the Minister now refuses to register any agreement unless it contains that provision.

One may also ask whether their position is not being undermined in this regard that more and more decisions, decisions about piecework, for example, bonus incentives and other management/labour relationship, tend to be on the basis of laying down the minimum standards required, in fact, we may say that the tendency to-day, in regard to industrial management/labour relationship, is to settle disputes between the employer and the employees independently. I think the question can also be asked to what extent trade union views are representative of the views of the workers concerned in any particular industry. I think it can be said that no trade union in South Africa—unless the closed-shop principle is applied—represents the views of the workers concerned in that particular industry. I can give two examples. I think the hon. the Minister of Transport will agree with me when I say that the staff associations of the Railways do not necessarily represent the views of the servants employed in that particular section of which they are representative. The Post Office is another example. It cannot be said that the Post Office workers’ associations in every instance express the views of all the workers in the Post Office. Then there is another point. In any other democratic country the trade unions represent the views of one or other political party for the attainment of their ends. But in South Africa we have the situation where trade unions are falling head over heels not to associate themselves with the views of any political party. Here I have a statement of policy issued as recently as April of this year by the Trade Union Council of South Africa in which they say this—

In other words, they do not wish in any way to be associated with the views of any political party. Let me read some of their objectives: Extension of social security for the aged: application of pensions; free university education; free education in all sorts of fields for all their members. It is clear that these are political objectives but they refuse to have themselves associated in any way with any political party.

Then there is something else. The old system of the boss complex, as it existed in the old days when trade unions were first formed, does not exist to-day at all. The boss to-day is an employee, just as the skilled artisan or operative worker in any factory, because you have new techniques of management. If disputes are not satisfactorily settled to-day the man who usually gets blamed is not the worker or the shop steward but usually the management, the person who has the responsibility because he is considered by his board to have the responsibility of maintaining peaceful labour relationships.

I have raised these points with the hon. the Minister because it is quite clear that if the manpower problems of South Africa have to be solved to-day they will not be solved by expressing airy-fairy views as the hon. member for Welkom (Mr. van Wyk) has done today. He talked about the compulsory re-allocation of labour where it was needed in South Africa’s economy. I do not think the solution lies there. If we are going to observe the principle that the labour problems in South Africa must be met on the principle of negotiating machinery between management and labour then the Government must give the lead somewhere. [Time limit.]

I have pleasure in rising in the first instance to express my gratitude and appreciation to the Minister for one aspect of his responsibility which has not yet been mentioned here to-day, and that is his responsible attitude towards and guarantee to White labour in our national economy. We are aware that the hon. the Minister and his Department are adopting a very reasonable attitude in this regard to-day, as in the building industry, of which I have personal experience in my own constituency, and in which he is not simply yielding to the pressure that the floodgates should be opened and that the professional facet of that industry should be invaded by non-White labour to an increasing extent. Through the reasonable application of the permit system the Minister is not doing the industry any harm; he is trying to tide us over for the time being. In so far as the Whites have a claim in that regard, the Minister is trying to preserve the industry for them. We are aware that the temptation is sometimes very great, particularly if we take into account the fact that the cry of the shortage of manpower has an intoxicating effect both on the labourers and on the employers in this country to-day. Psychologically it is only natural for the employee to argue that since he cannot complete some particular task within a specified period of time it will not necessarily make a big difference if he showed less devotion to duty in trying to carry out his responsibilities in this regard. That creates problems for the hon. the Minister and his Department, and we hope and trust that with his tact and sense of responsibility he will try to alter the psychological approach adopted by the employee to his work, because I am convinced that the hour has come for the White man in the Republic of South Africa to accept it as his duty to do more work himself and to increase his productivity. I think the time has come for us as Whites to consider, adopt and apply a completely different psychological approach to labour in the Republic. It has already become part of the present practice, thanks to the guidance of the hon. the Minister and his colleagues in this connection. Allow me to substantiate that by saying that we find in a place such as Vanderbijlpark that although it has a White population of approximately 40,000, there are only eight non-White men who stay in the area at night, and that cases of persons furtively remaining in the area overnight have virtually been eliminated. Why? Because the psychological approach of the Whites has changed and they have gained a realization of the responsibility and value of doing their work themselves. In any industry, apart from the capital contribution and the organizational contribution, one must never eliminate the element of self-labour on a longterm basis, otherwise the undertaking is doomed. I repeat that the time has come for us as Whites not only to realize the true value and significance of this element in our national economy, but to assign primary importance to it in the times in which we are living. There is one aspect that I specially and particularly want to bring to the notice of the Minister, and that is the depletion of the rural areas as far as White labour is concerned, where the ratio has already reached the alarming figure of more than 80 to one. I am asking whether the time has not arrived for us to consider—not as a crisis measure, not as a misplaced appeal in a time of manpower shortage, but with a view to long-term policy—whether we should not, in collaboration with the Department of Bantu Administration and the Department of Agriculture, establish an apprenticeship system for the agricultural industry in South Africa. You will tell me that that is unrealistic and unpractical, because we have a shortage of manpower. I would respond to that by adopting the attitude that we do not want 10 per cent of the labour supply, but the i per cent or 1 per cent who out of genuine love for and a natural affinity with the land and a desire to work on the land would be very keen to offer their services to this industry if the remuneration were more acceptable. I am convinced that the three Departments jointly and severally and in collaboration with the agricultural unions in our country can very successfully and very profitably formulate a policy in this connection and can open the channels so that we shall get that flowing-back of the decimal part of 1 per cent or the few per cent to the rural areas, back to the rural areas! Then we would be doing something to counteract and to neutralize this process of depletion, of exhaustion. Because there are still some of our young people who have natural ties with this occupation and who still realize its value in our political and national economy. [Time limit.]

An attack has been made on the Government to-day to the effect that it does not do enough to combat the manpower shortage. The hon. the Deputy Minister has replied to it and has clearly in-dictated that the Government has done everything possible, whether by way of immigration or by way of university training, etc. I may just say that since 1948 the subsidy paid by the Government to universities has increased by 534 per cent. But that is not all; there is also the encouragement in regard to the training of apprentices. The Government has done everything in its power, and also in regard to industrial development in the border areas and in the Bantu homelands, where use can be made of skilled Black labour, the Government is doing what it can, and in the long run this will really be the only solution for the manpower shortage, to have this industrial development in the border areas and in the Bantu homelands where skilled Black workers can be trained. I want to point out that the Government has already succeeded in having 4,000 Bantu trained as building workers to build houses in the Bantu residential areas and in the homelands. Therefore the Government cannot really be expected to do more than it is already doing. The question, however, is whether the industrialists are doing everything they can be expected to do. In the final result this manpower shortage and the problem of finding enough labour for industry is not in the first place the Government’s problem; it is in the first place the problem of the industrialists. They should ensure their finding the necessary labour. They should see to it that they get the necessary skilled labour. And I think that the industrialists have been adopting much too complacent an attitude in South Africa and have just expected the Government alone to solve the manpower shortage.

Let us examine the position of the industrialist. Take the recruiting of skilled workers overseas. The industrialists rely mainly on the Immigration Department. Instead of sending missions abroad, separately or jointly, with the fantastic profits they are making to-day. in order to recruit skilled manpower overseas, they do far too little and spend far too little in recruiting skilled labour from overseas. Furthermore, take mechanization. When one visits an area like the Vaal Triangle one is sometimes surprised at the highly mechanized factories one finds there, but one is equally astounded at the primitive methods one sees being applied in certain of the large factories. It seems to me that certain industrialists still have the idea that because mechanization costs a lot of money they must base their expansion not on mechanization but on the tremendous reservoir of Black labour which is available. There are far too many industrialists who argue along the following lines, viz. that there is plenty of Bantu labour available, that economic factors will force the Government eventually to abolish work reservation, and that they can just expand on the basis of the large reservoir of available Black labour. That is a dangerous attitude for South Africa, but also a dangerous attitude for those particular industrialists themselves. But they will not succeed in it. As the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated, if you are going to tamper with job reservation and with the colour bar in industry, you will no longer have the industrial peace we have had for the past 20 years or longer. Therefore the industrialists who argue in that way are, in my opinion, busy creating a tremendous problem for themselves.

In regard to mechanization and the high costs connected with it, what is the pattern one finds in industry to-day? Everybody makes tremendous profits. They restrict dividends to a very large extent, to which I have no objection at all. They earn much more than the dividends they pay out and they build up tremendous reserves. Those reserves are used practically without any exception for the further expansion of those industries, of those factories, and these industries can make a much greater contribution to the solution of the manpower shortage if instead of continually expanding and attracting more labour they switch over increasingly to mechanization, even though that means a smaller profit and smaller dividends for the first few years. If those profits are smaller, it will not affect the economy of the country at all. A senior personnel official in the Vaal Triangle told me that he could take 150 managers out of the Vaal Triangle without its having any effect on the production of that area. He alleged that the unwillingness of many big manufacturers to make efficient use of their labour was due to the fact that they did not use their labour force efficiently. And that is in fact also what Mr. Harry Oppenheimer said when he opened a factory in Inanda—

They will simply have to do it. They must adapt their factory and not simply adopt the standpoint that the Government should solve the manpower shorage, and if it cannot do so it must abolish job reservation so that they can use Black skilled labour. Then Mr. Oppenheimer continued—

In the final result, that is the only real solution to the labour shortage. But I regret to say that I am afraid that these industrialists who use the Chamber of Industries as their mouthpiece are the people who do not want to take this trouble, and that it is they who are behind this agitation to abolish job reservation. There is the question of the utilization of female labour; there is the question of making people go on pension at 60 or 65 years of age. Sir, surely that is an antiquated idea, and with the new medical treatments and all the other things a man is at his best when he gets to 60 or 65. But there are some industrialists who simply refuse to employ people above the age of 45 years, people who after a very short period of training can become skilled workers. They simply refuse to employ people above the age of 45 years. Sir, one can only have industrial expansion on a sound basis if one takes the following things into consideration: (1) the capital available; (2) the available labour; and (3) (and this is the most important) within the social pattern. Now this Government is expected to do what no other country in the world does, namely to have industrial expansion at the cost of its social pattern. That is why they say: Abolish job reservation and put in its place the rate for the job. In other words, throw open the skilled labour market to the Bantu workers. That is so shortsighted, because it will change the whole social pattern. They say it will result in greater prosperity. I have no doubt that it will result in greater prosperity, but no country in the world buys greater prosperity at the expense of its social pattern. Take England to-day. England can import more Jamaicans and such-like people to get cheap labour, which will assist her in her present position, but even the Labour Party does not want that. Take the position of Australia. There would of course be much greater industrial expansion in Australia if they wanted to import cheap Chinese and Japanese and Indian labour. But they do not do so because they do not want to buy greater prosperity in Australia at the cost of the whole social pattern, because they know that then they would be creating a situation for themselves which cannot be solved later. And here we have had experience of the buying of greater prosperity at the cost of our social planning. Years ago we imported Chinese and Indian labour to bring greater prosperity to the sugar plantations in Natal. I do not doubt that greater prosperity was bought for a number of persons and also for the sugar industry, but today we sit with those social problems, and all members of this House will agree that it would have been much better if we had not created that problem, if at that time we had not considered economic factors only instead of also taking into consideration the whole social pattern. Therefore the whole question of the labour shortage must be seen in the right perspective. I am not one of those people who weep about the labour shortage. As I said before, it is a by-product of prosperity; it is a by-product of the tremendous industrial development. and we should be grateful for it. It is precisely the same problem with which Western Germany and France are faced, and every country which has experienced such tremendous industrial development as we have had in South Africa. But then one must adapt the industrial development to the available labour, and therefore I think that this whole attack in regard to a shortage of labour, and this pretence that it is a crime on the part of the Government, is totally unrealistic. The hon. member for Turffontein, if I understood him correctly, said last Wednesday just before the adjournment that his party was also fully in favour of the maintenance of the colour bar in industry. Did I understand him correctly?

Yes. [Time limit.]

I have followed the debate this afternoon with great interest, but we seem to lack a little imagination in dealing with this problem, of how to do the best we can with what we have in the form of labour. I want to say right away, that as far as I am aware, job reservation is as dead as the dodo and will stay dead, because Coloured people are being taken on, particularly in the Government Service, and have been taken on, in trade and industry for a very long time. What is more, they are doing a first-class job. My plea this afternoon, is for a group of Coloured workers in the lower income brackets, but before I come to that, I would like to make a few other observations about the system in this country. It is perfectly true that our industrial legislation, as said by the hon. the Minister, is very good, and that the basis of collective bargaining and associating freely together in trade and industry is one which has been followed successfully for years. To that system we can owe the industrial peace we have had so long. But, I think that was United Party legislation. Don’t let us run away with the idea that this Government thought of that. They did not. They take the credit for it. Under that system, the worker can negotiate with his employer. He can get better wages, better conditions of service and various other benefits. This Government has prevented the Bantu from having trade unions, and so the Black man is exploited, and the Coloured man has been separated by law from the White trade unions. Therefore there is discrimination. The intention is, that the Coloured man shall not share to the same extent as his White colleague in any trade or industry. Be that as it may. If he is an artisan and in a class where he can belong to a trade union, the facilities are there. I am sorry that some of the Ministers are not present, because, however much they may protest, the fact remains, that the Government service is losing people at a tremendously rapid rate, and it is admitted all round. The Minister seems to think that it is not so. Now the advice which is given by the Government to Government workers is: You must have productivity. In other words, you must work twice as hard for the same pay. That is what it boils down to, and we don’t for one moment consider that these people have got to make ends meet and that their salaries and wages are totally inadequate. I establish that point, Mr. Chairman, because when one considers the Coloured person, it is a thousand times worse, because under our system of legislation, the Coloured person only gets a fraction, unless he is in a trade union, of the wage or salary paid to his White counterpart. I notice that the price they have to pay for commodities is exactly the same. The point made by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) was that unemployment benefits fall heavily upon the White unemployed who receives benefits. The Coloured man who is unemployed finds it utterly impossible to exist on the benefits which come his way. I was rather shocked to hear the remarks of the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) who dealt at some length with the position of the Coloured man. The fact of the matter is that when the hon. member says that at Prieska they sent a couple of “konstabels om daardie mense te gaan soek, maar kon hulle nie in die hande kry nie”, and when one considers that policemen were sent to collect these people, I am quite sure they would not come willingly. I think that attitude is quite wrong. To say that the Coloured man because he does not want to work, is responsible for the crime in the cities is silly. There are sociological problems which form the basis of the whole thing, and that brings me to my main plea this afternoon, which is this:

A vast group of workers in this country have no recognition whatsoever. I am now referring to the Coloured agricultural workers in the Cape Province. For them nobody is responsible, and nobody takes any heed or pays any attention. My plea this afternoon is that although the Coloured agricultural worker is specifically excluded from the operation of the Industrial Conciliation Act, some consideration should be given to these people so as to see, that they get paid adequate wages. Now I know, right away, that farmers will jump up in their thousands and say that they cannot afford to pay them better wages because they cannot get prices for their goods and their produce. That is all perfectly true. But there again the remedy lies with the Government. If the cost structure of primary produce is such that the producer cannot pay an adequate wage to the labourer, then there is something wrong. Here you have a man who works with his hands for long hours from sunrise to sundown, and if the producer as well as his workers cannot receive a fair remuneration for their labour, then that is a serious position.

We have heard a lot of what is happening in other parts of the world. The great difference between the rest of the world and ourselves is, and I am especially referring to the Western countries, that they treat their populations and their labour forces as a whole and they make the best use they can of everybody who is available. They do not have the discrimination that we have because of the colour of a man’s skin.

What is the attitude of the United Party?

It has nothing to do with the attitude of the United Party. There should always be an attempt to improve the lot of the groups in the lower economic brackets and in this country the lowest is the agricultural worker. In all countries where the agricultural workers receive consideration and are able to enjoy the fruits of their labour and a higher standard of living and a better wage rate, the economy of the country as a whole improves. That is why I say to-day that the hon. Minister and his colleagues show little imagination in dealing with this question of the manpower shortage.

What we need in this country are hands to do the jobs. I am not impressed by the arguments used by the hon. member for Vereeniging. They are fatuous. We are dealing with people. Our productivity will increase immediately, if steps were taken to see that those in the lower brackets are paid adequate wages. And, there is a way of determing that. One cannot forget them and just leave them to sweat on their own and to get a job where they can. The Coloured agricultural worker and the many Coloured labourers have no security whatsoever, no hope of anything in the future, no benefits by way of pensions, no sick pay, no holiday pay, nothing of that sort, whatsoever. Therefore, I say this afternoon that this debate on the Minister of Labour’s Vote could have been raised to a level, where this question of the manpower shortage could have been tackled and the constructive suggestions made by hon. members on this side could have been followed up, with advantage to the country, to the Department, to all. We are living in a country where profit is the main motive, and it is a very laudable one, but I believe that the man at the bottom of the social scale is entitled to a fair share. A very prominent industrialist has said that we must only proceed at the rate of our human resources. How do we know what our human resources are and what their capacity is, and what their potential may be. We do not, because we simply forget that there are 10,000,000 to 12,000,000 other people in this country, and we always talk about protecting the White man. Sir, in trade union negotiations, the worker as a worker, irrespective of the colour of his skin, is protected by minimum rates of pay, and I would say in conclusion that the increase in wages and wage rates has been brought about by trade and industry, because these people are practical. The reason that the Government Service is losing all its people, is because the Government is impractical and does not realize that these men have got to be paid decently—in other words, the hireling is worthy of his hire. [Time limit.]

We have been listening to a number of speakers on the Opposition side who are bent on criticizing the Government because the Government has not yet done certain things according to their ideas and plans. When we think what the most important task is of the Department of Labour we realize that it is to provide work, to give vocational guidance, to apply the various industrial laws which are on the Statute Book and another of its most important task is to maintain labour peace in our country. We find that during the past 17 years this Department of Labour has been managed with tact, wisdom, perseverance and patience. In co-operation with the Government, as far as the application of our industrial laws is concerned, the various Ministers of Labour as well as the Department have succeeded in bringing about industrial peace, and maintaining it, in this multi-racial country of ours. As far as vocational guidance is concerned we find that the Department is giving vocational guidance to the youth of the Republic on a very large scale, and not only to the youth but vocational guidance is also being given to various people who are seeking employment.

I want to express my gratitude and appreciation to the Secretary of the Department for the quarterly journal My Career which is issued by the Department. I think, it is one of the best publications issued by the Department, it is a publication in which the youth are enlightened as to the direction they should follow when looking for work. Many people are under the impression that the Department of Labour only has to provide employment to persons who are physically healthy or to clever people. They do not appreciate the important and responsible task which rests on the Department of assisting and .helping the cripples, the blind, the deaf and the mentally defective and retarded people. I think, we owe a deep debt of gratitude to the Minister and his Department as far as this is concerned because they have also succeeded in a masterly fashion in assisting the less-privileged people. One thinks of the important work that is being done in respect of subsidized labour, the schemes that are undertaken by local authorities with the assistance of the Department of Labour to assist the physically handicapped, one thinks of the sheltered employmnet provided for cripples, the workshops for the blind and of all the vocational guidance given by the Department.

I think one can say, Sir, that during the past 17 years the National Party, with the assistance of our industrial laws, has created a certain labour pattern in industry, trade and mining which fits into our national traditions, a labour pattern which has been accepted by the majority of White workers in the Republic and which is regarded by them as their birth right, namely, that certain jobs may only be performed by Whites. Time and again this labour pattern, namely, the maintenace of the colour bar has been attacked and every on-slaughter made in the past has failed. We find to-day, however, that the most vehement onslaught is being made at the very time when the Republic is experiencing the most economic upsurge it has ever experienced and under the cloak of a manpower shortage the final desperate attempt is being made to destroy job reservation.

The manpower shortage has suddenly now become a political football. Industry is inflating this football out of all proportion, the Opposition kicks wildly at it and leaves it suspended in the air. They are sending this ball up into the air and the non-Whites look with longing eyes at certain things which have been promised to them. At the same time the Whites are rolling up their sleeves, they are getting worried and they are going to take an active part in the struggle because they are very upset in their minds. I am grateful to the Deputy Minister for his statement. We know that as far as these exemptions are concerned he will grant them very judiciously. But when we think of the problems confronting the White workers on the Witwatersrand and the various meetings they are holding, we realize that they are worried. We find, for example, that the S.A. Machinists and Stoker Association say the following in their annual report—

I want to say this to the Opposition and to industry this afternoon: Do not use this manpower shortage position in order to break down the colour bar. Do not criticize separate development and job reservation which have so far established industrial peace in this country. Separate development and job reservation have brought prosperity to our country and to ail its inhabitants. I am asking the Opposition not to break it down because that will create chaos, misery and poverty. If we break it down we shall be creating tension and dissension and we will get strikes in this country. The State has actively played its part in solving this manpower shortage problem. Industry and the Opposition must not follow the easiest road by trying to break down the colour bar. They must make more effective use of the manpower available. Do not, in the false hope of creating greater prosperity, throw out like dish water this tried labour pattern which has become our traditional policy and which has brought great prosperity to everybody in the country. [Time limit.]

A great deal has been made of the manpower shortage to-day. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) also referred to it, as did the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). The hon. member for Vereeniging also mentioned steps which industrialists can take to solve this problem. I want, however, to contend to-day that this question of the manpower shortage has become a shield behind which many industrialists are hiding. It has become a handy excuse for certain actions which they have thought out, and I should like to analyse their purpose in this regard. I should just like to mention an example of what happens. A large undertaking makes use of the opportunity to appoint a Bantu to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of a White worker. If there is no suitable Bantu available to fill that vacancy, it is their policy to move one of the other Whites in their service into the new post and then to fill the resulting vacancy by appointing a Bantu. I do not want to mention names. I have brought this matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister, and I have proof in this regard. These malpractices are taking place behind the shield of the manpower shortage. One may well ask what these people seek to achieve by this means. Is it simply profits and more profits without regard to the results of this sort of action? Are these people trying to upset the industrial peace to which the hon. the Deputy Minister referred, or are they trying to undermine the whole labour pattern which we have created in South Africa and to which we have become accustomed over the years?

Which industry is that?

This is the steel industry. I trust that the hon. the Minister and his Department will take advantage of these examples which we have brought to their attention and will make short shrift of people who act in this negative fashion. This fact is important; there is no manpower shortage in that particular undertaking—I am speaking now of a particular undertaking and not of the whole industry—because people are even being retrenched, but this reshuffling of staff is being done for completely different purposes. I trust that these practices will be completely eradicated.

But another important matter to which I want to refer and which is also caused by the manpower shortage is the use of female labour, and particularly that of married women. Female labour has already become a recognized part of our labour force and, as we progress, more and more use will have to be made of their labour. We accept this fact and there is hardly any mention now of the fact that a woman’s place is only in the home. There are various reasons why women go to work. The most important is probably because they have to supplement the earnings of their husbands so that they can better assist in meeting the needs of their families. But there are also probably those who go to work not because they are compelled to do so financially but because it has become the fashion for them to go to work. I take off my hat to the woman who has to accept a position for some or other reason and continues to give the necessary attention to her home and family. They are carrying a double burden in that they have to do their office work to the best of their ability during the day and they have also to give their husbands and families the necessary attention in the evenings. I am only afraid that there are also those who may neglect their primary duty and not care for their husbands and their homes. It will be a pity if during this period of prosperity, when we have to make use of female labour, we should do ourselves harm in another sphere, in the sphere of our family life. I feel that we should make an appeal to the women of South Africa not to neglect their primary duty where they are called upon to do their share in our economic life. I hope they will ensure that because of this period of prosperity we shall not reach the stage where we shall not even have heirs to inherit our riches, and that in the process of getting rich we are not perhaps impoverished in another sphere.

I join with the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Cruywagen) in the praise he gives to the working married women in South Africa, but I want to remind him that many of the married women to-day do not work of choice, simply because there is an economic boom, but that the majority go out to work to maintain a standard of living which their husband’s income alone does not permit them to have in view of the rising cost of living. They are compelled to go to work to maintain a decent standard of living, and it is a reflection on the Government’s policy if the married women have to work. Whilst I am about this I hope that the Minister will also give further consideration to what is now in fact also becoming a social evil, and that is that married women who are pregnant are today working many hours of overtime, which is not good for their health and for the future of South Africa. I hope the Minister will give some consideration to that particular problem.

Now I should like to continue the point I was making when I spoke earlier. I drew attention to the trend that exists at present in the trade union movement and employers’ organizations, that the old concept of the boss and the employee no longer exists, and that you have to-day the modern concept of the relations of labour with management. It is no longer the case now that the worker has to struggle against his boss for his rights. In fact, in many instances, the manner in which managament itself exercises its functions in maintaining industrial relations is a factor in determining whether there is good or bad manage-try to-day, coupled with the manpower problem. With the problems faced by our country. I do not think there is any doubt at all that enlightened labour leadership and informed management in all sectors of the economy have come to realize one basic concept, and that is that more effective use of the available labour must be made by the training and education of the unskilled labour resources to attain skills as far as they possibly can. That is obviously the role that the unskilled workers must play in the future of our economy. The hon. member for Vereeniging tried to blame the employers and the industrialists for the difficulties we have. He suggested greater mechanization as a possible solution for our manpower shortage, but I think what the hon. member misses, and what the hon. the Minister of Labour appreciates, is that even with greater mechanization, with the limited number of skilled White workers we have to-day, you cannot mechanize without making greater use of non-White labour in a semi-skilled capacity. And in fact that is the economic trend to-day. The greater the spread of this available White skill, the greater the use of the semi-skilled operative. The problem therefore is how it is possible to maintain the protection of the status of the White worker and at the same time to make greater use of the non-White labour resources in order to overcome the manpower bottle-neck which is hampering our economic expansion. To this end I think the Minister can take the initiative, because if the old concepts of trade unionism and of employers’ organizations are being thrown overboard and we try to maintain equitable industrial relations in our economy, as we on this side of the House want to do, namely that agreement should be arrived at between management and labour, then the Minister can initiate perhaps one step in order to overcome the problem of the use of non-White labour which, if not overcome, will retard the economic progress of this country. The suggestion I want to make is this, that the time has come for the Minister to convene a conference of all trade union interests in South Africa with management in all spheres, in order that these issues may be faced squarely and put fairly and squarely before the White workers. Because any economic expansion must obviously be to the advantage of the White workers of South Africa, and lead to the raising of their levels of skill. It is clear that unless some step of this nature is taken, we will continue to have these outdated concepts. One only has to take the report of the Minister’s own Department. When you see that in 1963, which is the latest report available, of the 48 new industrial agreements, which largely cover wage scales, 41, of the new industrial agreements registered by the Minister were declared binding in respect of Bantu in terms of Section 48 (3) of the Industrial Conciliation Act—in other words, there was written into every one of them the protection of the White worker against the Bantu worker. I would suggest to the Minister that as long as we adopt this attitude—I believe it is a condition now laid down by the Minister that he will refuse to gazette any industrial agreement unless these provisions are included in them; I think I am correct in making that statement . . . [Interjection.] The Minister is obviously in a difficulty. He is bound by the out-dated political attitude of his party to these matters. He is caught up in his own limited outlook in regard to racial relations, and I would plead with the Minister to use the occasion of this debate, in the interests of the economy and of the White workers, to say that he is prepared to convene a conference where these basic issues may be thrashed out. I hope the Minister will indicate that he is prepared to give consideration to this suggestion.

I think this might be a convenient time for me to reply to the questions raised in the course of this debate. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton), who was the chief spokesman for the Opposition, again raised the matter of the 1962 amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act. As hon. members know, this matter has repeatedly been dealt with in this House during the past two years. Hon. members will recollect that only a few months ago I had to deal with the same issue during a debate on the Unemployment Insurance Amendment Bill. I indicated them to the hon. member and to the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) that the whole matter had been referred to the Unemployment Insurance Board, but that after very serious consideration the Board had come to the conclusion that it was not in favour of a relaxation of the 1962 requirements. I do not think it is necessary for me to repeat in detail the reasons for the Board’s decision, but we have had some statements from the hon. member for Umhlatuzana during this debate which I think have been somewhat extravagant and inaccurate. The hon. member made the following allegations, and I am going to deal with them in the order in which they were made.

He firstly mentioned that the 1962 amendments constituted a breach of promise and resulted in an injustice to thousands of contributors. Secondly, he said that enormous savings had been effected because the fund was no longer being utilized in the manner in which it was originally intended to be used; and thirdly, he alleged that thousands of workers who had contributed to the fund would now not receive a cent due to the restrictions which were applied in 1962. In regard to the first allegation, I find it difficult to understand on what basis the hon. member makes a statement of this nature and how it can be reconciled with the facts. I will deal with those facts very shortly.

The biggest single restriction imposed in 1962 was the requirement in terms of which a contributor had to be employed for at least 3 weeks during the period of 52 weeks preceding his unemployment, before qualifying for either ordinary benefits or illness allowance. In the case of confinement allowances, the previous requirement of 13 weeks’ employment during the preceding 52 weeks was increased to 18 weeks. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana expressed his alarm at the very substantial decrease in the amount expended on ordinary benefits. He pointed to the report of the Board that there had been a decrease of 38,000 contributors who received benefits, but he made no attempt to explain why a similar reduction had not occurred in the case of illness and of maternity benefits. Now the fact is that the amount of ordinary benefits paid out during 1964 was some R6,000,000 less than in 1961. Those are the ordinary benefits. In the case of illness allowances, the difference was only R350,000.

That is why I did not refer to it.

Maternity benefits actually increased by some R 15,000. So it was only the question of the ordinary benefits. Surely these figures can lead to only one conclusion, and that is that the substantial reduction in ordinary benefits was due mainly to an improvement in the unemployment position.

The main reason was this period of 13 weeks.

Oh no, my figures show that it was due to the fact that there was less and less unemployment.

So the amendment was unnecessary.

As the hon. member knows, the amendments were introduced to stop abuses. In any case, I think it is difficult for any member to imagine that any work-seeker is unable under present conditions to obtain work for a period of 13 weeks in a whole year in this time of full employment. It seems difficult to imagine that there is any work-seeker who is unable to obtain employment at the present time, for at least 13 weeks in any period of a year. [Interjection.] It passes my understanding how an hon. member can allege that that is a breach of any contract. But as the hon. member knows, in the event of serious unemployment the relative restriction can be suspended by the Minister of Labour in respect of any ordinary benefits. The hon. member alleges that there are thousands of workers who have suffered an injustice in terms of this provision, but he did not give me any information as to who these thousands of workers are. My Department and I are quite unaware that there are thousands of workers who have suffered through that provision.

Then why did you refer the matter back to the Board?

Because the hon. member asked me to do so. That was the only reason. I gave an undertaking that I would do so. I wanted to be quite sure that no injustice was being done to these workers mentioned by the hon. member.

Then I come to the second allegation of the hon. member. He asserted that the Fund was not being used as originally intended. I say that that allegation is devoid of any substance. It was never the intention that benefits should be paid to persons who do in fact leave the labour market, and for this reason it has always been a requirement of the Act that applicants for ordinary benefits should be capable of and should be available for work. That is my reply to the second allegation. Thirdly, the hon. member suggested that workers who had contributed to the Fund would now not receive one cent. Sir, not a single worker will lose any credits as a result of the 1962 amendment; he will remain entitled to the full benefits, subject to compliance with the requirement which is applicalbe to all other workers.

New requirements.

Yes, the requirements of the 1962 Act. In this connection hon. members must not lose sight of the benefit which is in fact paid, in proportion to contributions by the workers only. The hon. member for Krugersdorp* (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) quoted figures to show that a member in the lowest group actually contributes one cent a week and that for a total contribution of R1.56 he receives benefits amounting to R63.70 over a period of six months. In the highest wage group, which was quoted by the hon. member, the benefits amount to R364, in return for contributions amounting to only R 18.72; so even if the employers’ and the State’s share of the contribution are taken into consideration, it will take a worker 49 and 28 years to make up for the benefits paid out for 26 weeks in the lowest and highest groups respectively.

I come back now to the first allegation, which was the so-called breach of a promise to which the hon. member referred. I would remind him that the first and foremost duty towards contributors is to ensure that the Fund is administered with due regard to the liability that will have to be met during a period of serious unemployment. I think in this connection hon. members of the Committee may be interested to know that despite a position of full employment the income of the Fund derived from contributions by employees, by employers and the State is not sufficient to meet the expenditure in respect of all the different benefits paid under the Act. I do not think it is necessary to repeat the figures which I supplied to the House earlier on this Session, but I think I should say that in 1963 the Fund’s total revenue, including interest from investments, exceeded expenditure for the first time since 1958, and it was not necessary to realize investments to meet a shortfall. In other words, if we did not have this interest on investments, expenditure would still have exceeded the income. I think that is the full reply to the first speech made by the hon. member in the course of this debate. The hon. member then came back to the question of cost-of-living allowances and stated that there was an obligation on the Government to see that wages were increased consistent with the increase in the cost-of-living. I think he even went so far as to suggest that the cost-of-living allowances should be added to wages by the employer and that the Government should subsidize employers to enable them to do so. Well, I think that is a fantastic suggestion. I have never before heard the suggestion that you have to subsidize employers so that they can pay their employees higher wages. The hon. member also suggested that there was an obligation on the Government so see that wages were increased commensurate with the increase in cost of living. The whole basis of his case seemed to me to be that the Government should interfere in all industries and should simply take the initiative in increasing wages. But he seems to lose sight of all the industrial legislation which is at the disposal of workers if they wish to have their wages increased. He loses sight of the whole question of collective bargaining, which would then go by the board; in other words, the Government would simply go to an industry and say “We have to increase wages in this industry”. Sir, the line which I have consistently followed and the line followed by my predecessor, in reply to representations for an increase in the cost-of-living allowance, is that the cost-of-living allowance has over the years ceased to be a separate entity and has become an integral part of basic earnings. Consolidation of the prescribed allowances with minimum wages has taken place not only in our wage determinations under the Wage Act and in agreements under the Industrial Conciliation Act but also in a very large number of undertakings which are not subject to wage regulations. As I say, the machinery is there, and that machinery is being used almost daily. The hon. member referred to a dispute which has now arisen in the steel industry. Well, there is machinery, of course, for that dispute to be settled. The hon. member knows what the machinery is.

Am I entitled to conclude from that that the Minister does not approve of the threat issued by Councillor Eben Cuyler in the Johannesburg City Council that he would see to it that legislation was introduced to prevent them from increasing wages?

Sir, I am not concerned with that. The hon. member also knows that where wages and cost-of-living allowances have been consolidated, subsequent wage increases have in many instances been negotiated, inter alia, on the basis of a rise in the cost of living. That is happening continually. If the hon. member will look at the Gazette he will find that almost every week there are wage determinations which show that wage increases are taking place constantly after these investigations. [Interjection.]

What about the interim period? That is our problem.

As far as I know there is no great lack of time between the expiration of an industrial agreement and the date on which a new agreement is entered into because before an industrial agreement expires, my experience has been that negotiations are started long before the agreement expires.

When an industrial council agreement is signed it is usually for a fixed term of three years or more. The agreement may be one year old and the cost of living may increase by the extent to which it has increased over the last year. What relief is there for the worker when that sort of thing happens? He has no control over it, nor has the employer.

My reply to the hon. member is that if a case can be made out for increased wages, then I take it that negotiations can be opened, in spite of the fact that there is an agreement for a fixed period. I realize that the worker is in a weak position, but I have no power under any legislation or any regulation whereby I can say to the organization concerned that an increase of wages should be granted.

Will war measures allow you to do so?

The onus is not on me.

The hon. member then raised the question of the manpower shortage, a matter to which the hon. the Deputy Minister replied. The hon. member also raised the question of the pegging of wages and the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister. I do not want to go into the statement made by the Prime Minister at this stage; I think we have gone into it fully in various previous debates. The matter has been dealt with by the Deputy Minister in speeches which he has made and I have replied to it in speeches I have made. I am not going to say that what the Prime Minister said was distorted but I say that a entirely wrong impression was given of the statement made by the Prime Minister. It was immediately said that the Prime Minister had stated that wages were to be frozen. Well, that is not so. I as Minister of Labour have no power to peg or to freeze wages, and the statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister was misrepresented to the public. As I have stated, I have no power to freeze wages and in fact there is no machinery in existence whereby I as Minister of Labour can peg wages. The State, like any other employer, is entitled to consider each request for higher pay on its merits, and so far as private industry is concerned, the Minister can, if he deems it expedient, refuse to publish a wage determination under the Wage Act or an industrial council agreement in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act. He can do so not only where he considers the wages of a specific category to be too low but also if a specific wage rate would have an undesirable effect; but on his own initiative it is obvious that he has no power to peg wages as suggested by the Opposition.

The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) dealt with the same subject matter, the question of higher wages, and he advanced the proposition that the Government should fix wages. He repeated the statement several times that the Government should take the initiative and fix wages. How is the Government going to do that? He said that somebody has to take the lead. Well, I suggest that as far as industry is concerned, industry itself can take the lead. The hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) in fact asked the hon. member what was wrong with the industrialists themselves taking the lead and increasing wages. Why should the Government take the lead?

What about your own employees?

The hon. member for Welkom (Mr. van Wyk) made a very thoughtful speech on the question of an investigation into our available manpower. Well, we have machinery whereby these investigations are made. An investigation is conducted every year or every second year into the use of available manpower. We have been able to do quite a lot through the machinery we have at our disposal. I can assure the hon. member for Welkom that the machinery is being used and that it is being used to very good effect.

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) raised the question of the cost-of-living allowance on the benefits which are being paid under the Unemployment Insurance Act and he quoted the 1962 figures. He said that in Group I a sum of 90 cents was allowed and a much bigger amount in Group 2. My reply to the hon. member is this, that unemployment benefits are paid in accordance with earnings. If the hon. member looks at the definition of earnings he will see that earnings are defined as meaning any payment in money or in kind or both in money and in kind which arises in any manner whatsoever out of employment and includes cost-of-living allowance; so in fixing these amounts one takes into consideration the cost-of-living allowance which is included in the definition of “earnings”.

That was fixed in 1962. Prices have gone up since that date.

I want to make the point that the value of food and/or quarters which must be taken into account for the purpose of determining earnings in kind is set out in the tables and it varies from group to group. It is based on deductions which are usually allowed under wage-regulating measures. Those figures are under review at present.

Do you think they will go up?

I do not know; they are under review at present.

Sir, I think the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) was misunderstood by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant). The hon. member for Krugersdorp made a plea that maternity benefits should be paid out of a separate fund, a national fund set up by the State, and in that event if a national fund were set up by the State, then they would not have to pay any contributions. I think that is the point that the hon. member for Krugersdorp made.

I did not understand it that way.

I thought the hon. member for Turffontein had not understood what the hon. member for Krugersdorp had said.

I thought he advocated that mothers should still work and still pay their contributions.

No, he advocated the establishment of a separate fund, a national fund established by the State, out of which benefits would be paid in maternity cases.

If that is so then I did him an injustice.

I thought I should put this matter right. The hon. member for Parow raised the question of unemployment amongst Coloured people. He referred to a speech made by him last year in which he advocated that some body or board should be set up to deal with unemployment amongst the Coloureds. As the hon. member knows, a Directorate of Coloured labour has been established in the Department of Labour, a Directorate which is to provide a supplementary service in connection with the employment of Coloureds in areas where the number of unemployed would justify it. This is a supplementary service in that it is additional to the existing services which are rendered by the sub-offices of the Department, and where necessary by magistrate’s offices and social welfare offices on behalf of the Department. The Directorate is under the control of an Administrative Control Officer who was appointed last year. He also has a number of Coloured clerks on his staff. This service has been established on a mobile basis. The officers move from area to area with the specific purpose of registering unemployed Coloureds and placing them in employment. There is close collaboration with local organizations and especially with local authorities and divisional councils. There is also the closest collaboration with the Department of Coloured Affairs so that where necessary Coloureds can be rehabilitated in order to ensure their placement in the open labour market. The Directorate has been established as an experiment and thus far no factors have come to light which indicate that any additional machinery is necessary. As a matter of fact, I can tell the hon. member that I received a report from the Director some weeks ago from which it seems to me that there is not the unemployment amongst the Coloureds that we thought there was because when jobs were offered to them, when these mobile units went around and made arrangements to find work for them, their experience was that these Coloureds preferred to come to Cape Town or the nearest big centre to seek work. They were not very keen to work in the rural areas.

What sort of jobs were they offered?

Farm jobs.

At what rates of pay?

Of course, as in the case of all other races there are many Coloureds who are unemployable. They refuse to work or they cannot work.

The hon. member for Parow raised the question of making it compulsory for Coloureds to register if they are unemployed.

Everybody.

Yes, everybody; it would, of course, have to apply to everybody if we made it compulsory. The hon. member referred to a certain Act which had been passed and which apparently makes it compulsory for unemployed to register and imposes a penal sanction if they do not register. Well, I find that this particular provision has never been used because it is not practicable to enforce it. If people refuse to register as unemployed, how are you going to find them to prosecute them, if you do not know where they are, who they are and when last they worked. We have found that the enforcement of this particular provision is not practicable and, of course, it only applied in certain designated areas.

The hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) raised the question of non-White traffic officers in Cape Town. He told the Committee that there was a shortage of 101 traffic officers in Cape Town and he suggested that in this case we should relax one of our work reservations. Sir, if it is a fact that there is a shortage of 101 traffic officers in Cape Town and if the Council has been unable to fill these posts with White traffic officers, I suggest that they apply to my Department for exemption. If they can make out a good case for exemption, then the matter will receive consideration. If they can motivate their case and satisfy me that every effort has been made to fill these vacancies with White traffic officers, then we are prepared to consider granting exemption, as we do in other similar cases. I want to make the point however that we have to be completely satisfied that every effort has been made to fill those positions because in this case, of course, there may be the difficulty of a social problem. Hon. members know that Europeans do not like being directed by non-European traffic officers. As I say, it is a social problem.

We are not living in the Dark Ages.

At any rate, if the case can be motivated then we are prepared to give consideration to the question of granting exemption.

The hon. member for Turffontein raised the whole question of the trade union set-up in South Africa. As a matter of fact, he made the statement that our trade union legislation was out-dated and outworn.

I said that your conception of trade union legislation was out-dated.

It amounts to the same thing because our conception of the trade union set-up is embodied in our legislation. Sir, I think I should spend a little time on this because my contention, of course, is that our industrial legislation is probably as good as any in the world and that it is completely up-to-date. Hon. members know that from time to time, year after year, we come forward with amendments to improve our industrial legislation. Our experience has been that we have enjoyed industrial peace and I think the main reason is that our industrial legislation is in fact up-to-date. There is, of course, a vast difference between the trade union set-up in South Africa and elsewhere in the world inasmuch as trade unions in this country are obliged to become registered if they want to avail themselves of the machinery of the Industrial Conciliation Act, for the purpose of regulating and improving their conditions of employment. Hon. members know that it is not quite so easy for a new trade union to obtain registration because apart from all the other requirements of the Act a trade union must lodge with the Industrial Registrar its proposed Constitution which must make provision for at least 18 different items. I am not going to quote the 18 but I am going to quote a few of them. This will show the Committee how up-to-date this legislation is (a) the membership fees to be paid and the purpose for which its funds may be used; (b) the qualification for membership and the manner in which membership may be terminated; (c) the calling and the conduct of meetings and the keeping of minutes and books of account; (d) the election of representatives on industrial councils or conciliation boards; (e) the procedure to be followed in the appointment of officials; (f) the election by ballot of office bearers; (g) the circumstances and the manner in which office bearers and officials may be removed from office. The constitution must also make provision for the taking of a ballot, namely, at the written request of a certain number of members to determine whether an office-bearer or official shall be removed from office or, if already so removed, whether he shall be reinstated. The Act also provides that all voting by ballot shall be secret and that no trade union shall affiliate with any political party or grant any financial assistance to a political party. The hon. member raised that question. He said in other countries of the world trade unions were affiliated with political parties. I know in Britain the Labour Party is affiliated with the parliamentary Labour Party. In our legislation, however, it is specifically provided that no trade union shall affiliate with any political party or grant any financial assistance to any political party.

I ask hon. members whether that is not a good provision? It keeps trade unionism out of politics. In my experience I have found that, in talking to deputations from trade unions, discussions and deliberations are completely free of any politics. Matters are discussed on their merits and the result is always a good one. Things are settled. That is not all. Even if the Industrial Registrar is satisfied that the trade union complies fully with the constitutional requirements of the Act he is precluded from registering the union if its constitution contains provisions which are contrary to the provisions of any law or are calculated to hinder the attainment or the objects of any law or are unreasonable in relation to its members or to the public. I therefore think that it will be seen that there are rigid requirements which must be complied with before a trade union can gain registration. Once it is registered it must function strictly in accordance with its constitution and submit periodic reports to the Industrial Registrar concerning its membership and its financial position. If the Registrar is satisfied at any time that any material irregularity has occurred in connection with any election held in terms of the union’s constitution or that any official, office-bearer, committee or other body of a registered trade union has failed to observe any provision of the constitution of such union, or has acted unlawfully or has acted in a manner which is unreasonable in relation to its members and which caused serious dissatisfaction amongst the substantial numbers in good standing, he may conduct an inquiry into such matter. There is a full investigation and after the inquiry the Registrar submits a report and a recommendation to the Minister. After the Minister has given the trade union an opportunity of stating its case he may direct that effect be given to the whole or any portion of the Registrar’s recommendation.

I have purposely described this procedure in order to make it clear that trade unions in South Africa are strictly bound by their constitution and that whatever irregularities may occur are always adjusted on an official basis. There is another important factor which prevents a trade union from taking irresponsible or drastic action such as the calling of a strike. Section 65 of the Industrial Conciliation Act provides that no trade union and no office bearer, official or member thereof shall call or take part in any strike (a) if the union is a party to an industrial council the constitution of which provides that disputes which cannot be settled by the council shall be referred to arbitration or (b) if that does not apply, unless the majority of the union’s members in good standing in the particular industry and area, have voted by ballot in favour of strike action. I am satisfied, Sir, that the South African legislation which controls the functioning of trade unions and employers’ organizations also, for that matter, is second to none in the world and is without question the very foundation upon which our unprecedented industrial peace has been built. Apart from the fact that I think the hon. member is probably asking for legislation . . .

I did not suggest any legislation.

There would, of course, have to be legislation if we had to alter . . .

I am not suggesting that you alter anything.

The hon. member for North West Rand (Mr. J. C. B. Schoeman) raised the question of apprentices in the farming industry. The hon. member said that all our industrial legislation did not apply to farmers or to the operations of farmers. The difficulty would be, of course, how to define a farmer. What is a farmer? We know what a motor mechanic is; we know what a carpenter is; we know what a fitter is, but how can you designate a farmer? As the hon. member knows, of course, we have a system in South Africa where we train these young men in our agricultural colleges. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot give the hon. member’s suggestion any consideration. I suppose it is something quite novel; I have never heard it proposed before but I can foresee many, many difficulties in this regard.

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) put his finger right on the spot, I think, as far as the training of manpower is concerned, namely, that we do not get sufficient help and assistance from the industrialists themselves. They don’t make any great effort to train manpower. It is a matter which has caused the Department great concern. I have on many occasions said in public speeches that the industrialists who go on talking about the evils of job reservation and the shortage of manpower do very little to assist us in the training of manpower.

You are not serious are you?

I am very serious?

They are hide-bound by a lot of legislation.

The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. Eden) raised the question of training Coloureds in agricultural work. He said that Coloured agricultural workers should receive considerations and that they were excluded from all industrial legislation. As I have said, I cannot see how we are going to do it in view of the set-up of our industrial legislation although my colleague, the Minister of Coloured Affairs, is taking steps, I know, to assist in that direction. He has schemes for training these workers and if the hon. member would raise the matter under his Vote he might get some information about it.

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) spoke about job reservation. I was glad that he praised that journal which is issued by the Department My Career or Mr Loopbaan. It has done a lot in South Africa to canalise the thought of young people when they leave school in regard to the work or career they should take up. It is a very good publication and I am sure it has done a lot of good work. I shall not deal further with the question of job reservation.

Why not?

I have so often discussed the question of job reservation; I have so often explained the standpoint of the Government that there is nothing that I can add to the discussions we have had in this House during the past four years. I just want to say this: The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) stated quite categorically, in reply to the hon. member for Vereeniging, that the United Party stood for the preservation of the industrial colour bar. I want to ask the hon. member: How are you going to preserve the industrial colour bar unless you have job reservation? That is the point. The industrial colour bar is a colour bar which has grown up through tradition. It has been preserved for many years and if that tradition is not observed in certain industries then we apply job reservation which is the same thing. So my reply to the hon. member is this that if the United Party stands for the reservation of the colour bar they must stand for work reservation.

How many of the thousands of workers employed in industry in South Africa have been affected by work reservation?

The principle does not depend on numbers. As I have said, if there is a colour bar traditionally in any industry and that colour bar is not preserved, work reservation is introduced. Let me give the example raised by the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Cruywagen). I know that case very well. There is a firm in Germiston which, through its manager, gave an instruction that any European who left the employ of the company must be replaced by a Bantu. I ask the hon. member what does the Minister of Labour do in a case like that?

Negotiate through the trade union.

There is machinery for it.

There is no trade union. They are not organized. I have to make a decision. It might interest hon. members to know what my decision was. I sent a representative of my Department to that particular firm and he said to them: “Unless you stop this practice of putting the White man on the road and replacing him by a Bantu the Minister is going to introduce work reservation in your industry”. Can the hon. member suggest how the industrial colour bar can be preserved in that industry without work reservation?

Certainly: the workers are organized.

How are you going to organize them? Say, for argument’s sake, they had a trade union and that trade union made representations to the Minister that he should take some action in the matter what could the Minister do?

I just want to deal finally with the hon. member for Turffontein. He proposed that we should call a conference to consider the position of the manpower shortage. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana made the same proposal.

I suggested it last year already.

I know: this is nothing new so I want to reply to it fairly fully. I want it on record. It has been suggested during this debate, and previously, that a national conference of employers’ organizations and trade unions be called in order to try to find a solution for our manpower shortage and to see what tasks which are to-day required to be done by qualified artisans could be performed by semi-skilled or even unskilled labour. We have 183 registered trade unions and no less than 225 registered employers’ organizations. If all of these were invited and each one sent only one delegate to represent his particular industry we would have a conference of over 400 people. Of course such a conference would, quite clearly, not be capable of formulating any practical suggestion to resolve the manpower problems of any particular industry. Each one would be representing his own industry and would be entirely unable to speak for the other. After all, how can a man in the engineering industry determine what is practicable in the furniture industry? And what do the people in the motor industry know about the inner workings of the building industry? Such a conference, I suggest, Sir, is doomed to failure and can only result in a further wastage of manpower. The solution surely lies in our present, well-tried and proven method, namely, our industrial council system where the classification and the evaluation of the various tasks have, ever since the establishment of the first industrial council, formed one of the major subjects for negotiation. In respect of each new wage agreement which has been arrived at between the various parties we find, almost without any exception, a re-classification of a job, with a special rate of pay for each task. That is a process which has been going on for many years and will, without doubt, continue because it has rendered good service and good results. The same principles are involved in wage determinations. The success we have enjoyed in allotting various types of work to different skills is due to the fact that the negotiations have taken place on an industrial basis. It can never work on a basis where the negotiators have no common ground for discussion and where they represent interests which are usually poles apart. So I ask this Committee how can such a conference succeed in doing anything?

May I ask the Minister a question? Is not a conference of that kind similar to a congress of the Federated Chamber of Industries?

No; it is not. It is quite a different thing. In the case of the Chamber of Industries they have common ground. That is why they form themselves into a Chamber. But this will be a conference of varied interests.

Mr. Chairman, I think I have dealt with all the matters raised by hon. members as fully as I have been able to do so.

It is quite impossible, in the ten minutes at my disposal, to deal with the questions the hon. Minister has raised. At the outset I want to thank him for the courteous reply which he has given to the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg). I would like to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he might have taken a leaf out of the hon. the Minister’s book and, instead of attacking the hon. member for Peninsula as he did and querying his bona fides in not raising the whole question of job reservation, he did not deal with the matters the hon. member for Peninsula did raise. Let me tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that we did not intend raising the question of job reservation. Let me tell the hon. the Deputy Minister, with due respect, that we shall neither consult him nor anybody else on the other side as to what we must raise on this side and how we must raise it. We merely intended to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to one aspect. For that reason we did not go fully into the question of job reservation. Despite the hon. Minister’s defence of job reservation, as far as I am concerned as representing the Coloured people, it is archaic and barbaric; it should never have seen the light of day in a country such as South Africa.

I would point out to the hon. the Minister that the plea made by the hon. member for Peninsula in regard to traffic constables applies also to Coloured firemen. I raise this issue at this stage because of the pamphlet which was issued by the hon. Minister of Justice called “The National Survival Plan”. I know this is not under discussion now. I know it will be dealt with in a Bill still to come before this House but they talk about the question of firefighting in this pamphlet. Let me read what it says—

My plea to-day is this: As Coloured men are debarred to-day from being taken into the fire brigade service because of job reservation and in order to implement the policy of the Government itself of having a fire-fighting service in case of certain contingencies, I think the time has arrived for the Coloured people to be trained in that respect. How can they be trained if there is this embargo on them to enter that service? In any event, large areas have been set aside by the Government for the Coloureds where it is surely necessary to install fire-fighting appliances, appliances to be manned by the Coloured people in those areas. But they have to receive training from the White man at this stage. I would therefore like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would agree to relax this embargo and at least to give these Coloured people the opportunity of learning fire-fighting. It is no use expecting the Coloured man to play his part in a national emergency if he is not trained for the very purposes for which he will be required. I shall again raise the question when the Bill comes up and I shall also raise it under other Votes.

The Government seems to be talking with two voices on this question of the shortage of manpower. The hon. the Deputy Minister tried to defend the indefensible. The hon. the Minister himself tried to give the impression that there was no shortage of manpower. But throughout this debate, and through the debates on other Votes, it was apparent that there was a shortage of manpower. The hon. the Minister has made a point, as he does each year, about the building trade. He said that there was no shortage of work for the Coloureds engaged in the building trade.

I said nobody had been kicked out because of job reservation.

I know. I shall deal with that question at some other time. The hon. Minister made the point that there was no unemployment in the building trade at the moment and that the Coloured people were not affected by job reservation in the building trade. Of course they are not because there is so much work for them at the moment that nobody will be out of employment. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why the Minister of Community Development has placed an embargo on the building of big buildings? Why? Obviously because of the shortage of manpower. There may be other reasons too but I think that is the principal reason.

What about the shortage of material?

There is no shortage of material.

What about bricks?

There is no shortage of bricks. I say there is no shortage of work today for the Coloured man because of this embargo on big blocks, but it has never happened before in the history of South Africa, except during the war years. The hon. Minister must not say that job reservation does not affect the Coloured man.

Perhaps the hon. Minister can tell me, if my information is correct, namely, that there has been a very decisive drop in the number of Coloured apprentices in the building trade, for the reason, I understand, that there is no future for them. They can be indentured as apprentices but once they have completed the five years of their apprenticeship, there is no future for them.

That is a silly argument.

That is my information that there has been a drop in the number of Coloured apprentices for that reason, and whilst to-day therefore there may be no apparent shortage of labour in the building trade and whilst nobody has been put out of a job, as the Minister says, we will only feel the effect of the job reservation in the building industry in two or three or four years’ time.

The Coloureds fill more than 9Ö per cent of the jobs . . .

The hon. Minister knows it. Why is he so obstinate? He knows that a Coloured boy who is apprenticed in the building trade, cannot go and work anywhere. There is an embargo as to where he can go and work. Am I correct?

That is an insignificant part of the whole industry.

It is not an insignificant part. If a man becomes qualified in the building trade and he is restricted to a certain area where he can work, that is not a small matter. That is why the Coloureds will not go into the building trade because they are restricted in their movements. The Minister is evading the question. I think the hon. Minister is trying to make us believe that there are no difficulties, but we know for a fact that there is an embargo on the movement of a Coloured youth who to-day is apprenticed in the building trade. [Time limit.]

We have listened again to-day to the same attacks of the United Party in connection with the manpower shortage. We have as yet had no constructive suggestions on the part of the Opposition. Once again it was the old hackneyed stories about the manpower shortage—that immigration is not adequate to solve our problems and that the “rate for the job” offers a solution to the problem. The last-mentioned is of course a very dangerous policy of the United Party. Do they really think that they will be able to solve the problem by this means? It would be extremely dangerous for the Whites in our country because the Blacker our industry becomes, the more dangerous it is for the survival of the White workers in industry. I think that it is a recognized fact that the productivity of the Black man is not the same as that of the White man, and if it introduces a policy of the rate for the job into industry, the United Party, which has made this appeal here for higher wages, will at the same time be plunging a dagger into the back of the White worker of South Africa.

That is absolute nonsense !

I say again that it is generally accepted that the productivity of the Bantu is less than that of the White man. We shall find that in many cases the employer will give preference to the non-White worker because he is a cheaper worker, and the White man will suffer. Those same people who are appealing for an increase in wages are stabbing the White worker in the back. But the White workers need not be concerned. The National Party Government has never thrown them to the wolves nor will it do so in the future. It will ensure that everyone has a guarantee for survival in our country. As has been said, in my opinion this manpower shortage of which we hear so much is greatly exaggerated. We know from experience that from time to time the Department of Labour asks various firms to send in returns of shortages of staff and they are asked what their anticipated staff needs in the future will be example, 20 artisans may resign from Firm A in a week, and that firm will then show a shortage of 20 at the end of the month. The same thing may happen to Firm B and Firm C. Thus the Department of Labour is informed that there will be a shortage of 60 workers in the three firms at the end of the particular month, but in the meantime there is in reality no shortage because there has simply been a reshuffling and exchange of labour. The position is exaggerated and exploited by the United Party. This is also the case where a firm tenders for a contract and works out the number of staff it will need to carry out that task. If there are two or three or four firms tendering for the same contract, each one will indicate that it requires 50 workers, and the Department is then informed that there is a shortage of 200 workers in these four firms, while, in reality, only 50 are required. The position in 1963 was that we had a shortage of 28,662 workers. Out of a total of 1,074,000 economically active workers, this only represented a total shortage of 2.6 per cent of all White workers.

Thus the Opposition is painting a completely exaggerated picture of the position. Let us analyse this shortage even further. It is made up chiefly of professional, semi-professional, technical and skilled workers. In 1963 the shortage in the technical groups was 8.334 and there was a shortage of 7,393 artisans. Thus more than half the total shortage of 28,662 was made up by the two groups which I have just mentioned. It is not necessary for me to mention what the National Party Government has done in order to overcome these problems. Mention has already been made of immigration and technical training, the question of adult education and the assistance which the Government is giving to the universities. But I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Vereeniging in regard to the employers themselves. I want to endorse most heartily what has been said by the hon. member for Vereeniging, and that is that there are employers in South Africa who are exploiting this position. They are trying to twist the arm of the Government and to force it to do away with the colour bar. But, as I have said, I think that this manpower shortage is being exaggerated. Certain suggestions have already been made in regard to how this problem can be solved and I should also like to make a few remarks in this regard.

In the first place I think that the time has come for us to investigate our industries as far as their scientific management is concerned. We so often find—I am speaking from experience and I think that there are other hon. members here who will agree with me—that there may, for example, be an engineer, a civil or mechanical engineer, employed in a certain firm, who may perhaps become a local manager and who has then to do administrative work. The result is that the fullest use is not made of the technical know-how of this technician in industry. The second point is that the employers also have a duty towards the country as far as the training of workers is concerned. I think that it is also their duty to create those facilities for technical training so that the workers can be given the necessary training. We know what the Department of Labour is doing in regard to providing sheltered employment and work for the aged. I believe that we are not as yet making the fullest use of our old people and I want to make an appeal in this regard. We feel, although there has been some relief as far as old-age pensions are concerned, that the means test should be revised. The Government will have to give attention to the allowance which is paid to pensioners; to the question of the abolition of the means test so that an employee who is a pensioner will not be disqualified or so that work will not become unattractive to him. There is another matter which is also important and that is the question of safety in our industries. When we consider the accident figure for 1959 only, as reflected in an article “Safety in Industry”, a publication of the National Vocational Safety Association, we find that the accidents which occurred in that year resulted in the loss of 93,000 man-hours. We can draw more comparisons between industries and make analyses in order to discover why the accident figure is higher in some industries than in others and in order to eliminate this problem and thus lose fewer man-hours as a result of accidents.

There is another aspect which I think is also the duty of employers and that is that they should thoroughly investigate the running of their businesses as far as organization and methods are concerned. I feel that there too they will find that there is ample scope for improvement. Another factor which is also important to my mind is that our industrialists are not inclined to make full use of bonus incentives. I should like to quote from The Manufacturer of September 1964 in regard to an investigation covering 39 firms. I should like to mention these facts in order to show how bonus incentives can increase productivity—

In 1962-3 Numas Ltd. carried out 39 fulltime assignments of which 26 were concerned primarily with Work Study to improve productivity by Method Study and by introducing incentive schemes based on Work Measurement. The average results achieved were as follows:

[Time limit.]

Over the past years the Department of Labour has made praiseworthy contributions towards the combating of unemployment and the recruiting and placement of manpower in various spheres. I should like briefly to mention the framework of the various divisions in order to try to show how well this field has been covered and I want to say that there are further possibilities for investigation by the Department in this sphere and also perhaps the opportunity to make further contributions in this connection.

The first matter I should like to mention is the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I am merely mentioning this because I do not have the time to elaborate in this regard. There are also the employment and vocational services. There are 30 of these centres in our country. Free vocational services are provided by experts at 16 of these centres. Where there are no such centres, the magistrates, social welfare officers and Bantu Commissioners render those services. There are the wage subsidies for persons of advanced age. There is expenditure of about R90,000 per annum. There are eight employment officers for placing immigrants in employment; they confine themselves exclusively to this task. Then there are the various vocational services for the employment of juveniles; the placement institutions for juveniles; there is psychological supervision and vocational training; there is the service for handicapped juveniles; there is a problem cases division; there are the juvenile boards, vocational training and an advertising section. We also have the workshops for the blind which are subsidized by the State. There are eight of these workshops with 508 blind workers. Then there is an institution which is to my mind one of the most important and I want to say here that we can continue in the same way to make a great contribution in this regard. I am referring here to the sheltered labour factories for handicapped persons. There are 13 of these factories in the country and the quota of workers for these factories is 2,000. The average number of workers in 1963 was 1,903. These sheltered labour projects are controlled by non-profit-making organizations which are given a 100 per cent subsidy by the Department as far as their operating losses are concerned. For the financial year 1963 the monthly per capita cost to the State was an average of R23.88— a round figure of R545.000. I just want to give hon. members an idea of what is being done by these 1,903 persons. In 1962, orders to the value of R2,359,000 were placed with these factories and in 1963, the orders placed totaled R2,924.000, an increase in one year of R565.000.

Hon. members must remember that these orders are placed chiefly by State Departments although a certain number of orders are also placed by municipalities and so forth. Apart from the fact that these 13 factories provide employment for 1,903 persons who are handicapped, they also make their contribution towards solving the manpower shortage problem. I have already mentioned the services rendered by the Department in this sphere in order to overcome the manpower shortage problem to some extent. We find on the other hand that in March 1965—I am confining myself now to the White population group—there were 2,099 registered unemployed males. This amounts to only .3 per cent. Of this number, 884 were in Johannesburg. There were 3,780 registered unemployed females; in other words, 1.2 per cent, which is also very low, and of this number, 1,087 were in Johannesburg. This gives a total of 5,800 of whom more or less 1,900 were in Johannesburg.

More than half of the White unemployed are on the Rand complex at the moment. A large percentage of these unemployed are persons over the age of 45 years, people with families. As a rule, they are people who are unskilled labourers. It is very difficult to find employment for them. There is also a certain percentage of them who do not want to work even though they have families. Sir, when these people are unemployed, it is not only they who are a burden on the State; their families are also a burden on the State because those children are not receiving the necessary education. There are also those who are not registered as unemployed. There are, inter alia, pensioners between the ages of 65 and 70 years who can still perform useful work and who want to work. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether factories such as those to which I have just referred cannot be erected in Johannesburg, for example, where we find about half of these unemployed persons, in order to create employment for these people. I should just like to mention a few of the results that will be achieved thereby. In the first place, this will combat the problem of unemployment in Johannesburg, even though it is not a very great problem. It will enable those people to care for their families properly and to have their children educated to prevent our having the same problems with the children in the years to come. We must accept the fact that there is a group of people in South Africa, as in any other country, who are only suitable for unskilled labour. Unfortunately, we always make use of the services of Bantu to do that unskilled work, and I think that the time has come for us to take some steps or other to make provision for those people who are only suitable for unskilled labour. If we can provide work in this way for the Whites who are only suitable for unskilled labour it will also enable us to implement our policy of returning Bantu labourers to their homelands. There is another suggestion I should like to make. I tried to look up the legislation but was unfortunately unable to find it. I am informed, however, that there is legislation in America in terms of which employers are compelled, when they have a certain number of workers in their employ, to employ a small percentage of handicapped persons and old persons. If we can introduce something of this nature into our country we shall bring immediate relief to these people. This will relieve the burden on the State and it will place no burden on employers whatsoever because in large organizations it is always possible to provide work for a few handicapped persons and old people who are still able to work and who want to work. [Time limit.]

We are grateful on these benches for the reply which the hon. the Minister gave the hon. member for Peninsula (Mr. Bloomberg) in response to his plea for the relaxation of the job reservation regulation in so far as traffic constables in the City of Cape Town are concerned. I wish to point out that our attitude in regard to job reservation, as far as it is applicable to the Coloured people, is well known. The hon. member for Peninsula did not make an attack on the Minister or the Government when he asked for a relaxation in this respect. In his attack on the hon. member for Peninsula the hon. the Deputy Minister was slightly off course therefore.

In his reply the hon. the Minister pointed out that the motivation for such relaxation which would enable the Municipality of Cape Town, for instance, to take more Coloured traffic constables into service would have to be very strong. The hon. the Minister also pointed out that there was a social problem as far as this matter was concerned. I want to point out to the Minister—I am very sincere about this —that as far as this social problem is concerned it is a completely artificial problem. I remember when Coloured traffic constables were first appointed after the war. There was no public outcry or objection to it. Without casting any reflection on the White traffic constables in Cape Town, I think the Coloured traffic constables fall into that category of traffic constables which one can regard as the most courteous and most efficient part of the traffic force in this city. As a result of political events and certain aspects of Government policy at a time when feelings were running very much higher than to-day there was an outcry at one time. It started at a Nationalist Party congress at East London, I think, in October 1957. On that occasion a certain gentleman said that if he drove up Adderley Street and a Coloured traffic constable stopped him his blood boiled. During December of the same year I saw the same gentleman camping at Gordon’s Bay. The whole family was there together and outside the tent I saw a Coloured woman feeding this gentleman’s grandson on her knee. But that gentleman did not expire which he would certainly have done had his blood boiled. This sort of thing has blown over, Sir. I think if a man’s blood boils when a Coloured traffic constable stops him his blood must certainly boil when a Coloured woman feeds his grandson.

My blood boils when any traffic constable stops me.

Exactly. I appreciate that. My blood also boils sometimes when a traffic constable stops me but the hon. member at least does not discriminate against Coloured I traffic constables only.

I do feel that if such an application should be made the question of this so-called social problem should not be exaggerated. The Cape Town public have accepted Coloured traffic constables; they do their work well; they are courteous; they are efficient and very rarely, if any, have there been complaints about these men apart from the fact that certain people’s blood tended to boil at one time when a Coloured traffic constable stopped them.

To some extent one is pleased about the manpower shortage because it indicates that the country is flourishing economically and industrially but this manpower shortage is also felt in places like East London and Port Elizabeth and in my constituency and I certainly hope the hon. the Minister will favourably consider applications from those cities in this regard should such applications be made.

I want to point out something else. A few years ago I raised the question of a minimum wage for Coloured farm labourers. The Minister then replied and said it was impracticable in that agricultural prices varied from district to district and that there were so many different types of farming. But I do want to appeal to the hon. the Minister at least to consider the possibility of investigating this matter. I am not saying that all farmers underpay their workers. I am fully aware that there are members of this House, like the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, who are setting an example to the country in the way in which they are housing and paying their workers. These two hon. members have cut out the tot system completely and they are certainly not complaining about bad labour. They pay their workers accordingly and those workers are satisfied. But throughout the country, and in my constituency, there are cases of misery and poverty arising from the fact that the Coloured labourers are utterly underpaid. They have no security of employment; they are in employment at the whim of their employer. In addition to that, while in industry an employer is compelled to insure his workers under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, there was no compulsory insurance in the case of farm labourers until recently. I have had many complaints where farm workers have been injured on duty, sometimes due to the negligence of their employers, negligence which, had it happened in industry, the employer would have been charged in terms of our industrial laws. I know of a case where a man had been permanently injured with a broken back and he was simply pushed out when he came back from hospital. [Interjections.] That is perfectly correct.

Why go back then?

I know it is compulsory now but those who have missed it are to-day a burden on the State. They have no redress. I am appealing to the Minister to consider whether some means cannot be devized of making this retrospective. It is no good saying “That was during the time of the United Party”. The United Party made many mistakes but the Nationalists have made equally as many.