When we adjourned on Friday, I had indicated that a great improvement had been made in the financial position of our subsidized labourers. I had also mentioned a group of these persons, i.e. those employed by municipalities and other non-profitable organizations, but I should also like to mention a second group, i.e. those employed in Government Departments, Railways and provincial administrations where a subsidy of 100 per cent applies and in regard to whose position there has also been a great improvement. The cost to the Government in regard to this group is R250,000. I mentioned on Friday that we were grateful to the hon. the Minister and the Department for these improvements which have been made in the financial position of this group of people.

There is another matter in regard to which I want to request the hon. the Minister’s urgent attention. Over the week-end, as well as yesterday, and even to-day, all kinds of rumours have been reaching us in regard to happenings in the ranks of the mineworkers. These reports are reaching us over the radio and through the Press. There is talk of strikes in certain mines in the Free State goldfields, and there is talk that the strikes can spread to the coal-mines. Reports of strikes in any industry is disturbing, particularly if one bears in mind that we boast of our industrial legislation probably being amongst the best industrial legislation in the world, and that as a result of that we are enjoying industrial peace in this country. But now these things happen which can lead to the said industry as well as the workers in that industry and the country as a whole being damaged. That is why I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible for him. at this stage, to take the Committee into his confidence and inform us about these circumstances and events. We should like to know whether these things have arisen as a result of flaws and shortcomings in our industrial legislation, which we are so proud of, or whether these things have arisen from certain problems existing within the trade union which those people may perhaps not be able to solve internally. I shall appreciate it very much if the hon. the Minister could inform us in this connection.

The matter which the hon. member for Germiston has raised is something which one finds disturbing. It is disturbing to learn that certain mine-workers have now deemed it necessary to come out on strike once again. In fact, I find it not only disturbing but disappointing that there are certain mineworkers who have now come out on strike, disappointing if one takes into consideration how the Government has in recent months gone out of its way to help settle these disputes which arose in the ranks of the mineworkers themselves. Over the past few months we have gone out of our way to instruct the Industrial Tribunal to examine the entire matter of the dissatisfaction which has arisen amongst the ranks of the mineworkers and to come forward with a report and make recommendations to the Government. Hon. members are all aware of the sitting of the Viljoen Commission, and of the fact that the Commission brought the two parties to an agreement, and that in the report of the Viljoen Commission it was indicated that they had agreed to hold an election. They also decided to request the Department of Labour to be of assistance to them in only one respect, i.e. the counting of votes in the election. It is summarized in the Report which I do not want to read out. Hon. members are acquainted with it. They requested the Department to fulfil that function. It is in fact the only request they made to us and we agreed to help them in that respect. We agreed to be of assistance in counting the vote. in conjunction with the representatives of the various parties. By doing so we, on our part, did as much as one can do within the framework of the labour legislation to accommodate those people. Now I may add that as far as the Department of Labour is aware, that election has up to now taken place constitutionally. We have not been able to establish that anything of an unconstitutional nature has occurred. In this respect, however, I now want to refer to a communiqué which I have just received. But first of all I should perhaps refer to the fact that I received a telegram from a Mr. A. van Wyk, the organizing secretary of the Action Committee which was handed to me on the 6th. I first had inquiries made in regard to what the matter was all about, because there was a request in that telegram for an interview with me in regard to those difficulties and problems which they were experiencing. After I had had those inquiries made on the 6th I informed Mr. Van Wyk telephonically or telegraphically on the 7th—through our head office in Pretoria—that the interview with the Minister had been arranged for the following Wednesday, at 9 o’clock a.m., that is to say to-morrow morning. That same night Mr. Van Wyk had been informed of this telephonically by the Department in Pretoria. I was away for the week-end, but I learn that a report has apparently appeared in one of the newspapers stating that I had allegedly asked him to come and that he did not know whether or not he would do so. Well, it is no concern of mine if he finds pleasure in saying that I had summoned him to come. That does not mean much to me. What does mean a lot to me, is the fact that one must discuss those problems and that we shall be of assistance as far as we are able.

However, I have just received a telex now dealing with discussions which the Department had in Pretoria with Mr. Van Wyk. I am not going to read the whole telex message to you, but the tenor of the message is that Mr. Van Wyk and his people have the notion that this election did not take place constitutionally, for instance as far as the way in which shaft representatives are nominated. There is dissatisfaction amongst them in that regard. According to this telex it was then pointed out to him that the amended constitution did in fact make provision for the nomination system as it took place. I can just add, Mr. Chairman, that we on our part do not dictate the election. The election which takes place takes place according to the constitution of the Mineworkers’ Union. All the contribution which we make to the matter is in regard to the counting of the votes. After the various objections had been raised and replied to on the basis of the new. the valid constitution, I shall just read to you this concluding paragraph of the telex (translation)—

That is to say, to-morrow morning at 9 o’clock.

I hope that the hon. gentleman does have a better understanding of matters now. Because. Mr. Chairman, these strikes which are continually taking place are disturbing, and that is why the hon. member for Germiston was fully justified in asking whether our labour legislation did not make adequate provision for this type of problem. It does not make full provision for difficulties amongst workers, but it is nevertheless an instrument for us by means of which we have been able to maintain this large measure of industrial peace in our country which we are all continually speaking of with praise.

Now I want to say that strikes of this nature are regrettable, particularly at this stage, Mr. Chairman. To have strikes such as these at this stage is regrettable, in the first place from the point of view of the mine-workers themselves. You know, Sir, that the Viljoen Commission had been instructed to do two things. The one was to investigate the dissatisfaction in the ranks of the mineworkers, and make recommendations accordingly. In reply to those recommendations we took steps by asking the Mineworkers’ Union whether they would hold an election—which is at present taking place—an election which would be completed on the 18th and the 19th of October. They take two days to vote on this matter. That is the one point. But there was a second instruction to the Commission as well and that was, arising from the dissatisfaction of the mineworkers in regard to the wages which they were receiving, to afford them the opportunity of expressing their views on the wage system and on the way in which bargaining for wages took place. The second part of the instruction is at present being carried out by that Commission. The Commission is at present giving its attention to and investigating the way in which the wage bargaining system in the mineworkers’ industry is being carried out, and whether we must continue with the present system or whether an alternative system is desirable. In other words, it is an investigation which goes to the root of the entire wage position. That is why it is terribly unfortunate that there should be strikes at this stage. It can only have one result, and that is to prejudice this investigation. But, Mr. Chairman, seen from another point of view it is also a pity that there should now be strikes. It is a pity if one beads in mind that these strikes are not taking place against the employers or against the Government; they are taking place because the strikers are mutually dissatisfied with one another’s actions. And each time it is the gold-mining industry which suffers, those people who are not involved in this dispute at all. It is they who suffer. But if the gold-mining industry suffers then it does not suffer alone. South Africa also suffers. It is we who lose the money each time there is a strike. That is why it is such a great pity and so lamentable from this point of view that they are once more up in arms in regard to this matter and at this stage.

That is why I want to make an appeal on this occasion. I want to make an appeal to the mineworkers who are striking. I understand from the Department that, according to the information which they have received. 289 mine-workers did not go down this morning. I want to make an appeal to those mineworkers to resume their work, and follow the normal existing channels and see to it that this election, which the Government has with difficulty helped to brine about, takes its normal course. If they are dissatisfied with the present administration there, let them therefore avail themselves of this opportunity which we have helped them to create of putting other people in their place. The election comes to an end on the 18th and 19th October and they can put the democratic machinery thoroughly to the test. I want to appeal to them to resume their work and avail themselves of this machinery which has been placed at their disposal.

But I should also like to make a further appeal. I notice from the Press that the Mine-workers’ Union has instituted a kind of counter-action against the Action Group, supposedly to hit back at the Action Group. According to reports, the Mineworkers’ Union, or certain officials of the Mineworkers’ Union, are threatening to allow their strike to spread to the coal mines, people who have absolutely nothing to do with this internal squabble. I really want to express the hope that there are no grounds for these rumours that this strike will be allowed to spread to the coal mines as well. In fact, I want to say that I object strongly to such a step and also to any official who has lent himself to such statements. It can only be detrimental to the union, the dependants of the mineworkers and to our country.

But I should also like to make another appeal, Mr. Chairman. It has also been brought to our attention that one group of worker!; is intimidating another group. For me that is one of the ugliest things we can experience in our industrial life. If we consider how often we in this House, when we were passing the Industrial Conciliation Act, fought to have a measure introduced so that the workers could be protected against the intimidations on the part of the employers, then it is ironic that we have to find ourselves in a position to-day where it is not the employers who are intimidating the workers, but one group of workers which is intimidating another group of workers. For me it is an ugly situation which does not fit in with our South African way of life and our labour pattern. That is why I really want to express the hope that if there is any truth in these allegation!;, they will immediately put a stop to what they are doing. For if there is any worker who needs protection in this regard, then it is not necessary for me to tell those concerned that the State has a duty to step in and afford those people who are being intimidated in this way the necessary protection. I therefore want to avail myself of this opportunity of making a very earnest appeal to the mineworkers to resume their work in the normal way, to let their trade union election run its normal course, and in that way preserve that peace in the industry which is not only in their own interests and that of their families, but also in the interests of South Africa. Having said that I am for the time being done with that matter.

While I am on my feet it is perhaps the appropriate opportunity to reply to the debate which began on Friday and which was opened by the hon. member for Yeoville and in which various questions and points of criticism have been raised.

In regard to the matter of the workers’ cost of living problem the hon. member for Yeoville pointed out that the cost of living had increased and the question was asked whether the worker should not inquire what the Government was doing about that position. Right at the outset I want to say that I find it strange that the hon. member for Yeoville has raised this matter of the cost of living under this particular Vote because the appropriate place to raise the question of the cost of living is under the Vote of the Minister of Economic Affairs. It is actually the Department of Economic Affairs which deals with the cost of living position, but apparently the hon. member thought that it would have more propaganda value amongst the labour population if he raised it here, and because it has been raised here I feel compelled to react to what was said. As far as cost of living and the consolidation thereof is concerned I want to make the following brief remarks. The pattern we have to-day as far as cost of living is concerned is that for quite a number of years now it has been incorporated in the wage, and it was incorporated at the request of the workers’ organizations, the trade unions themselves. In the past the trade unions have continually pleaded for us to consolidate cost of living with wages. Their consideration for doing so was a very good one because if the cost of living is added to one’s basic wage, if one receives a consolidated wage then that worker receives more payment for overtime, he receives a higher leave bonus and he receives a higher pension—if that is done everything is calculated not only on the old basic wage but on the higher consolidated wage. As far as the adjustment to the increase in the cost of living is concerned—there is nobody who disputes the fact that there has been an increase and I shall say a few words in a moment to place the matter in its right perspective—it is the task of the workers and their organizations to bargain, through their industrial councils, for those higher wages to which they feel they are entitled. They are in the position to bargain with that consolidated wage as a basis for the higher wages for which they think they will come into consideration. And let me tell you now, Mr. Chairman, that hardly a day goes by when I do not sign some or other wage agreement in which higher wages, increased benefits for the workers in the country is not being granted. It is something which is being done every week. Each week there are adjustments. Adjustments are continually being made by the negotiation machinery. I shall come in a moment to the aspect of the unschooled workers to which the hon. member referred, to the Bantu settlement of disputes board, and to the question of what is being done for them in view of the fact that they have no trade unions and have no organizational machinery.

There are many Whites, as well as others, who do not have any machinery at their disposal either.

I concede that. I shall discuss that aspect in a moment. But first I just want to finish what I was saying in regard to the question of the increase in the cost of living. It is true that the cost of living has increased and the Government is not entirely unconcerned about that matter. To tell the truth, we are extremely concerned about this increase in prices. The Government has already taken steps in order to soften, control and try and keep in check this increase. We have done so in the case of basic foodstuffs for example, those foodstuffs which everybody needs in order to stay alive. The price of bread, for example, has been pegged. It is a product which every person eats daily, in some cases even three times a day. Then there are the prices of milk, cheese and maize products which are being controlled. Basic foodstuffs are responsible for almost 30 per cent of the cost-of-living index. As far as the prices of these foodstuffs are concerned, steps have already been taken. But the largest item in the cost of living is not the increase in prices of these foodstuffs, but of housing. Housing is responsible for an important contribution to the increase in the cost of living. The Government has done what must be done in this respect as well. In this way rent control has, for example, been introduced in the present Session of Parliament with the purpose of exercising a greater degree of control in order to prevent rents from undergoing exorbitant increases. But the increase in house rent which has in the past made such a great contribution to the increase in the cost of living must be traced back mainly to the increase in wages. The increase in wages is one of the most important items which caused building costs, and as a result of that, rents, to increase. Here it is therefore once more the case of the vicious circle—on the one hand the worker receives a higher wage but as soon as he receives that building costs go up and he must pay more for rent. That is why this is a matter which one finds disturbing. But let me place this matter in its correct perspective. As I have already said, the Government is deeply concerned about the increase in the cost of living, something which can in turn affect the standard of living of our people. Nevertheless we must see the picture as a whole. In the White Paper which was submitted here together with the Estimates, it is stated in regard to personal income, expenditure and saving that personal saving increased by R202,000,000, or 49.1 per cent, in 1965 as against a decrease of R24,000,000 in 1964. Arising from this I just want to say that I do not deny that there are people who are suffering hardships as a result of the increase in the cost of living. But we must nevertheless see the picture as a whole. If people’s personal savings could increase to this extent it still offers much to be thankful for. But that is not all. In the same White Paper it is stated in regard to consumer spending that the real consumer spending per capita increased by 3.9 per cent in 1965 as against that of 1964. If people are so short of money, how is it possible that their spending could increase to this extent. Time and again it has been pointed out that wages have in fact increased, but that the cost of living has increased far more than the wages did. I want to concede that that is correct. That is why it is important that I furnish the figures in this regard. For the year 1958-9 the index figure for consumer prices was 100. It increased to 116.6 per cent in 1966. What, in contrast to this, is the position in regard to wages? Let me point out to you that the increase in wages took place in the four most important labour sectors. As against the increase in the cost of living index to 116.6 per cent, the increase in wages in the mining industry was 126.7, in the manufacturing industry it was 121.5, in construction it was 153.7 and in transport it was 141.7. The upshot of all this is that one’s real wages has during this year increased by 9.3 per cent, that is why it is incorrect to want to intimate that as a result of the increase in the cost of living, for which food and housing prices are responsible, one’s worker is actually worse off as far as his real income is concerned. The worker has in fact obtained for himself a wage improvement, as I have just indicated. But another important contributory element as far as the increase in the cost of living is concerned, is services, such as medical services and services which are rendered by bodies such as local authorities. The Government has no control over those services. In many cases the increase in the cost of these services is also as a result of increased wages. I am afraid that it is always the duty of the Government to do the unpopular thing and that is why I want to make an appeal for workers not merely to continue with injudicious wage claims. It is an unpopular thing to do. It may perhaps be right up the Opposition’s alley because they can now allege that we are trying to freeze the wages of the worker. But if it is the position that if one gives the worker a little more to-day but that when he wants to go and buy something on the next, something like a refrigerator, an electric stove or whatever it might be, he must pay more for it, of what avail is the increase which he has received then? That is why it is my task and responsibility, on an occasion such as this, to make this appeal to our trade unions and our workers in the country to act responsibly as far as their wage claims are concerned. It is of no avail wage claims being met if the increase is swallowed up on the next day or the day after that by an increase in the cost of living. I am making this appeal because we accept that the strength of our economy is the strongest weapon South Africa has in regard to its position in the international world. A sound economy has always been one of our strong weapons. That is why I feel that our workers should also realize that we must not allow this inflationary tendency to continue, because if we do so we are undermining the strong foundation on which we are trying to build up our position as a country both domestically and abroad. That is why I do not hestitate to say that in the interests of South Africa’s safety one should act with great caution and responsibility in this respect.

Now I want to furnish a brief reply to a few other points. There is still the point which the hon. member raised in regard to the wages of those people, mainly Bantu although there are Whites amongst them too, who do unschooled labour. The complaint was made that the Wage Board was supposedly working too slowly. But since the Wage Board was converted into two sections in 1957, investigation into the wages of unschooled labour have practically doubled. Whereas it was only possible to make four investigations before 1957, 17 had been dealt with in 1965. Apart from that, these investigations and the wage determination which result from that does not cover only a small group of people, but one single wage determination easily covers the unschooled workers in 30 industries. In this way it has been possible, over the years, to keep well abreast of the increase in the cost of living, and proceed with this pattern. However, I want to say that if there is a group of unschooled labourers in a particular industry for whom a case can be made out, the Wage Board could be instructed to give the necessary attention to that matter.

Now I want to say one thing and another about the machinery for the settlement of disputes which we have for the unschooled work being done by the Bantu worker. Certain questions were put in this regard. I want to say without beating about the bush that this Bantu Labour Board which we have has been a great success. This body is doing excellent work. It is a fact that up to now very few Bantu committees have been established. The hon. member for Yeoville has also taken it amiss of us because so few of these committees have up to now been established. Up to the present 49 have been established. Personally I should like to see that many more be established. When I addressed the regional councils last year I made an appeal to them in this regard. To each employers’ organization before whom I appear I make an appeal for them to be of assistance and display goodwill in allowing more of these committees to come into being. I therefore agree with the hon. member for Yeoville that we have too few of these committees and that we must get more of them. But what I do in fact want to say is that these 49 committees have done much better work than 49 Bantu trade unions would have done. We can verify this through the results which have been achieved. Just consider that in the past year we have only had 31 strikes amongst Bantu workers. For me that is the best proof we have of the success of this measure. Those 31 strikes included only 1,800 Bantu workers and the strikes lasted an average of only five hours. After investigation it also appeared that most of those strikes had been due to misconceptions and misunderstandings. Many of those strikes were settled in a jiffy after officials of the Bantu Labour Board had instituted investigations. In my opinion this is very important proof of the success of the Bantu Labour Board in the present system. Through the intercession of this Board wage increases to the amount of R7.000,000 were granted in 1965. whereas the increases for the period 1959 to 1965 amounted to a total of R42.000,000. That proves once again that this Board serves its purpose very well indeed. However, to my way of thinking the acid test remains the industrial peace which we have had amongst the Bantu workers in this country.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) spoke about the conditions of service of staff in factories for sheltered labour. I want to point out to him that the salaries of these people have in fact been amended, and that has been done with effect from 1st April, 1966. The increases which have been granted to them amount to a total of R138,000. We appreciate the work they are doing. I paid personal visits to the factory at Pietermaritzburg as well as other factories and I have the greatest appreciation for the work which is being done there. I only want to express the hope that these wage increases will be of benefit to them. The hon. member for Umbilo spoke about the expansion of professional services. He made an excellent plea. We are in fact engaged in expanding these services and we are doing so as rapidly as the availability of professional people allows. Our trade tests are being expanded annually, something on which I do not want to enlarge further now. These particulars have often been furnished at congresses. I just want to give the hon. member the assurance that we are continually busy expanding this section.

As far as youth boards are concerned I want to agree with what the hon. member for Germiston had to say the other day, i.e. that it is those people who are themselves serving on those boards who must determine how successful each board is. What I also find disappointing is that I often receive resignations from people serving on youth boards, and it is disappointing to note the unwillingness of people to serve on youth boards. It is of course voluntary work and these people cannot therefore be prescribed to. I can only express the hope that hon. members will make their influence felt in encouraging the members of these boards to make a contribution. Where certain work is voluntary one can only proceed as far as one is able to inspire people to go. As far as apprentices are concerned. I want to point out that there has not been a decrease as far as they are concerned. For 1965 the number of enrolled apprentices, i.e. new ones, was 9,474 in comparison with 7,279 during the previous year. In 1965 there was therefore an increase of 30 per cent. In this respect I think that this new Apprentice Act of ours is a great success if it is measured against this increased influx of apprentices. We are getting them through the trade tests more rapidly. The numbers who have now passed trade tests have increased. In 1965 only 39 per cent of those apprentices who had written trade tests, i.e. before the full period had elapsed, passed. On these grounds we can be grateful for the success which has been achieved.

The question of older people and working women was raised here by the hon. members for Germiston and Umbilo. In this regard I just want to repeat the appeal which I have already made on various occasions to employers, i.e. to make use of older people. We in the Public Service have made very good use of them. We are also making use of women who can only work in the mornings. There are to-day almost a 1,000 women in the Public Service who are doing morning work. The Government Departments which are making use of them have only the greatest praise for them. The Departmental Heads inform us that those women working half-days sometimes do more work than others who work the whole day through. However, I shall let the matter rest there; I should not like to end up in that hot water. I simply want to repeat my appeal that employers should make use of women who can work in the mornings. They can then in the afternoons still fulfil their domestic and maternal duties. In this way they can make their contribution to the furthering of our economy. Mr. Chairman, that is all I wish to say at this stage.

Sir. may I ask for the privilege of the half hour? We were most interested in what the hon. the Minister had to say to us about the dispute in the Mineworkers’ Union. We in the Deposition would like to associate ourselves with the Minister’s appeal that the mineworkers should act responsibly and carefully in this matter. We in this country have been fortunate in that we have been able to escape the misery of jurisdictional strikes in South Africa. It seems to us that in the Mineworkers’ Union something very similar to a jurisdictional strike is developing; it seems to us that the strike is due to differences within the Mineworkers’ Union and not to any differences between the workers and the employers or between the workers and the State This matter deserves very close watching, and the hon. the Minister has every reason to call upon the mineworkers concerned to act with responsibility and with great caution. What worries one and what was not apparent either from the hon. the Minister’s statement or from the report of the Viljoen Commission is this: What is the underlying cause of these violent and at times uncontrolled differences between the two groups of mineworkers? Why is there this cleavage that causes them to go to the extent of Calling upon their members to strike illegally in order to try to settle what is in dispute between them? It seems to me that the hon. the Minister owes it to this Committee and to the country to satisfy himself about the fundamental nature of this dispute and to see whether the cause of the trouble cannot be removed at its very origin.

Then, Sir, the hon. the Minister had much to say about the point that I raised with him yesterday in regard to the question of relief for the workers in the face of the ever-increasing cost of living during the present period of inflation. The hon. the Minister very cleverly —and I give him marks for it—extended what I have said into an almost general debate upon the economic factors underlying inflation; he dealt with it generally and tried to find excuses for the Government by referring to subsidies paid by the Government and to other actions taken by (he Government to control the be in prices and rents, all of which is very interesting but does not answer my question. The simple fact of the matter is that there has been an inordinate increase in the cost of living in spite of the measures taken by the Government, no matter how commendable they may be. The Minister himself has admitted that lately the increase in the cost of living has been faster than the increase in wages and salaries.

What we want to hear from the hon. the Minister is what the Department of Labour, acting for the Government, is going to do to meet this situation which is causing deprivation to many workers in South Africa. I take exception to the fact that the hon. the Minister and other (speakers on the Government side, like the hon. member for Mayfair tried to escape their responsibility in this matter by referring to our plea as one only for the Bantu workers. Of course the Bantu workers are affected and of course they are entitled to relief as much as any other human being in South Africa. But apart from that, Sir, it is not only Bantu workers who are affected. The majority of workers in South Africa are not organized in trade unions. That also applies to the majority of the White workers. I do not think the hon. the Minister will dispute that; I have figures to prove it. It astonishes me to hear from the hon. the Minister that he was surprised that I raised this matter under the Labour Vote, because in the past when cost-of-living allowances were regularly adjusted under the Emergency War Regulations, those regulations were administered by the Department of Labour. It was the hon. the Minister’s predecessor who repealed the cost-of-living allowance regulations.

At the request of the trade unions.

That may be so I am not disputing that. I am disputing the Minister's statement that this is the wrong place to raise this matter. The Minister himself said that it was the policy of his Department to encourage the consolidation of cost-of-living allowances with basic wages, and we support that. It is a very wise policy but it is a Labour policy and this is the right place to raise it. It is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister: he is responsible for all relationships between employers and employed; in the country, and I want to re-emphasize that unless inflation can be arrested—and I see no sign of it at the moment—the time has come for temporary emergency measures to be taken to bring relief to the people in receipt of fixed incomes and to the workers who suffer because of inflation. All this beautiful talk by the hon. the Minister about what the Government is doing, with no marked success; up till now, in other spheres, does not help to relieve the plight of the man who is suffering deprivation because of the inflation to-day. I hope the hen. the Minister will not try to escape his responsibility but that he will accept it and tell this Committee and the country what the plans of the Department of Labour are to meet this problem.

Just in passing, I was also interested to hear what the hon. the Minister had to say about the employment of elderly people. I think every member of this House, every enlightened citizen of South Africa, is concerned about the employment of elderly people. It is a tragic waste of talent and of manpower in these days when so many people who are able and fit and keen to work are deprived of the opportunity to work merely because of their years. It seems to me that it is not enough to make appeals to employers; something should be done to encourage the employment of people of 45 years and over. I am just wondering whether one should not follow the example of other countries who, when they want to achieve a social purpose with an industry, give that industry an inducement to conform with the social policy of the Government by saying that provided they satisfy certain norms—in this case provided they employ a certain number of people above 45 years of age—they will get a certain preference in the award of Government contracts. The Government hands out numerous contracts; why not give some advantage to those employers who give preference to elderly workers in their industry?

This is a matter which is not part of the main subject that I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. That subject is the need, before we can really pit mind against mind, an idea against idea in South Africa, about the future of labour relationships in this country, for some clarification of the Governments labour policy as far as the races of South Africa are concerned. On Friday when I spoke I quoted a statement from the Government White Paper on the Tomlinson Report, indicating that the Government wanted to reduce the ratio of Bantu workers in the Republic of South Africa to White workers by encouraging the employment of Bantu workers in the Reserves, in the areas which are to become independent Bantu states at some time in the future. That White Paper indicated that if they could get parity between the number of Bantu workers and other workers by the year 2000, they would feel that they were achieving their purpose. I I should like to know what the attitude of the Minister of Labour is with regard to this policy. How is the Department of Labour going to assist with its implementation and what success is the Department having with the steps taken by it to assist in implementing this policy? There its a need for clarity because towards the end of his career, the late Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, was apparently coming to a different insight with regard to this matter. He did not consider it so very necessary to reduce the number of Black workers in the White Republic of South Africa. I have before me an extract which I took from Hansard of the 5th February, 1965, at Col. 2626. This is what the late Dr. Verwoerd said on that occasion—

You see, he was emphatic about it—

On the other hand, we had the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration employing the danger of mere numbers. And we had the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration himself in speaking to Sabra last week in Pretoria, placing great emphasis upon the urgent necessity to reduce the numbers of Black workers in the White Republic of South Africa. In the light of this conflict I should like to know what is the policy of the Government. Ts it what Dr. Verwoerd started to indicate in the last days of his administration, namely that as long as there was political separation, physical and other separation was not important, or is it still a policy of physical separation, which then forces the hon. the Minister of Labour and his Department to pay particular attention to the interdependence of Black and White in South Africa for the purpose of our economic progress? Because, make no mistake about it, as things are to-day, we are even more dependent on Black labour in South Africa than we have ever been in our history. Unless we must accept that fact, we face a very difficult situation, which we can solve either by finding a way in which Black, Coloured and Indian workers on the one hand and White workers on the other can work together in White South Africa, or else by really separating them and taking our industries away from White South Africa and bringing about physical separation between the races. Unless we decide clearly which of the two courses to follow, we are not going to make any progress at all in solving either the race problems or the economic problems of South Africa.

You see, Sir, history in South Africa and also the fact of the vastly different standards and the differences between the way of life of the Whites and of the Blacks in South Africa have caused us to have an industrial organization where White and Black work together but the White people have the better-paid jobs, the skilled jobs, and the Black people have the unskilled jobs, with a vast difference, a quite abnormal difference, between the wages paid to the skilled workers and those paid to the unskilled workers. There are economic forces in South Africa which tend to pass across this wide gap and to close it. but against that we have on the one hand unreasoned prejudice that works against this natural economic tendency and, on the other hand—and this I want to emphasize—we have reasonable, justifiable fears that arise from the fact that there is this tremendous gulf in the standards of living and which causes competition between the races for the same jobs to become intolerable for the people of South Africa. We have to face this problem and we have to find a clear answer to it; we must stop speaking in two voices as the Government has done in past years. We have in South Africa manpower; irrespective of colour, we have tremendous resources of manpower in South Africa. We are blessed with the most wonderful natural resources. We can offer tremendous attractions to capital from all over the world; for our size we create a remarkable amount of capital ourselves each year. We are poised for even greater advancement and progress for the people of South Africa if only we will allow that progress to take place; if only we will make our own plans clear so that those who want to organize the economy of South Africa will know what they have to face now and in the future, and unless the Government in power speaks with a clear voice the entrepreneurs will not know how to plan, and planning by entrepreneurs, as we know, is one of the main factors in the economic progress of a country.

I say we have to face for the moment as practical citizens of South Africa the fact that the interdependence between the races is continuing in spite of the so-called apartheid policy of the Government. There is much talk of separate development in South Africa, but what development there is is not separate. It is still based on economic integration and upon the fact of economic interdependence. Let me give a few facts to support my argument. If you look. Sir, at the first report of the Economic Programming Department, attached to the Prime Minister’s Department, and you examine Table 3 in that report, you find that they expect the total demand for White labour in South Africa will increase from 1963 to 1969 from 1,194,900 to 1,411,800—an increase of 2½ 6,000 White workers which they expect to be needed by 1969. But the same body expects that the number of non-White workers needed will increase over the same period from 4,555,900, which was the figure in 1964 when the report was published, to 5,256,400 in 1969, an increase of 690,500. The interdependence is there and it is confirmed by the economic programme of the Prime Minister’s own economic advisers in their published report.

When this report was published in 1964 the policy of separate development was about six years old, while the policy of apartheid was 16 years old, so these economic experts should have known about this policy. But in spite of knowing about it, they gave us this estimate of our future requirements of labour. There is a much greater growth in the number of non-White workers than in the number of White workers, and they had to know that then, as now and in the future, 80 per cent of the workers engaged in the economy of South Africa are not White. That is the simple fact. How can we plan for the future of South Africa, for the greater happiness of the people of the country, unless we base our policies on the facts and then come to clear decisions and not, as the Government unfortunately does, speak with two voices depending on the audience they are addressing at the moment?

I want to call some witnesses to prove the truth of the economic interdependence of the races. I want to call the Minister of Bantu Administration. When he was Deputy Minister in November, 1965, he addressed the National Building Employers’ Conference and said—

And then he gives the figures. In the five-year period from 1944-5 there were 25 Bantu workers to every 10 other workers. Five years later there were 27 Bantu workers for every 10 others. Five years later there were 30 Bantu workers for every 10 others. Five years later again there were 32 Bantu for every 10 other workers, and to-day, the latest figure available, there are 33 Bantu workers for every 10 others. These are facts. The hon. the Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration will tell you that all that is necessary is to mechanize and to rationalize. But the Minister of Bantu Administration, speaking at this conference, said—

Then I have the Minister of Forestry, who made a speech in November, 1965, and said this, speaking to a congress of the State Sawmills and Forestry workers—

One would have thought that he considered this was a terrible thing, according to the philosophy of some of the hon. members opposite—

He does not say it is bad that we are becoming more and more dependent on Native labour, but that it is a wonderful thing, and that our standards of education and of living as White people are going up. It is very interesting that the Minister of Forestry suggested that the workers should agree that tractor drivers in the Department of Forestry should be non-Whites because they could not find Whites. Here is another one, Mr. G. S. J. Kuschke, managing director of the I.D.C., speaking in Pretoria on 4th June, 1965—

If we want to maintain our growth, two out of every three people employed in South Africa for the first time must be Black people. It is the Prime Minister’s own economic advisers who say this, and not the United Party or the Progressive Party. Then we have Dr. Rissik, the Governor of the Reserve Bank, who also on 4th June, 1965, said this—

These are the facts, Sir. Look what is happening about job reservation. I see that from 1956 to 1965 17 orders of job reservation have been issued by the Minister’s Department, but exemptions had to be granted from nine of the 17 orders because the White people are not there and it was impossible even to maintain the ratio of White to non-White workers now laid down in the job reservation regulations under the Act. The conventional colour bar. in which we all believe as necessary in order to cope with the reasonable fear which people entertain arising from the different standards of living of our people, is changing every day, and it is moving upwards. The non-Whites are doing more and more responsible work because there are not enough White people to do that work. Let me give a few examples. Only a few minutes ago the Minister referred to the fact that on the gold-mines further experiments had to be conducted to see whether the apportionment of work between Whites and non-Whites cannot be altered, and the alteration must be to admit Black workers into more occupations and to give them greater opportunities. We find that the Iscor management, a public utility organization controlled by the Government, indirectly at least, favours the training of Africans in unskilled and skilled occupations. We find in the engineering industry of South Africa that jobs are broken up into component units which are done by less skilled people, which leads to the employment of an ever-growing proportion of African workers in our steel and engineering industries. We find that recently there has been a new agreement in the building trade which has made available to Black people for the first time skilled jobs that they never did before, so much so that in Natal, of all places, workers refused to accept the new agreement, but it has been accepted in the Transvaal. We find that in reply to a question put to him the hon. the Minister of Transport told us recently that there are to-day 16,000 jobs on the Railways being done by non-Whites, which used to be done by Whites in the past. We find that in the Post Office, in spite of assurances that it will change again if circumstances permit, hundreds of jobs, even the delivery of letters and telegrams, are to-day being done by non-Whites in the White areas of the Republic. We find the same thing in the municipalities. Hon. members opposite may stop the visible appearance of Coloured people on point duty as traffic officers in Cape Town, but they have not stopped the employment of an ever growing number of non-Whites as meter readers and clerks by the Municipality of Cape Town and in the other municipalities of South Africa. The pattern of labour is changing. We are becoming more and more dependent on non-White labour and I am not making suppositions; I am stating facts.

My time is short. We must ask ourselves some questions. What is the policy of the Government towards this? Are they really determined to unscramble this egg? Are they really determined to reduce the economy of the White part of the Republic, according to their own definition, to one catering for 3,500,000 or at the utmost 5,000,000 people, or will they accept the inescapable fact that our economy must cater for the needs of 16,000,000 people? The Government’s policy is full of contradictions. There is the policy of border industry development, which appears to be making some progress, but what does that progress mean? In fact it means that new industries are being encouraged to establish themselves on the borders of the Reserves when they are new, and even existing industries are urged to move from the established industrial areas and to go there, to the borders of the Bantu Reserves where they will be White industries, owned and managed by White men, but where most of the work, especially in labour-intensive industries, will be done by Black people. Let us forget for the moment that the Black people will be living in the Reserves and the White factories will be on the borders of the Reserves. The factory is there, owned and managed by White people, but staffed by Black people. The interdependence continues, whether that factory is established in Johannesburg or Cape Town or Port Elizabeth or at King William’s Town or Rosslyn or Hammarsdals it is still a White factory dependent on Black labour. You cannot get away from that.

I see in the latest report of the I.D.C. the inducements offered to industrialists to establish themselves on the borders of the Reserves. They are important inducements and in some ways they are, I think, unfair inducements, when you consider the interests of the factories employing White people in the White cities of South Africa. It is not only that these people can pay lower wages than established industries, but also that they get special taxation privileges and lower railway rates and cheaper water and faster capital amortization for tax purposes. Also, if they build homes for their White supervisory employees, they can for taxation purposes write off 35 per cent of the cost of the houses in the first year and another 10 per cent for the following nine years. That is a mighty inducement to establish these factories on the borders of the Reserves and also to house the White workers there, an admission by the Government that this will be a White factory employing Black workers, that the interdependence of the Whites on the Blacks will remain there even in those border industries.

What is the policy of the Minister of Labour towards these people? Does the Minister genuinely believe that he can eliminate the Black workers from the existing industrial areas, or will he be satisfied if in his lifetime in or the lifetime of two or three of his successors they can achieve the parity referred to in the White Paper on the Tomlinson Report—by the year 2000? And if so, if this is all they can hope for, what is their policy towards the Black workers that will remain in the White Republic of South Africa and will, because they remain in the White part of the Republic of South Africa, make the standard of living of every White man in this country possible? That, is the question. Are they to remain unorganized? Are they to remain untrained and unskilled, or will the Minister concede this inevitable fact that if you move to the borders of the Reserves the labour-extensive industries—those industries employing large numbers of Black workers—and you retain in the White areas the labour-intensive industries, the type of worker, including the Black worker, that will be required in the labour-intensive industries in the White area of the Republic of South Africa will have to be the more sophisticated type of worker even if his skin is black, and will have to be more skilled, better trained, and more educated? And what is the policy of the Government towards that? Has the Minister considered that with the comparitive paucity of White workers in South Africa our industries, not only on the borers of the Reserves but everywhere, will become more and more dependent upon a growing number of non-White workers—not only Bantu, but Indian and Coloured as well? Has the hon. the Minister considered that as the White people tend to move more and more into supervisory and managerial occupations, more and more industries will tend to grow Blocker and Blacker, or non-Whiter and non-Whiter, if I may call it that? We know that the steel industry is going that way. The garment and leather industries have gone that way already. The textile industry is going that way fast. And what is going to happen to the White worker when the time comes that the employer, whatever his colour may be finds that in order to maintain satisfactory industrial relations with his workers, he need only attend to the non-White workers and can disregard the small White minority? What happens to collective bargaining? What happens to the security of the White man if we continue to pretend that the majority of workers in our industries in South Africa are temporary sojourners and have no right there and do not belong there? [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Yeoville has said repeatedly that it is time the Government stopped blowing hot and cold. However, if we examine his speech we can see that he both wants to and is able to use small portions thereof to intimate in certain parts of the country that this was his plea in the interests of the White workers. There is not one single statement which the hon. member made here this afternoon in regard to the employment of Bantu in the White areas which has not time and again been refuted and exposed in this House. The hon. member’s figures are hopelessly distorted.

Prove it. Give me the correct figures.

The hon. member knows full well that I cannot refute in ten minutes the figures he furnished in a speech lasting half an hour. These figures have already been refuted. Ultimately the member arrives at this point and says that the border industries are becoming Blacker and Blacker. The purpose of the border industries is specifically to employ Black labour …

I did not say that.

The hon. member said so a moment ago. A moment ago he blamed the Government and said that the Black industries will become Blacker and the White industries will become Whiter. When will the hon. member for Yeoville learn that there are certain industries which are poles apart as regards the numerical relationship between White and non-White workers? When will the hon. member at long last understand that? Must we make it clear to him year after year and under every Vote that there are industries which are mainly dependent upon White labour, and that those industries must remain in White areas and must be encouraged there? A moment ago the hon. member alleged—he will probably deny this again— that the leather industry and various other industries have already been established on the borders. That is precisely the purpose this Government has with those industries.

The hon. member is confusing what I have said completely. I cannot argue with him.

The hon. member must not interrupt me now. I repeat that the objective is to remove these industries from the White areas and establish them on the borders. When will he ever understand that? Mr. Chairman, the hon. member spoke here about the Railways. I want to put a question to him in that regard. If essential work has to be done on the Railways and the necessary White labour is not available to do it, does he want that work to be ceased? How many times have we not already explained to the hon. member that for many years and generations to come Bantu labour will have to be used in South Africa because there are not enough Whites?

On that we are in complete agreement.

However, the pattern here is to improve this state of affairs gradually. And we are busy improving it. Just the other day the hon. Deputy Minister made the figures available in regard to the tremendous progress which has been made in transferring industries which had previously been situated in Johannesburg and in other places to the borders. Those are cases therefore where numbers of Bantu leave the White areas to go and take up residence in the Bantu areas and work in the border industries there. That we have explained time and again to the hon. member. One cannot get him to understand it however. When will the hon. members on the opposite side at last understand this matter and not come forward here with a lot of statements which they do not understand at all? The hon. member said in a reproachful tone that more and more Bantu were streaming into the White areas. That is not so. That was refuted the other day with figures. The turning point has already been reached. For example, if there are to-day 100 industries in the White areas on the Witwatersrand and there are 50 more next year it is obvious that the establishment of these new industries will automatically lead to the employment of a number of Bantu. And that is the primary reason—and there is no other reason—why one is to-day experiencing the phenomenon of a so-called, and I say a so-called, influx of Bantu. The influx relates only to the growth and the increase of industries in White areas where one is nevertheless, in spite of everything, compelled to employ a number of Bantu. That is the reply in this regard. But the hon. member does not want to know anything about that. He merely mentions the overall number of Bantu which, according to him, are entering the White industries. However, I furnished him with the figures last year and pointed out to him how many new industries had arisen. I pointed out that the influx of the Bantu had been due to the increased number of industries. The figures which the hon. member mentioned here this afternoon in respect of the numerical relationships between the races is nothing else but a distortion of facts. The hon. Minister of Bantu Administration has furnished the House with the correct figures in this connection time and again. In many factories there is a ratio of four Whites to five non-Whites to-day, where the ratio in the past was one White to ten, 20 or even 25 non-Whites. That is the true picture—a picture which can be ascertained without juggling with a number of figures. I hope the hon. member will one day cease talking with a multitude of tongues.

The hon. member insists—and he quotes so-called experts—that better use must be made of Bantu labour in the White industries. But, Mr. Chairman, surely it is a well-known fact, and a fact which the hon. Deputy Minister emphasized the other day that tremendous misuse is being made of the Bantu labour in White areas because it is alleged to be very cheap labour and can be replaced much more effectively with automation and mechanization, etc. The hon. Minister referred to an important factory in the country which, under the old dispensation, had had to employ no less than 380 Bantu labourers but which is to-day yielding twice the normal production with only 50 Bantu in service. That is the difference. But those hard facts, the facts which indicate to the hon. member in what direction our policy is at present moving—he does not want to stare in the face. He merely comes forward with a number of general figures which he wrests from their context and with which he continually tries to create a wrong impression in the country.

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to say something in regard to matters which the hon. Minister touched upon here this afternoon. Arising from what the hon. Minister said here to-day in regard to the Bantu Committees, I want to point out that in my opinion these Bantu Committees sometimes serve as a model for many of the trade unions in South Africa as far as their negotiations are concerned. I want to compliment the Department of Labour and congratulate them on the functioning of these Bantu Committees. But why do these Bantu Committees function properly? It is because grievances and differences are not glossed over, nor are they quashed; they are investigated and settled. That is the great secret in regard to those Bantu Committees. The unrest which one sometimes finds in the White trade unions is attributable to the fact that there is a lack of authenticity. The representation is not authentic. And then we sometimes become impatient and angry where there is an internal revolt amongst those people. What is happening in America is also beginning to happen here in South Africa. I want to urge the hon. Minister—and I am not afraid or ashamed of doing so—that the time has come for the Industrial Reconciliation Act to be revised in that respect. That so-called holy right of striking is something which dates from many generations ago. [Time limit.]

We have a South Arica to-day which is straining at the leash to leap forward into another great surge of economic progress. However, it is hamstrung to a large extent by our lack of clarity on labour policy in South Africa. I made certain points to prove that there is confusion and that there is no clarity about the labour force employed in the White Republic of South Africa. Let us assume, for argument’s sake, that the border industry policy is successful beyond the expectations of the greatest optimist in the Government. What then will the position be? The position will be that we shall have transferred the problems of our existing great cities to new great cities on the borders. We shall not have solved these problems, but we shall have created a number of new problems. You will find that the labour extensive industries will go to the border where they will be manned by hundreds and thousands of Black workers who eventually will owe allegiance and loyalty to countries other than South Africa—to new states to be created out of the body of South Africa. There they will be free to organize trade unions. Or will the Government when it emancipates the Transkei for example, form a treaty with the Transkei prohibiting the establishment of trade unions in the Transkei? There is even the danger that they will fall in the hands of irresponsible leadership. The hon. Deputy-Chairman of this House will confirm that there are irresponsible elements in some of these new Bantu states. One dreads to think what will happen if that type of element were to get control of Black trade unions in the Bantustans who will be bargaining against the White industries on the other side of the border. That is a dreadful thought. On none of these points do we get any answer from the hon. the Minister, no matter how we raised it. These people will become prey to agitators whom we shall not be able to control.

We shall face similar problems, with the Black workers who will remain in South Africa. Let us realize and accept one thing. I have said it before, and I want to repeat it. As long as you and I live, Mr. Chairman, and may God give that it will be long for both of us, hundreds of thousands of Black workers will be working in the industries in the White part of South Africa. What is our policy for them? To speak of them as temporary sojourners who must find their economic and political happiness in the reserves when they are working here—when they are born here and die here—does not make sense. What is the policy of the Government and the Department of Labour towards those people? We are entitled to know. We cannot claim that we want to develop the reserves as a homeland for the Black people while we remain dependent upon the labour of the people of those homelands in our White homeland. There is no logic in that. We must be willing to train them and give them skills so that they can so into their own areas and make them viable. We must within our own lifetime make it possible for those areas to develop to a stage of industrial development already achieved by only a few countries in the world, like Belgium, and one or two others. Highly intensive development is needed. What are we doing about that?

Can we. as South Africans, not try to make up our minds about where we are going and face the fundamental things—not with words and slogans like “separate development”, but face the facts? Could we not, for example, decide to develop those reserves to the utmost of our ability, using White skill and White capital for the purpose? Could we not allow to happen in the South African Native reserves what is happening in Basutoland, where the Lesotho government has asked a man like Dr. Anton Rupert to advise them? Why has it done this? Because Dr. Anton Rupert has proved that it is possible successfully to use White skill, White enterprise and White knowhow, to combine it with the labour of the aboriginal peoples, and to increase the standard of living of all concerned. Why can we not do something like that? We all agree that the pressure upon our existing cities from the reserves should be eased. When General Smuts was alive he used to say that as many of the Black people as possible should find a happy home in their own areas. He regarded the reserves as the cultural and national homes of the Bantu people. Those were his words. We have not changed about that. But we have to face the facts. Let us develop those areas, not only by establishing selfish White industries cn the White border of the reserves, but establishing industries inside those reserves, to develop them and make those people truly viable communities. Let us at the same time face the fact of the Bantu permanently among us, about whom there is at the moment no common thinking between us at all. Let us devise a sensible, wise, just and Christian policy towards these hundreds of thousands of workers who will remain with us in our part of South Africa. At present we have no policy for them.

I believe that we South Africans can out of this country make a grand and a happy country, a safe and a secure country, where our standards of civilization and the things in which we believe will be safe. But then what is necessary is fundamental rethinking of our problems. There is nowhere an opportunity so fine, so immediate, to do rethinking as there is in the Department of Labour. One can only hope that this hon. the Minister, who is a young man and who should be mentally and intellectually elastic, will have the courage to take to the Cabinet new and constructive thinking about labour relations based upon the inescapable facts of our industrial organization as it exists in South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville, as always in the past, has not yet told this House what the Opposition’s policy really is and what it is going to offer as an alternative policy.

How can there be any alternative for a policy which does not exist?

But before coming to our policy, I want to say something about the cost of living. Last Friday evening I was trying to point out that the cost of living had not caught up with wages, not even with the wages of non-Whites. I have here figures showing that the increase in the cost of living in 1963 was 1.3 per cent as against an increase in wages of 7.7 per cent. In other words, wages had increased much more rapidly than the cost of living. In 1964 the increase in the cost of living was 2.4 per cent. That was the first year in which the intensification of inflation occurred. At that time wages increased by 9.9 per cent. In 1965 the increase in the cost of living was 3.6 per cent whereas the increase in wages was 9.3 per cent.

In other words, the increase in the cost of living in this country has not caught up with wages. To say that the workers, as regards their real income, are worse off is simply not the truth. Hers I may say that we have succeeded in keeping the inflationary trend on a reasonably even level during the year. If one consults the consumer index in the bulletin of S.A.B.S. for the month of August, one notices that the index figure for the end of May, 1966, was the same as that for the end of December, 1965. During the five months up to the end of May there has been no increase in the cost of living. The index figure did, in fact, increase in April but decreased again in May. For this reason I may say that the measures taken by the Government are obviously having a beneficial effect.

The hon. member spoke of the older workers. This side of the House has applied a practical measure. We are very grateful for it. I myself have had the privilege to plead for it. I am referring to the introduction of the delayed old age pension scheme for encouraging our older workers to keep on working.

What about the workers in the age group 45 to 60 who are struggling to find work?

I hope that after the commission which is at present engaged in investigating the transferability of pension benefits and the introduction of private pension benefits has completed its investigations, we shall find an answer in regard to this group of workers over the age of 45. The fact remains that this Government has taken a practical measure for encouraging older workers to keep on working until they attain the age of 70. I appreciate the fact that that has been done.

Now, as regards the hon. member’s problem in connection with urban workers. The Government ride of this House has never said that we did not want to give non-Whites the opportunity of developing. On the contrary. Under the policy of this Government we have, in fact, created opportunities for the no Whites in the country which did not exist before. It is precisely as a result of our policy— because we have removed the fear of the White that he will be dominated and ousted— that we are able to give the non-White an opportunity to develop. It is because of the very fact that we have created certain channels for the non-Whites alongside those of the Whites that it is possible for the non-Whites to develop. Let us just consider the Bantu Building Workers Act. At present this affords the Bantu an opportunity to develop alongside the Whites. Let us also consider the industries on the borders of the Bantu homelands. I understand that the hon. member at present is also concerned about the increase in the population figures of non-Whites in our cities.

His leader is.

I am pleased to hear that about him. I am pleased that they are also concerned about it and that they also want to implement a policy of decentralization. If only we could have unanimity in this respect! But what a struggle we have not had in this House? What support do we receive from the City Council of Johannesburg in the implementation of our policy? What support have we received from the Opposition in the implementation of this policy? Border industries are a particular policy of decentralization. Decentralization is a sound policy implemented in any country which wants to develop the underdeveloped areas in that country.

We shall support a policy of decentralization.

It is happening in Britain to-day, a small country which developed to maturity as an industrial country, but which is nevertheless still engaged in decentralization at present. In France they are engaged in that, as well as in Italy and America; they are engaged in decentralization everywhere. Sir, because the large cities create problems. That is a fact. However, one of the very reasons why decentralization is taking place is to keep the workers away from the large cities. For that reason industries are being taken to the workers. Where a large number of Bantu is working in an industry …

Are they not in the reserves?

Yes, they ought to be in the reserves. I shall come back to that point. I am saying that we are taking these factories which rely on a large percentage of non-White labour to the borders of the reserves. This is a sound policy which is being implemented in other countries and also in South Africa at present. And now the hon. member not only pleads that we should have border industries but also that capital should be sent so as to enable skilled White workers to give training in the homelands. The policy of this pary is very clear. In Africa to-day we hear a loud cry for Africanization. Everything should be Africanized. The universities should be Africanized. Businesses should be Africanized.

If the hon. member has read about Africa he will realize that that is so. And for that reason we do not want to cause that same cry of exploitation to go up in South Africa. It is true that as a result of American interference in Africa a reaction against America is setting in at present, one which regard; its assistance and actions as a kind of imperialism, a new for of capitalistic imperialism. I want to repeat that we want to avoid that type of thing in South Africa, namely, the cry that we are exploiting the non-White in their own territories. We want to afford them the opportunity of developing as far as it is possible for them to develop. However, that must take place within their own capacity. The Government cannot progress any faster than the Whites themselves can do. Whereas the hon. member referred to a labour shortage I want to repeat what I said on an earlier occasion in this House. We do not only have a shortage of White labour. We also have a shortage of non-White labour. I am now speaking of skilled labour and of semi-skilled labour. We have a shortage of semi-skilled and skilled non-White labour, because if we did not have a shortage this Government would have been able to implement its policy much more rapidly. However, for the very reason that we do not have those non-Whites we are making slow progress with the implementation of our policy. We have done a tremendous deal. We have created many opportunities for them and we are still creating many opportunities for them. However, we cannot push those people to maturity. We are able to make H e of their services in so far as they can develop within their capacity and potential.

We do, however, have a major shortage of skilled Bantu labour in this country at present. There is no question about that. If that was not so, we would have been able to make much more rapid progress with the implementation of our policy in the border industries as well as within their own territories. For that rear-on I am saying that our policy is one which seeks justice and opportunities for the non-Whites. It is a policy which can create the only form of sound co-existence in South Africa. It is a policy under which exploitation does not take place but which affords the Bantu every opportunity to develop. And, where we have a small White population. it is the only policy which can succeed if one wants to retain the authority of the White man within his own territory. And for that reason we should like hon. members to tell us where they stand. What is their standpoint in connection with this question of decentralization under which our industries are taken to the workers? One can take industries to the raw materials and one can also take them to the workers instead of bringing the workers to the cities. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to the provisions of the Shops and Offices Act. References to certain benefits in regard to this Act are shown on page 292 of the Estimates. The Act, of course, is administered by the hon. the Minister. We welcomed the revision of the Shops and Offices Act in 1964 when it came before the House. because it gave a substantial degree of protection to many categories of office as well as shop workers, people who had never come within the scope of protective industrial legislation to any very great extent before that time.

As the hon. the Minister knows the Act contains provisions covering people working in shops and offices who are employed by shop owners, attorneys, accountants, bankers doctors, professional people, and a great many others. These are what we call the white collar workers in South Africa, people who form a very important element in the economic field. These people, prior to the passing of the 1964 Act in this House, were generally unorganized. They were in no position to organize themselves as a body or to enter into any collective agreement for the regulation of their conditions of employment. Then in 1964 we amended the Act, and the whole object of that Bill, which we passed two years ago, was to give these white collar workers certain specific protection from exploitation of various kinds.

The hon. the Minister will know, of course, that they were protected from having to work excessive hours; they were protected by the terms laid down for the payment of overtime; they were guaranteed annual leave and sick leave under certain circumstances, and their employment could not be terminated except under certain conditions, which were laid down in the Act. Sir, no industrial agreements or wage determinations, as the hon. the Minister knows, affected this category of office worker;, and their protection by Statute was more than overdue, and when we passed the 1964 Act the House was unanimous on this issue. The people most affected are the middle-income group; many of them all clerks and typists, shop-assistants, bank tellers and secretaries, and many of them are women workers.

Sir, what has happened in the last two years? The whole situation as far as this Act is concerned has completely changed, and I do want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that because of the change in economic circumstances during the last two years, certain provisions of the 1964 Shops and Offices Act have, in fact, become completely out of date, I suggest that, unless something is done by way of ministerial proclamation, thousands of these employees will be back where they started in 1939, when the Act was originally passed, 27 years ago. They will continue to be at the mercy of any unscrupulous employer who chooses to exploit them, employers who may know that, because of the chanced economic circumstance and salary increases many of their employees no longer can receive the protection of this Act for the very simple reason that financially they no longer qualify. It was quite clear from the report of the Select Committee on the 1964 Bill how many very large employers of labour objected to any form of protection for their white collar workers. They objected before the Select Committee to that effect.

Now that salaries have gone up considerably—and, after all, the Government gave the lead in this matter—and salaries have been increased to keep pace with the 15 per cent increase in the cost of living over the last four years—thousands of these very hard-working white collar workers, who qualified for protection when we passed the Act now no longer fall within its scope. This is really the issue that I want to raise with the hon. the Minister this afternoon. The hon. the Minister has power, by proclamation in the Gazette, to raise the salary ceiling rates for these workers who are not covered by any other industrial legislation. To our knowledge, however, no action has been taken by the Minister or his Department to protect these people or to adjust the situation.

It is quite true that one of the principles written into the Bill in 1964 wan that employees who fell within the higher income groups were exempted from control and protection under the Act as far as their working hours were concerned. For the purpose of deciding which categories of workers should or should not fall within the income group whose conditions of service were protected or controlled, the Minister was authorized, by way of regulation, to divide the Republic into three areas.

Area A was to consist of the large cities, in which anyone earning more than R1,920 a year, that is to say, R160 a month, was excluded from the protection of the Act. Area B was to consist of the larger towns, and the wage ceiling in these areas was laid down at R1.800 a year, i.e. R150 a month; and finally there was area C, which was to include the smaller towns and the rural areas and here the ceiling was to be R1,680 a year or R140 a month. Sir, we made no objection in principle in 1964 to the ceiling rates provided for in the Bill, but we did appeal to the hon. the Minister to keep an open mind about it. We pointed out then—and circumstances have proved us to be entirely correct—that economic conditions change and that income levels change, as indeed they have done very materially since the passing of that measure. We appealed to the hon. the Minister to keep this whole matter under constant review.

We pointed out during that debate that this ceiling of R160 a month was a very low ceiling if it was intended to give any real protection to our white collar workers who, after all, are every bit as important to South Africans economic development as any other category of workers; they are very important indeed. We have the situation to-day whereby any white collar worker, whose salary has been increased and who now earns R170 a month, enjoys no protection under the Act. This means that thousands and thousands of white collar workers no longer enjoy the protection of the Shops and Offices Act.

Order! I want to point out to the hon. member that no provision is made in this Vote for moneys for the administration of the Shops and Offices Act, except as far as confinement allowances are concerned.

Surely, Mr. Chairman, I am allowed to raise this matter under the Minister’s salary. This is a matter of policy. May I say with respect to you, Sir, that if you are not prepared to agree with me, perhaps you will agree with the President of the Federated Salaried Staff Association, who made a public statement on this very issue.

Order! That is not my point. My point is that this Committee is really not the place to raise this matter.

Under what other head can I raise it then?

The hon. member can raise it by way of a substantive motion. If the hon. member wants amendments to the Act she should move a substantive motion. However, in the circumstances the hon. member may continue. She has already covered about three-quarters of the subject.

Sir, my plea to the hon. the Minister is to raise the ceiling rates, which he has the right to do by proclamation to the rate laid down in the Unemployment Insurance Act, which is a basic R2.500 a year, in other words, R210 a month. It seems to me that if this same basic figure were used in the application of the Shops and Offices Act, which this Minister has to administer, it would be fairer. After all, the hon. the Minister of Community Development, with respect to you, Mr. Chairman, was quite happy to allow us to deal under his Vote with a statement which he had made and in which he had announced the raising of the qualifying income rate for people who wished to acquire housing. He raised the qualifying rate, in the case of Europeans who wanted sub-economic housing from R80 to R100, and in the case of economic housing the salary rate was raised from R180 to R225 in the case of people with two dependant children, and in the case of White families with more than two dependant children the ceiling was raised to R300. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Wynberg put a certain matter to the hon. the Minister and I am convinced that she will receive a reply to it from him. It is therefore not necessary for me to follow up on her speech.

I should like for a short while to return to what the hon. member for Yeoville said. I think it was very unfortunate that he concluded his speech this afternoon by saying that this Government was establishing selfish White industries in the border areas. I think the hon. member, when he reads that speech of his, will realize that it was a very irresponsible statement because he created the impression outside that this Government is establishing selfish White industries on the borders of the Bantu homelands. Is that fair? Are industries not being established in those border areas precisely to help the non-Whites?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member and his party is just as concerned as this side of the House is about the influx of non-White into our metropolitan areas. Our Minister of Bantu Administration is concerned about it and the hon. Deputy Minister is concerned about it and we want to direct the non-Whites back to their own areas gradually, and it is for that very reason that we are developing industries on the borders of the Bantu homelands. We do not want to establish industries within the Bantu homelands because we do not want to create another White community within those areas. That is the only reason why we do not want to do that. Mr. Chairman. is it not the very fact that we have job reservation which is ensuring that we have racial and industrial peace in this multi-racial country of ours to-day? The White worker is not afraid to help the non-White worker along because the two are developing side by side and not in an intergrated way. But if we were to remove job reservation to-morrow then we would experience the greatest industrial disorders in this multi-racial country of ours. I therefore think that the hon. member made a very unfortunate statement here this afternoon but I shall let the matter rest there; the hon. the Minister will most certainly deal with him.

I should like to bring two matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister of Labour. If we look at the Factories, Machinery and Building Work Act of 1941, we find that, as far as the health and welfare of our workers are concerned, there are certain dangerous manufacturing processes in use in the industrial world to-day. The hon. Minister has appointed a departmental committee to investigate these dangerous processes and to ascertain whether the health and the welfare of the worker is still being effectively protected in terms of this Act. We find for example that as far as the foundry industry is councerned, the circumstances under which the workers are working to-day are very risky. The Department of the hon. the Minister is thoroughly aware of that because the Department has appointed a committee in this regard and on page 18 of the 1965 annual report we find that the Committee had found (translation)—

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what progress has been made with the implementation of the recommendations of that Committee. Are there enough inspectors going from one factory to another in order to see to it that the regulations are being carried out properly?

Are there enough inspectors to see to it that the health of the workers are being properly protected? Are inspections carried out in the various factories, particularly in the foundries, to see to it that the health of the workers is being protected and that the workers are not being exposed to exploitation by the employers?

The second point is in regard to the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1941. If one considers the Act one becomes concerned about the number of accidents occurring each year in our industries. But if one sees what steps are being taken to maintain proper supervision, one is grateful. But when one comes to the services of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner one feels concerned and wonders whether the Commissioner had the necessary staff to deal rapidly with those claims from the workers when they sustain injuries in their work, and whether the necessary attention is being given whenever a worker sustains an injury in his work. We are very grateful to learn that there are going to be certain rehabilitation services for injured workers. We read in the latest edition of Rehabilitasie of June, 1966, that a rehabilitation association for the injured workers is now going to be established, and that experiments are now being conducted in Johannesburg and that the Department is engaged in the construction of a large rehabilitation centre there to enable the injured workers to return as quickly as possible to their work. I have nothing against a rehabilitation centre being erected in Johannesburg and another one ultimately being erected in Durban, but I am concerned about the worker. We find that if a worker has been injured he has to undergo a course of rehabilitation. Take the case of a worker on the East Rand who has sustained an injury. He must now go to Johannesburg to receive those rehabilitation services. In the first place those people do not have much money at their disposal, and in the second place they are being removed from the neighbourhood where they were living. They are transferred to Johannesburg, which may perhaps be 30 or 40 miles away. What I want to plead for here is that when this worker on the East Rand or the West Rand or the rural areas is transferred to that rehabilitation centre, the family of this worker finds it very difficult to visit the injured worker and I want to ask whether it is not possible to make arrangements for the wife and children of this man to receive free railway tickets at least once a week so that they can visit the injured worker at that centre? I can give the assurance that these people are finding it extremely difficult to get there.

I will not follow the last speaker. I want to say a few words in regard to the Coloured workers of this country. I was rather intrigued by the debate on border industries which has taken place here. I find that the hon. members for Pretoria (West) and Yeoville had quite a set-to about border industries. It would appear that the Government’s policy in regard to border industries is that they are taking the industries to the borders where the labour can be obtained. But in regard to the Coloured people it seems that the reverse is taking place. The hon. the Minister has shown his interest in the Coloured people since his appointment as Minister of Coloured Affairs and we have noticed with great pleasure the visits which the Minister has made to the various Coloured institutions, but it seems to me that there is something radically wrong in regard to Coloured labour. I have had complaints from people who carry on the hotel industry. They just do not seem to be able to get labour, and in other businesses the same position obtains. I think one of the reasons for this is that the Coloured people are more and more being taken away from industry. They are being shifted away more and more and they are unable, either deliberately or through lack of funds, to come into the towns. I believe the time has come that the Government should consider very seriously a conference of all people interested in labour, commerce and industry and the hotel trade and any other trade which may be interested, and let us find out just what is wrong and why it is so difficult to obtain Coloured labour in the city. I say the Government will have to watch very carefully the situation, because the Coloured people are being taken away from our industries. I am not going to discuss the fact that District Six within a few years will be a White area and that thousands of people who are to-day employed in the city will then find that they will have to go further and further away and labour will become more difficult to obtain because of the extra travelling costs entailed. I have not been able to put my finger on the problem. I think the Government should find out exactly what is wrong. That applies more or less to the ordinary Coloured labourer and to the worker in industry, but there is another aspect which has worried the Coloured people quite a lot. That is apparently the lack of opportunities for them in the better-class jobs. Here I have an article which appeared last year in Die Banier by one of the Coloured labour leaders in the Cape. The headline is—

He makes a pertinent point of it that whereas this Government is offering the Black states which have shown animosity to South Africa assistance in regard to technical matters, to give them an opportunity to learn technical skills, that is denied to the Coloureds. I do not agree with him fully, but it is evidence of the way in which the Coloured people are thinking. This is what he says—

He says that the Whites and the Coloureds must move hand in hand and if that desire of the Coloureds is realized our labour problems will be solved. I have said it before, but I want to say to the Minister again that while we certainly do appreciate the fact that there is immigration to this country, ostensibly that immigration is merely an importation of skilled labour. I do not mind the Whites coming here to work, but I maintain that the number who come here to do skilled work do not fill the gap because they are not sufficient, and I cannot understand how it is that this vast reservoir of manpower, the Coloured people, have to stop at a certain level and cannot go further in regard to skilled work. I cannot see why we do not use our Coloured people in skilled occupations and encourage them to be able to do that work. The Minister will tell me that we do train them, but I want to say that there seems to be a lack of opportunities. I know there are technical colleges which make an attempt. I cannot raise the question of education which goes hand in hand with this problem, because you, Sir, will probably rule me out of order. But I just want to mention that in the same edition of Die Banier it is said that the best jobs for Coloureds are unfilled. There is inadequate schooling. One cannot divorce skilled work for Coloureds from education, but I will raise that under the Coloured Affairs Vote. I have had a considerable number of Coloured people coming to me and asking me please to make an appeal to the Government so that the Coloured people can know that the question has been raised that there are a considerable number of matriculants walking around who cannot get further than to get labourers’ jobs. There must be a complete re-thinking on the subject. The Minister has indicated that there has been an increase in the number of apprentices, but I do not think that these apprentices include Coloured people other than in the traditional trades of furniture making and building. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Boland will pardon he if I do not follow him in his argument. I shall have to leave that to the hon. the Minister. With reference to what the hon. member for Brakpan said, I should like to take up the gauntlet for the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, who in my view has one of the most unenviable tasks in this Department. Some years ago it was one of the most unfortunate sections of the work, particularly as regards the settlement of claims and investigations into the circumstances of accidents, but I may rightly say that in the past few years, and particularly the past two of three years, there has been such a tremendous improvement that it is an absolute pleasure to come into contact with the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner in connection with claims. If we consider that even in 1964 there were some 12,000 factories, and that the 12,000 included a large variety, and if we consider the large and extensive area in which these factories are situated, we must really come under the impression of the unenviable task of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner in investigating every claim carefully in order to prevent any injustice. But I want to go even further. At some point we must reach the stage where we can no longer act merely compensatorily in respect of diseases and accidents, but where we have to give active consideration to prevention and elimination. In this regard I should like to make a few observations for the consideration of the hon. the Minister, observations that link up with what was said by the hon. member for Brakpan. We shall have to expand the duties of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner to enable the Department to collect more particulars as regards the prevention and elimination of diseases and accidents. In my humble opinion there are certain things we must do in order to achieve this. Firstly, I think, we should establish an industrial institute for accidents. It should be the primary function of this institute to classify industries as such. We do not yet know what effect the manufacture of certain materials has on the health of the worker. In some cases it takes a period of 20 to 30 years before we can diagnose any disablement symptoms. In the first place, such an institute should therefore undertake the classification of the industries, firstly according to the particular product manufactured. If it is a chemical product, we should consider the possible hazards presented by the chemical poisons. If it is some other product that is manufactured, other hazards may be involved, such, for example, as those in foundry work, which has already been referred to. In the second place industries should be classified according to the type of labour. The possibility of injury can be eliminated in the ranks of the labourers. For example, there are the conditions in which they work. There are labourers who have to work in a certain position for hours on end, and this may give rise to accidents and injury. Other factors that should be taken into consideration are the temperature, humidity, air conditioning, lighting, noise and even clothing.

After these classifications have been carried out, we shall be able to process all data relating to accidents and injuries, data with regard to the circumstances of the man’s injuries, the conditions under which he worked, etc. These analyses should enable us to compile a pattern according to which we could try to predict what may happen under similar conditions in future. In the December, 1965, edition of Technikon there is an article by Dr. A. M. Coetzee. the chief medical officer of Rand Mines Ltd. In it he states (translation)—

As I have said, the next step should be to collect all available data, from which we should try to compile a pattern to assist us in further investigation. Once we have processed all these data, we reach the next step, namely the establishment of a medical inspectorate. At the request of the State or of the industry or of the worker, this inspectorate should then see to it that factors that give rise to disease and injury are eliminated as far as possible. Such an inspectorate is also advocated in an article written by Dr. A. J. Orenstein, the chief medical officer of Iscor. In the S.A. Medical Journal of 12th June, 1965, he wrote as follows—

He compares the position with that of Finland, and then continues—

On the basis of the data collected and in cooperation with the State, the industries and the trade unions, this inspectorate should then see to it that the factors that give rise to diseases and injuries be restricted to the minimum. That brings us to the fourth step, and this is where we should begin to carry out research into the effects of certain chemicals, of which we have no clinical proof as yet, on the health of the worker. This, however, is something that the Government or the Department of Labour cannot undertake on their own. Still less can it be done by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner alone. It is a matter that depends on the mutual cooperation of the industries, the trade unions, the Department of Labour and the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. [Time limit.]

I have listened to the hon. member for Brentwood and the hon. member for Brakpan about accident prevention and safeguarding the health of the worker. As far as the Department of Labour is concerned, we know from experience that a considerable amount of research has already gone into this subject and the wonderful work which has already been done by the organization known as NOSA is, I think, well known. But research is going on and I feel sure that the hon. the Minister will take note of what these hon. members have said on this subject.

Listening to the hon. member for Yeoville here this afternoon and the replies from the Government side there is no doubt there is a lot of confusion on the Government side about the labour position in this country. The hon. member for Yeoville asked the Government to state its policy in this regard in the light of changed conditions brought about by its policy of border industries. As far as the Government is concerned the whole policy of border industries is changing and is now being based on decentralization of industry as in Europe. The decentralization of industries in Europe and elsewhere is entirely different to what we are experiencing in this country. Overseas decentralization is resorted to in order to take care of the depressed areas and whenever an industry is moved a body of skilled workers goes with it. Here we have an entirely different position. When moving industries to border areas one must realize that a certain amount of skill must go with those industries. In the White areas at present there is no training for the unskilled or Bantu labourer. A certain amount of White skill must therefore go along with these industries in order to train the Bantu there. Now the Government must make up its mind to what extent it is going to train the Bantu. There has always been a measure of resistance to training the Bantu in skilled work on account of competition with the White worker in White areas. That we accept. But what is going to happen in the border industries? There must be somebody there to train the Bantu worker in the skills necessary for the particular border industry to prosper. Who is going to train workers for those industries within the so-called Bantustans? If these areas are to become viable at all you must have trained personnel in there. Where are these going to come from? You will have to have Whites within the areas to train the Bantu workers there. If you do not have them there the policy of having border industries must as a whole fail. The Government in its endeavours to move the Bantu back to the homelands are, however, it would appear, determined to get on with the policy of border industries. So you have the position where a few miles outside Pretoria you have a border industry. All of us are inclined to look only at the Transkei but there are other border areas besides the Transkei. The Government must make up its mind and state its policy in so far as the training of the Bantu skilled worker is concerned. This is a matter which is very close to the hon. Minister’s Vote although he might say that it has nothing to do with it. I think it does have a lot to do with his Department. The hon. the Minister has had a lot of experience in this Department because prior to becoming Minister he was Deputy Minister for a number of years. Nevertheless we are all inclined to look upon the Department of Labour as the Cinderella Department of the Government. It is very low down the list of Departments that come up for discussion during Committee of Supply. We find too that more often than not we have the most junior Minister in charge of the Department and we are lucky to have a most capable Minister in charge of this Department at present. The importance of this Department was brought home to us with a shock this afternoon when the Minister gave us a report on the condition in the gold-mining industry in the light of the threatened strike.

Because of the fact that we have had two sessions this year, we have an out-of-date departmental report, the latest report of the Department being for the year 1964. The one for 1965 we have not seen yet. That is probably due to us having had two sessions, a fact which made it difficult for the staff to have the report of 1965 available for this Session. It is, of course, advisable that we should have before us up-to-date reports. We are in the fortunate position that we are to-day living in a boom period where unemployment amongst Whites and Coloureds is down to the minimum. That, however, was not the position a few years ago when the Government during 1961-2 was very worried about the unemployment position. It is useful therefore to have up-to-date reports, before us so that we can see what is actually happening. We see from these reports that the Department of Labour maintains close liaison with the Department of Immigration but still we have a shortage of skilled workers in this country. Over the years the Government has taken certain measures to overcome this shortage, measures such as the legislation for the training of artisans. But if you consult the latest available report of the Department you are disappointed by the result coming from this particular phase of training. Originally it was intended to train people who were unable to take up an apprenticeship during the normal period and have become semi-skilled workers and felt that they would like to go on and enter one of the trades in an industry. Whilst I have found this training to be first class, I have also found educational qualifications for entry as being the big stumbling block in the way of such training. You find, for instance, that a number of workers who could enter for these courses of training have not had the necessary basic education. It might be said that it would be useless to put such a person through such a course when he does not have the required basic education but let us look at the type of person I am thinking of. He is the person who has been working as an operative in a big workshop for a long time and in this way has obtained skill in a certain trade. Unfortunately he is not in a position to become an artisan because he has not served the required number of years as an apprentice. In order to become qualified as an artisan he has to enter for this particular course. It may, however, be possible that this person has due to circumstances beyond his control only passed Std. IV and he is not accepted for the course.

Coming to juveniles, one is disappointed to find a vacuum between the Department of Education and the Department of Labour. In this report the difficulty the Department experienced in placing sub-standard pupils is pointed out. We are so short of White workers in this country at the present time that it is essential that we waste as little as possible of our White manpower. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he in conjunction with the Department of Education and also perhaps with the Provincial Administrations, devise a scheme whereby every child leaving school should be compelled to complete a form indicating where he or she will be going after leaving school. Many of these youngsters leave school, enter the labour market and become lost. According to the figures on page 6 of this last report the Department has registered something like 20,641 of these pupils but was able to place only 10,000 in employment. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Salt River need not be concerned that the conditions which he mentioned are not receiving adequate attention from the Ministers concerned. I also find it extraordinary that he should refer to Whites who are trained and who sometimes have only a Std. 4 certificate, something to which he objects, and that there are so many employers who are prepared to employ non-Whites who do not even have a Std. 4 certificate. When we discuss labour in this House, I think we should do so in a sense of great gratitude and also in praise towards the workers of the Republic of South Africa, as well as towards the Government, for a sound labour policy.

Mr. Chairman, in the past years we have experienced nothing but industrial harmony and peace. We are grateful for that. I say the Government has placed the necessary legislation on the Statute Books to bring about that industrial peace. On the other hand we have a willing workers’ community who for their part are also prepared to do the necessary in order to bring about industrial peace. I find it strange that there should be references to either the Government or the workers whenever problems arise. During the past election hon. members of the United Party went from one platform to another and told the workers what a difficult time they were having in South Africa, and that because they were having such a difficult time in South Africa, they should get rid of this National Party Government. The hon. member for Yeoville came and said that in my constituency. What did he achieve by that? All that he achieved was that I was returned to this Parliament with a larger majority than that with which my predecessor had been returned in the previous election. The reason for that is that the worker in South Africa knows the arguments of the hon. member and his Party, and he knows that with a view to achieving success as regards the labour problem in this country, the Government (or) their part have laid the foundation, and for his Dari the worker is also prepared to contribute his share.

But in discussions of these matters we never hear anything about the employer. Apparently the employer is the man who never steps out of line, he is the one who always does the right thing. I want to say this afternoon that the points of friction existing in the labour sphere at present are mainly due to the actions of employers. I do not think legislation can prevent it at this stage. I do not think the workers’ willingness to smooth out friction can do it. I think all that remains is that we should appeal to employers to remove on their side all points of friction that may arise, that may cause unpleasantness and that are detrimental to the stabilizing of sound relations.

Some of those points were mentioned this afternoon. The hon. member for Brakpan made a plea with regard to conditions in factories that may cause diseases. I want to ask whether it is necessary that the Department should always send inspectors to visit factories, to go and see that the conditions there are such that diseases and similar things cannot occur among workers as a result of conditions at the factories. The same applies to the cause that was advocated here in connection with the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. There are frequently accidents that are due solely to the negligence of the employer. He is responsible for them, because he does not see to it that all the necessary facilities are available and that conditions are such that the employee may work in a contented and pleasant atmosphere.

I want to submit—and I am speaking as one who worked in the industries in Johannesburg —that the employers are mainly responsible for the fact that conditions in their workshops are such that the employees are not contented. I want to put it to you that in my view the first person who is concerned with having contented workers in his employment is in fact the employer, because the contentment of an employee determines his productivity, and the productivity of the employee determines the profit of the employer. That is why I consider it so essential that the employer should see to it that his employee is always contented and is always prepared to produce his best. That is hew I always saw it, that if I arrived at work in the morning, filled with courage and enthusiasm and energy to produce a good day’s work and to brine large profits to my employer, then I should feel that when I leave work a night, I should be contented and convinced that my intentions of that morning had been realized. Then I would also willingly grant my employer the profits I had made for him. But it happened so frequently that what the employer did during the day made me go away dissatisfied at night and ask myself: “Why did you work so hard today? Why not carry out a go-slow strike, since that man does not really appreciate what you do?” That is what the employee gets from his employer in most cases.

I want to say that those employers who go out of their way to create the right conditions for the employee, who see to it that the employee works under good favourable conditions and that he is always contented, always gets the best results. Where the employer struggles, one may go and investigate and one will always find that he himself is mainly to blame for the fact that he does not get what he expects from his employees.

In this regard I should like to bring something to the attention of the hon. the Minister, and this relates to the Unemployment Insurance Act. Do you know, Sir, that there are numerous employees who are not aware of the benefits of this Act? Many of them go to work without knowing to what end the contributions are deducted from their salaries, or that those contributions are paid into the Unemployment Insurance Fund. I ask myself: Cannot the employer take the trouble to inform those employees of the benefits available to them at present? This would also make the employee contented. It happens so frequently that when the employer discharges the employee for some reason or other, he does not hand him that card immediately, nor does he inform him that he can go and ask for the benefits in terms of that Act until such time as he can be employed again. It then happens that when that man discovers that he is entitled to certain benefits in terms of the Unemployment Insurance Act, it is too late, because he did not have his card or because he handed in his card too late to the Department concerned.

It still happens so frequently that employers fail to deduct those contributions and to pay them over to the Department of Unemployment Insurance. The facts I mention this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, can be supported by evidence. I want to ask whether the Minister cannot take steps to impress it upon employers and to compel them more efficiently to perform those essential services. We can mention numerous cases of this nature. But in my view the principle remains that the employer also has a task to fulfil. The Government or the employee cannot always be held to blame for everything that goes wrong. The employer should realize only too well that he has a duty, not only his own business, but also to the employee and to the Government, as well as to our country, South Africa.

Mr. Chairman. the hon. member for Yeoville in his two speeches this afternoon raised a number of very pertinent matters relating to the pattern which is developing in the labour field in South Africa at present. He asked a number of questions of the Government, questions which up to now we have not had an answer from any of the Government members who have participated in this debate, except in relation to one matter which I will come to in a moment. But in passing. I should like to say this. I trust that the hon. the Minister when he enters the debate, will deal with the matters raised by the hon. member for Yeoville fully so that not only this House but the country as a whole and particularly the employers and workers in South Africa will fully appreciate and understand what the Government’s attitude is to these pertinent matters. The only matter dealt with by the hon. member for Yeoville to which certain members on the Government side attempted to reply was the hon. member’s reiteration that White skill, know-how and capital should be permitted to assist in the development of the Bantu areas because this was the only way in which adequate and full development could take place in these areas. We had two most illuminating replies, one by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) who said that this was not permitted. The use of White capital, know-how and skill was not permitted in areas such as the Transkei because he said: We, the Government, do not want to exploit the Bantu. What is the Government doing by its border industry policy? Surely it is precisely this, because it is paying to the workers in those industries a lower wage than to workers in equivalent industries in the White areas. So this argument is one which I must say I find very difficult to understand as a justification for the Government’s policy. But we had an even more interesting one from the hon. member for Brakpan who said that the Government does not allow White skill, capital and know-how to the Transkei because it does not want to introduce a lot of Whites into that area. But surely the Government is there again doing precisely that through its Bantu Development Corporation. The industries which have been established are under the control of Whites. They are therefore under the control of White skill. White know-how and White capital. But it is Government skill, capital and know-how instead of private capital, skill and know-how. This is an extraordinary answer to justify the Government’s attitude.

But the matter which I wish to deal with this afternoon is the problem which is perhaps the most serious in the field of labour in South Africa to-day, and that is the shortage of skilled labour. And I wish to elaborate the point which I will make namely that the only effective way to deal with this in the lone term is by proper utilization of the manpower resources available in South Africa, both by better productivity and by greater use of the manpower that we have available in our non-White population in South Africa. This shortage has become so serious that it is constantly referred to by leading industrialists, economists, trade unionists, bankers, etc. For example, in August of this year the Managing Director of the Industrial Development Corporation, Mr. Kuschke, addressed the Association of Building Societies of South Africa and said this: “South Africa is well on its way towards becoming one of the leading industrial centres of the world.” And in passing I may say that I agree entirely with this sentiment. Mr. Kuschke then said: “There are however potential limiting factors”. He named several of these and he emphasized that the most important of the potential limiting factors is the shortage of trained workers. Now, this problem has been reiterated so often of late that it does not need to be stated again. But what is important is the steps that ought to be taken by the Government to alleviate this shortage. Several leading persons dealing with this matter have made suggestions on the subject, for example Dr. Riekert, the Economic Adviser to the Prime Minister and Chairman of the Economic Advisory Council. He suggested a certain plan namely that the first solution would be to increase the birth rate of the Whites, and secondly, a long-term solution, embracing all races, to provide training and retraining to increase productivity by the better use of labour and a third solution, and I emphasize this, namely to allow non-Whites more scope to perform skilled work and in particular to receive more vocational training.

The same sentiments were mentioned by Dr. Rupert in an address in Durban in July. He mentioned the following as ways of improving the position and f quote from Volkshandel of August, 1966:

This sentiment was reiterated also by Mr. Rosseau, Chairman of Sasol, quite recently, about a month ago, when he was addressing the South African Association of Business Management. He then also emphasized this:

So the theme throughout the speeches is that non-White labour must be used to a greater extent if we were to overcome the manpower shortage. These other methods, for instance immigration, and so on, are a help of course, but they cannot serve to resolve the problem. The most important way is the more efficient and effective use of the labour resources which we have available here. [Time expired.]

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

Evening Sitting

Before I reply to the questions put to me by the hon. member for Yeoville. I should just like to dispose of a few other matters raised by hon. members. I want to start with the hon. member for Wynberg who made a plea in regard to the prescribed wages received in terms of the Shops and Offices Act. I just want to assure her that it is not necessary to amend the Act. Therefore she was on safe ground when she made a plea in that regard. It is a matter which can receive attention, and I want to assure her that we shall give attention to the matter during the recess in order to see whether it is possible to change it administratively.

The hon. member for Brakpan made a plea in regard to industrial diseases. I can bring him the good news that legislation is ready in that regard; it would have been introduced during this Session if it had not been for the exceptional circumstances, but it is our intention to introduce it next year.

The hon. member for Brentwood also made a plea in regard to industrial diseases, and to him I just want to say that this envisaged legislation will also make provision for the appointment of a medical inspectorate. The post of chief medical officer has already been created, but we shall, of course, also experience problems in regard to filling it, just as we are experiencing problems in filling other posts of the same kind, but it does not alter the fact that provision will in fact be made for that. I also want to tell the hon. member for Brentwood that the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner does in fact use departmental inspectors for inspection work. From time to time he sends out an inspector to carry out the necessary inspection in a factory, but it is impossible to send a whole team of inspectors to a factory; it simply does not fit into our organizational pattern.

The hon. member for Boland made a plea in regard to hotel owners here in Cape Town who are experiencing labour difficulties. To him I want to give the assurance that it is a matter which weighs very heavily with me, because I regard the hotel attendants’ trade here in the Cape as a trade which is preeminently suitable for the Coloureds. However, we are continually receiving applications from hotel owners who want to employ Bantu here as waiters, hotel attendants, and so forth. As a result of these continual applications and in the light of our known policy of replacing the Bantu with Coloureds in the Western Cape and in the light of what I have already said, namely that hotel work was work pre-eminently suitable for Coloureds, I subsequently summoned the managers of the hotel owners a week ago in order to discuss this whole matter with them with the purpose of making hotel attendants’ work more attractive, since we determined that owing to unsatisfactory working conditions the Coloureds were not very favourably disposed towards performing hotel attendants’ work. Sometimes they have to start early and work in shifts until very late at night, without their having any facilities for resting at the hotel. I subsequently spoke to the hotel managers and asked them whether they could not individually and jointly devise plans for making hotel attendants’ work more attractive to the Coloureds. In view of that a committee was formed on which the hotel owners will serve along with the representatives of the Departments of Labour and Coloured Affairs in order to go into this whole matter. I also asked them to investigate the question of making more use of Coloured women as hotel attendants, and they undertook to do that. I also raised the question of better housing for Coloured waiters, the question of transport to their homes and the question of providing better facilities for Coloured hotel attendants during the course of the day. There ought to be rest rooms for them at the hotel. Perhaps a few hotels here in Sea Point or wherever may join hands in providing a single rest room equipped with recreation facilities for Coloured attendants so that they need not sit on pavements with bottles of Coca-cola in their hands. This matter will be investigated by them.

May I just ask the hon. the Minister whether he intends to make the same provision for commercial and industrial workers?

At present I am dealing specifically with the plea made by the hon. member for Boland, who spoke about hotel attendants.

But will the same apply to industrial and commercial concerns?

As the hon. member knows, factories on the whole have cafeterias where they supply food to their workers at a very reasonable price. Here in the Cape I have already visited various factories which have fine cafeterias where their workers can buy a balanced meal for 7½c, which is as reasonable as one can expect it to be, and that system will of course continue. We are continually encouraging the provision of these facilities. Whenever I meet employers at congresses, I go out of my way to appeal to them to supply their workers with food as well, for if a worker has eaten well, he can do better work. It is a voluntary gesture which we do not want to prescribe by means of legislation, but I think that it is something which ought to be done by the industrialists.

The hon. member for Brakpan also referred to the workmen’s compensation department and said that it sometimes took a relatively long time before claims were paid out. I just want to point out that the workmen’s compensation department is in the same position as many other departments; it is also struggling with staff problems; it is not fully staffed, but they do at any rate see to it that claims are settled as quickly as possible. At any rate, if the hon. member has any complaints in this regard, he should not hesitate to submit them either to me or to the Department.

Then the plea was made here that we should provide the relatives of people who are at rehabilitation centres with travel facilities. This is a matter one can treat sympathetically, but I am afraid that it does not fall within the scope of the accident fund at all. The accident fund bears the cost of these rehabilitation centres to a large extent. The provision of travel facilities to the relatives of these persons does not fall within the scope of the Act, and if one were to grant that, one would subsequently find people in ordinary hospitals also claiming that their relatives should be provided with travelling expenses, and so forth, so as to enable them to visit patients at hospitals. Therefore I am afraid that I shall not be able to accommodate the hon. member for Brakpan in this regard.

In regard to the unemployment insurance fund the hon. member for Langlaagte pointed out that workers were not always aware of all the benefits. As the hon. member knows, there is a printed pamphlet in which the benefits of the unemployment insurance fund are set out, and the Act stipulates that employers should display them prominently in their places of work. Apart from that the benefits are also printed on the pay envelopes. In that way these benefits are in fact brought to the notice of the workers, but, surely, it is also the task of the trade unions to bring the benefits to the notice of the workers. I really think that the State cannot do more than to print the pamphlets and to compel employers to display them in their places of work. We cannot force people to read the pamphlets.

I shall now deal with the questions put to me by the hon. member for Yeoville. He wants to know what my labour policy is or what the Government’s labour policy is. It was a rather interesting question. It made me wonder why such a question was being asked at this stage. Perhaps it is because the United Party is so rapidly becoming National nowadays that the hon. member wants to make sure that we are still sufficiently National to his liking. At any rate, it is a pleasure to me to comply with his request, namely that I should tell him on what basic matters we take a stand. In view of the limited time I shall state them as briefly as possible. I think that our first great task, if one wants to view it within the framework of our policy, is to afford everybody in this country a livelihood, whether he is a White person or a Bantu or a Coloured or an Indian, and to achieve that, not only the co-operation of the Department of Labour is needed. These questions I was asked do not only cover the Department of Labour; they cover every facet of the Government. When I say that it is our task to afford people a livelihood, the question is how one should afford them that. This Government saw that its course lay in the direction of major development of the country, major industrial development. That has been achieved. The industrial development which has been effected over the past 18 years, has had the effect that we do not have enough people at present to do all the work. Its effect is that we really do not have unemployment in this country. Our rate of unemployment is expressed in a percentage of .9, which, according to international standards, amounts to no unemployment. In that respect we have succeeded in affording our people a livelihood.

But a second factor which is connected with this, is to afford people opportunities for work, but then one should also see to it that the people who do the work, receive a living wage. I shall not repeat what I said in my first speech, namely that as far as unskilled workers were concerned, the Bantu who could not belong to trade unions, the Wage Board saw to it that they received wages which placed the Bantu worker in a more favourable position than was the case in any other part of Africa, a position which even compared favourably with workers in Europe. In that respect, too, the Government therefore has nothing to worry about. As far as White and Coloured workers are concerned, we believe in the maintenance of the negotiation machinery and the right of a worker and his trade union to negotiate in regard to conditions of service. We stand by this principle from the very beginning. It is a principle which forms an inherent part of our entire labour legislation, namely to grant the worker and his trade union the right to negotiate for the conditions they want, and as a result of that we have in this country to-day 174 registered trade unions which represent 600,000 workers. When the hon. member expresses his concern about the interference with the negotiation machinery, I want to tell him that he can sleep very peacefully to-night, because we have 141 industrial council agreements which are in force at the moment. As I said a short while ago, hardly a day goes by without some industrial agreement or other being submitted to us for approval, which proves that this Government fully acknowledges that right of our workers to negotiate. When I say that, it is based on the principle which this Government has always upheld, namely that a labourer is worthy of his hire.

The third principle is that we believe that no stone should be left unturned to develop our available manpower to the utmost. I am not going to elaborate on that now. On many occasions in the past we elaborated on the development of our manpower and what we were doing to train the potential manpower by means of technical training at school and what we were doing to give them subsequent training, be it here at Westlake or at other places. Provision is being made for them in all spheres, and to prevent overlapping in times of stress, the machinery has been set in motion for the purpose of co-ordinating this manpower in projects, under the guidance of the Department of Education, Arts and Science.

But the fourth principle on which our industrial policy is based, is the maintenance of industrial peace in the country. One can only have development in a country if one’s workers are satisfied and happy and feeling secure. If they must be afraid of being kicked out of their work to-morrow, one cannot have a contented labour market and one cannot maintain productivity of any quality worth mentioning. I think we can be tested against this one figure I am going to mention now, namely that in the past year there have only been four strikes in this country in which Whites were involved. I am just thinking how European countries are envying South Africa its industrial peace, and we have that as a result of our industrial legislation and as a result of our negotiation machinery, but they are not the only factors responsible for this industrial peace. When dealing with various race groups —and I shall presently give a definite reply to that, because the hon. member for Yeoville wanted to know what the position of the Bantu was and how they were integrated—when dealing with four different race groups, the Whites, the Bantu, the Indians and the Coloureds, it is a tremendous task for the Government to make its labour arrangements in such a way that both clashes and friction are eliminated among those four groups, because such friction gives rise to strikes and chaos. The fact that we have industrial peace in this country can be attributed not only to the factors I have just mentioned, but also to the machinery this Government has established for the purpose of eliminating those points of friction. The machinery to which I am referring, is the job reservation machinery. The hon. member need have no worries in regard to job reservation. Ministers may come or go, but this remains one of the fundamental corner-stones of the National policy. We regard this job reservation as one of the prime requisites for our labour peace and policy.

How many workers are affected by that?

Strange as it may seem —and this is rather interesting—it is a fact that only 5 per cent of the actual labour market is affected by that, but even though it affects only 5 per cent, that machinery is there to prescribe the entire labour pattern in the country. When any sphere is threatened in any way, this job reservation machinery is there to be set in motion. The hon. member need not have any fear that, if a case is submitted to me where Whites or Coloureds are being ousted from their employment by another group with a lower standard of civilization, we shall hesitate to make this job reservation machinery applicable to that sphere as well. Because this is so, and because employers know this—and they respect this machinery as a whole, even though they may perhaps not be very fond of it—we have in this country a pattern according to which this machinery works. It is no use saying, as the hon. member did, that we have granted exemptions. Certain exemptions have been granted in respect of certain measures, but we need not apologize for having done so. On the contrary, when this measure was introduced, we said that job reservation would be applied without disrupting the economy of the country. If there are not enough Whites to do a certain job, surely, it will be foolish of me to prevent non-Whites from doing that work. The hon. member referred to non-Whites who entered the Railway Service and other spheres of employment; that is so. We are not opposed to non-Whites receiving better opportunities for work. On the contrary, we are doing everything in our power to create better opportunities for work, and this is also the reply to the hon. member for Boland who pleaded for more opportunities for work for the Coloureds. Our entire upliftment campaign is aimed at creating more and better opportunities for work for the Coloureds as well, in their own areas as well as in our own society, i.e. in their own areas on the one hand, and, on the other hand, in our own general society. However, what is important, Mr. Chairman, is that in spite of the fact that non-Whites are at present doing work which was previously done by Whites, it was not attended with shocks, it was not attended with strikes or chaos. That is to the credit of this job reservation machinery. Job reservation is that means …

It is to the credit of the trade unions.

Yes, to the credit of the trade unions as well. I am also giving credit to them, because job reservation is applied in a manner according to which we consult the trade unions, seek their opinions and obtain their co-operation. We have had their cooperation to such an extent that one of the determinations to which the hon. member for Yeoville referred, viz. that in respect of the engineering industry which is one of the largest industries, was set aside. Why? Because the trade unions asked us to set it aside, since they would see to it that the pattern of job reservation was applied in the engineering industry. This is co-operation which we have and which we appreciate and with which we shall always continue in order to maintain this pattern.

It is U.P. policy to arrange matters through the trade unions.

Yes, of course we consult the trade unions in this matter. But there are also other trade unions—such as those from which hon. members on the other side so often obtain their information, viz. the people of the Trade Union Council—which are not very fond of this. The Trade Union Council and its subsidiary unions do not co-operate in this regard. It is at such times that this Government often has to act according to its own common sense in matters which are in the interest of the worker but not in the interest of the Trade Union Council. I want to continue by referring to the accusation made by the hon. member for Yeoville that we are allowing too many Bantu to enter the White areas, that our entire labour pattern has been disturbed and that we have become quite weak in the course of this year. That is a complete error of judgment, Mr. Chairman. I have here statistics indicating the labour composition as regards artisans in 1959 and in 1965. It is important to note the following. In 1959, 88.4 per cent of the artisans were Whites. In 1965, the percentage was 87.3. The percentage of White artisans has therefore virtually remained constant. I think that it is an amazing achievement for this Government that, in spite of the phenomenal industrial development we have undergone, it has succeeded in maintaining this labour pattern as far as artisans are concerned. As far as operators and semi-skilled workers are concerned, the position is different. In 1959, the percentage of Whites was 24.5. That has fallen to 15.7 per cent in 1965.

That does not mean a thing.

It does mean something. It means that we who are often accused of being unwilling to afford non-Whites opportunities for better employment, want to afford non-Whites those opportunities which they can utilize and which they deserve. That is not something of which we are ashamed. However, we want to afford these opportunities in such a manner that we may have industrial peace in this country. We have succeeded in affording the non-Whites those opportunities and maintaining industrial peace in this country at the same time. However, that is not the only factor in regard to our labour policy. The hon. member and hon. members who spoke after him, referred to our border areas development and wanted to know what our actual policy was in that regard. It astonishes one sometimes that one has to deal with such Rip van Winkels. How many times has the object of border area development not been stated in this House? In the first place we want to prevent our White cities from being completely surrounded by large Black masses. We want to divert the Black workers to their own areas so that they may work there and not have to concentrate around Cape Town and Johannesburg. We want to feed those Black areas from outside, whether it is the Transkei or whether it is Zululand, and give them an economic injection by means of the wages their people can earn in these border industries. And now I have been asked: What about the Bantu workers employed in those border industries? To what extent are we going to train them? The Bantu workers in the border industries—be it Cyril Lord’s of East London, Cape of Good Hope Textiles of King William’s Town or the Rosslyn factories—are perhaps afforded greater opportunities for training than the Bantu in the metropolitan areas. And it is good that it is so. The Bantu who are being trained there to do semi-skilled labour —the figures I mentioned a short while ago included these Bantu—are the people who must form the nucleus of the industries which must be established in those Bantu homelands themselves in the future. Surely, making money available to industries, in the Transkei for instance, by means of the Bantu Investment Corporation, is of no use, if the necessary Bantu are not available for doing the work there. Last year when I was in Umtata, it struck me—the hon. member for Transkei will be thoroughly familiar with the few factories there, the furniture factory and the textile mill, for instance—how they were struggling to establish a labour corps which would eventually be stable. That is one of their major problems there, namely that they do not have a stable, permanent labour corps. The border industries can be instrumental in placing on a sound footing those industries which will be established in the Bantu areas in the future, and in shaping them into that economic force this Government has envisaged them to become.

The last factor constituting our policy, is to stand by the worker in times of unemployment and illness. I am not going to elaborate here, on the unemployment insurance fund. You are familiar with that from the reports. I can only tell you that under our Government this fund has developed to such an extent that it covers 1,140,000 workers to-day. That fund has been built up into a strong insurance fund which is worth R127,000,000 to-day. It is an assurance greater than workers in this country have ever had. They have never had such an assurance, such a protection, such an insurance. One must give one’s workers the feeling that, if they do their best and work very hard, they will be protected in times of illness and in times of unemployment. And that is what this Government is doing. In conclusion I want to say that our attitude, and more specifically my attitude as the new Minister of Labour, is to continue with the work in exactly the same manner as it was done by my predecessors. In the continuation of their work, I shall always regard myself as the intercessor for the worker in this country, to help him so that he may safeguard his standard of living in this country—whether it is the White worker whose standard of living is being safeguarded, or whether it is the Coloured worker whose standard of living has to be safeguarded in this country. I shall always endeavour to be an intercessor for them, because I believe that labour is and remains the cornerstone on which a country must base its entire strength, its progress and its happiness. Because this is so, I shall devote and dedicate my energies to this great cause.

Mr. Chairman, we all listened to the hon. the Minister with very great interest and attentiveness. It was very interesting to see with how much enthusiasm and exceptional conviction—of which we were particularly appreciative, as I shall indicate— he put his case. We therefore find it very regrettable that he did not reply to the question we asked him. He gave us a brilliant reply which dealt with his Government’s labour policy for an economically integrated community such as South Africa is to-day and as it is seen by the United Party. Virtually everything he told us, with one minor exception, was an application of United Party policy by means of United Party legislation. The Unemployment Insurance Act is a United Party Act; the Industrial Conciliation Act is a General Smuts Act dating back to the old “SAP” days; the Workmen’s Compensation Act is a United Party Act. Even the work which is being done to decentralize the industries, as the hon. members call it so euphemistically, namely transferring industries to the border areas, is mainly being done by the Industrial Development Corporation which was established by the United Party. I repeat that the hon. the Minister has given us a very interesting exposition of the way in which the present Government is applying the United Party’s policy to a United Party South Africa. But, Mr. Chairman, we are waiting in vain for a reply to the pointed question which is important to South Africa in view of the declared policy of the Government in power. Briefly, the question we asked was this: What is the future role in South Africa of the hundreds of thousands of Natives who are working in the White areas of our country? [Interjections.] We want to ask: What is the future role of the anticipated hundreds of thousands of Natives who will be working in border industries in White South Africa? We received no reply to that. We asked the hon. the Minister in what respect …

But what do you mean by the “role”?

Apparently the hon. the Minister was not here this afternoon. I spent half an hour and later another ten minutes on describing and defining that “role”. That is the trouble with this hon. Government. The present Minister of Labour and one of his predecessors who is Minister of Transport at present, once again prove the truth of the old Biblical proverb that none is so deaf as he who will not hear. How can the hon. the Minister tell me that he does not know what is meant by the “role” of these people, while the Government is very emphatically telling us that these people will have to be moved out of South Africa. The Government tells us very emphatically that their presence here is in conflict with the concept of separate development or development along their own lines. We just want to know until such time as they can be moved away, and that is never …

But the Government has never said that. That is ridiculous.

I am very glad and I hope the hon. the Minister of Transport remains here, because he is helping me a very great deal. By way of two interjections the hon. the Minister has now contradicted the entire speech the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration made before Sabra in Pretoria a few days ago. [Interjections.] That is our difficulty. It is the same view I took here this afternoon. The Government and the Ministers of the Government contradict one another in every speech they make. [Interjections.] Then we are asked to state an alternative policy. [Interjections.]

Order!

An alternative policy presupposes that there is an original policy against which an alternative policy can be stated. How can we state an alternative policy against something which does not exist?

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Certainly.

Is the hon. member suggesting that one member of this Government said that every Bantu worker in the White cities had to be removed? Is that what he means?

No, they did not say that. What they said very explicitly was that they had to play an ever-diminishing role in the economy of South Africa. They said that very emphatically and mentioned a date, namely that as from 1978 the flow would have to be reversed to the reserves. [Interjections.] But now I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Transport a question. Can he tell me now that that statement made by members of the Government, namely that the influx of these people from the reserves had to be stemmed and that the flow had to be reversed to the reserves as from 1978, is not Government policy?

It is Government policy.

The charge I am making iis that in his reply to the debate the Minister of Labour has so far neither told us anything nor given us any explanation as to what social and political position—they can omit the word “role”—these people will occupy in White South Africa from generation to generation. [Interjections.]

May I ask the hon. member a question? I want to know from the hon. member whether he is explaining to us that they are now becoming “Nat” and we “Sap”.

That I shall become a “Nat” is improbable. I am too intelligent for that. That the hon. the Whip may become a “Sap” is impossible. He does not have sufficient intelligence for that. What the hon. Government does not realize is that over the past ten years they have allowed more than 1,000,000 new Native workers into our cities. This process will continue until 1978. Then it will be stemmed. Then they will start returning. In other words, it will then take at least another 40 to 50 years before they are back where they were in 1948 as far as labour relations in South Africa are concerned. [Interjection.] It will take us up to the year 2000 at least before our labour relations return to what they were in 1948. And in 1948 they intimidated the nation with tales about the dangers of integration. About all these things we do not hear a word from the Minister of Labour. And it is his concern and that of his Department to regulate these labour relations in South Africa. He did not say a word as to what their policy will be in regard to the formation of trade unions and the establishment of trade unions in the reserves. At what stage of development towards independence will the Natives in the reserves be allowed to establish their own trade unions?

Nobody prevents that at present. You do not know your legislation.

The hon. the Minister of Transport was absent again when we conducted this debate to-day. The point is as follows. At present, under the Industrial Conciliation Act a Native is not recognized in terms of the definition of an employee.

That is correct, but he is not prevented from establishing a trade union.

Of course not. You say that. We are talking about Native trade unions with a view to collective bargaining. And that is what I asked the hon. the Minister of Labour. But we are still waiting for a reply. And the hon. the Minister of Transport cannot help him. He cannot because there is no reply. At what stage will the Natives of the reserves be allowed to establish trade unions in terms of the Industrial Conciliation Act? We asked the hon. the Minister, but he did not reply. Are they going to try to enter into a treaty with the Transkei when it becomes independent, in order to prevent the Transkei from establishing trade unions which may negotiate in the border industries? We have not received a reply to that to-night. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend commenting on the hon. member for Yeoville’s remarkable display of political opportunism. I only want to say that I did not know that we had two Ministers of Labour in this House, one a United Party Minister and the other a National Party Minister. I intend, however, getting my labour policy from my own Nationalist Minister of Labour.

I am glad that at this stage of the debate I am in a position to raise a question in which I am very interested, namely the position in the labour market of our physically handicapped people, a section of our population which is very much forgotten. I have in my constituency the well-known Avalon Association which does a sterling job in rehabilitating these forgotten people. The history of Avalon is well known. It was started as a small undertaking in Tulbagh in the Cape many years ago by the late Murrough Nesbitt. When he died it was moved to Turffontein where it was placed under the supervision of the well-known Sister Susie Oosthuizen, who did outstanding work in rehabilitating these people.

Avalon’s purpose is not only a question of providing a roof over the heads of those unfortunate paraplegics. Its main purpose is to retrain them and to provide them with a new purpose in life, to bring them back on their own feet in the midst of life and to provide new occupations for them in the labour market in order to serve a useful purpose again. Avalon is not a charitable institution. It is in the first place, as I have said, a centre of rehabilitation for these handicapped people. And I want to point out to the hon. the Minister and I am sure that he will agree with me, that they have in many instances contributed to a remarkable degree in easing the position on the open labour market. The present superintendent of Avalon, Mr. Viljoen, tells me that there is a keen demand for the services of these physically handicapped people. In these days of manpower shortage which the country is experiencing, I am quite sure that the absorption of more and more paraplegics into the labour market could contribute [substantially towards solving the problem of our manpower shortage.

I also want to say that I think the Avalon Association has already proved itself over and over again by the outstanding work it has been doing in the past in rehabilitating these paraplegics. They come from all over South Africa. I may add that the Avalon Association is the only White institution of its kind in South Africa. I want to quote one example of the way in which this institution has proved itself. I want to mention the unique achievements these people have had in the sphere of paraplegic sporting endeavour. I want to point out that four out of the eight paraplegic Springboks who recently went to compete at the Stoke Mandeville world games at which altogether 20 nations competed, came from Avalon and they won eight of the 13 gold medals. The residents of Avalon also hold a number of world records. Up to now Avalon has sustained itself mostly by means of “Operation Bootstrap”. Up to now it has derived its revenue mainly from public sources, such as street collections. This entails an enormous amount of work which falls mainly on the shoulders of a small administrative staff many of whom are themselves physically handicapped people.

I humbly want to submit to the Minister that the time has now arrived where they will not be able for much longer to continue their monumental work in the interests of these people by means only of public donations and public collections every year. As a matter of fact, this association has since April this year showed a constant loss to the extent of about R1,500 a month. I am assured two-thirds of the inhabitants of Avalon can be placed in useful work if more funds can be obtained so that the association will be enabled to buy the necessary vehicles for transporting these paraplegics to places of employment, many of these places of employment being up to 30 or 40 miles away from Avalon. Avalon also urgently needs a visiting medical doctor as well as more trained personnel in the form of nurses, sisters and occupational therapists.

I should, therefore, like to ask the Minister whether he could not investigate the possibility of giving to this association a substantial annual grant or subsidy. Such a public-spirited organization as this deserves assistance. It is, as I have said, the only institution of its kind for White paraplegics in South Africa and as such it is rendering a service not only locally but also on a nation-wide scale to the whole community. Therefore I should like to make this urgent plea to the hon. the Minister if it is at all possible to assist this deserving case.

The hon. member for Turffontein very eloquently pleaded the case of Avalon and in that we support him.

Earlier in this discussion the hon. member for Yeoville quoted certain figures to show the interdependence which exists in so far as our non-White labour is concerned. These figures were queried by the hon. member for Krugersdorp. When the hon. the Minister replied he too quoted certain interesting statistics and showed that as far as artisans were concerned the percentage had more or less stabilized itself. But he also indicated that as far as ordinary workers were concerned the ratio had changed. Artisans, of course, constitute a relatively small percentage of the total work force. Hence the argument of the hon. member for Yeoville is still a very valid one. One wonders whether the hon. member for Krugersdorp is not in the same position as the gentleman who said “I have made up my mind. Do not give me the facts. That will merely confuse me”.

Referring to the Minister’s reply, I want to say that the third point which he made is a very important one. That is where he discussed the importance of the development of our manpower. I think it is true to say that of the many problems with which the hon. Minister has to contend the technical training and development of skilled manpower is probably one of the most important. It is true, too, that at the moment his Department is doing a tremendous amount of work in this field. Every year, for instance, we see new improvements in regard to the training of apprentices and other categories. In an attempt to be constructive, I should like to put before the hon. the Minister certain proposals which I think ought to assist in making this training more effective.

I think it is true to say that training in South Africa is more difficult than in many other places in the world and I think there are important reasons for that. To begin with, we have now got to what the economists call the “post-take-off stage”. We are industrializing rapidly. Every week new factories are being established and the general cry for skilled manpower is growing all the time. The only way in which we can meet this demand is to accelerate training. Our problem is also a difficult one—and in a sense a unique one because ordinarily it is understood that in any community there is only a small percentage— it is usually set at about 20 to 25 per cent— who possess the basic ability to function effectively in the higher skilled ranks. Because our community is not a homogeneous one, and because some of our non-White groups have not yet reached the necessary degree of development, what we are at the present moment trying to do in this country, is to supply these higher level skills not just for a population of 3,000,000 but for one nearly six times this size. Hence the demand for skilled manpower in our case is very much greater than it is anywhere else in the world and the only way in which we can conceivably meet it is by means of better directed training.

A considerable amount of training is being done at the moment but the difficulty is that some organizations do this training while others do not. Those that do undertake training, invest large sums of money in their training but as soon as they have completed their training filching takes place because those who have not undertaken any training entice these trained people away by more lucrative offers. A typical example of this is the apprenticeship training scheme at Iscor. The millwrights that are being trained there are probably the best in South Africa. They are sought after. The moment they have been trained Iscor loses a very large percentage of them because they are enticed away by other concerns.

How can we overcome this problem? How can we compensate those who do train and encourage those who do not? Like in many other fields of life the best incentive probably is the monetary one. Here one then thinks in terms of a system of training levies and training grants. The mechanism I suggest here is a simple one. In countries where it does operate all they do is to introduce a training levy on all organizations. This is usually a fixed percentage of an organization’s total salaries and wages account and is usually less than 1 per cent of that account. This levy is then paid into certain central training funds and is used for three objectives: Firstly, to meet any administrative charges in connection with the running of the training scheme; secondly, to finance new training ventures; and, thirdly, to pay grants to organizations that do undertake training. At the end of the year all organizations come and report what they have done and depending on that they are then paid a grant. In this way they very often recoup the training levy they had to pay. In this way they are also encouraged to proceed with their training, while those who do not undertake any training themselves feel that they are financing training. This encourages them as well.

But to do this there must clearly be certain administrative machinery. The usual idea is to establish certain training boards. There are two ways of doing this. You can create a training board for each group of artisans, such as plumbers, engineers and electricians, or you can— and this is probably a more realistic approach —create a training board for each major industry—for engineering, for example, or for iron and steel. These boards should be appointed by the hon. the Minister of Labour and their functions should be to advise how training could be improved in each particular industry. Their main weapons are of course the levy and the grant. Normally these boards will consist of volunteers and as such will not meet more often than once a month, so that there is no question of payment involved. There are three important groups of people who should be represented on this type of training board: the major employers, the employees through their recognized staff associations or trade unions and the Department of Labour itself, which would act as watchdog for the Minister. If this is to be a voluntary body then it will be necessary to have some small permanent element as well. Here one thinks in terms of a small secretariat and, possibly, a small inspectorate. The inspectors will go round and actually investigate in order to report what stage of training has been reached. In a system like this it is clear that certain points of friction might arise, more particularly in regard to the grants. Consequently, it might be necessary to appoint one or more tribunals to investigate claims, adjudicate on them and advise the Minister.

I believe that much of this can be done voluntarily and administratively. I cannot plead for new legislation because you, Mr. Chairman, will then rule me out of order. It will, however, be permissible to say that in Britain the Industrial Training Act was passed in 1964, an Act which is being regarded as a model for legislation in this particular field and is as such being copied in America as well as in Europe.

The hon. member for Hillbrow must pardon me if I do not follow up on his interesting argument. The hon. Minister will best know how to react to that.

On behalf of our subsidized workers, that group of workers who, through no fault of their own, are physically unable to compete in the open labour market for work, I want to express my thanks towards the Government and municipalities for their continued attempts to provide these people with a livelihood, and by so doing to give them a feeling of self-reliance, something which means a great deal to them and to their families.

However, there are two small requests I should like to make on behalf of this group. In the first instance there is the fact that persons in this group who are older than 65 years of age, are only in exceptional cases taken into consideration for subsidized work. The first request I want to make therefore, is whether the maximum age of subsidized workers cannot be increased to 70 years, with the possibility that after that each case, provided they are physically strong enough and provided there is work available will be judged on its merits. From time to time it comes to our attention that there are people who, although they are physically unable to compete in the open labour market, are nevertheless able to perform useful services in a supervisory capacity. However, these people are disqualified for further work because they are older than 70 years of age.

In the second place I wonder whether the restrictions on pensioners cannot be lifted. By that means we can make it possible for that group of workers, such as mine workers for example, who have to retire at a relatively low age, to supplement their pensions, particularly because some of these people still have young children for whom they have to care. That ought then to enable them to make a decent living.

I want to give the hon. the Minister the assurance that if these requests can be complied with it will be a useful investment which the Government will be making.

After listening to the hon. the Minister explaining his policy in regard to job reservation, it has become quite clear to us that as far as job reservation is concerned, as it is emanating from his side of the House, it is purely and simply a paper policy. He will alter it as and when circumstances arise. That he has admitted. But the hon. the Minister ought to know very well that with the development of our industrial areas, at the tempo at which this development is taking place, more and more exemptions will have to be granted. If, at the same time, he is going to improve border industries, as he is attempting to do, all that I can see coming from that is that there will be exemptions of a higher grade in the border industries because he will not be able to fill the vacancies occurring there as a result of the increasing shortage of skilled workers in the White areas. At the same time he will have semi-skilled or untrained persons whom he shall have to make into skilled workers. His whole job reservation plan will go topsy-turvy. The hon. the Minister wants to do two things at the same time. In the first place he wants to move industries from large cities to the border areas and at the same time he is trying to stop the influx of Bantu labour. But all he is doing is drawing a thin white line of White workers in White owned industry against a very heavy black concentration of workers from Bantustans. That is all he is doing. He is not solving the problem but is only taking it from one area and putting it in another. Thereby he is causing untold hardships to persons in certain areas because they have to move to other areas. I cannot see how he is solving the problem of the influx of Black labour into our towns merely by moving industries to border areas. The more industries he has in the border areas, the larger the towns there will become. All he will be doing is to create a Johannesburg with its Soweto in a border area. That is all he is doing. He might as well leave the Johannesburgs with their Sowetos where they are to carry on as they do now. The hon. the Minister of Transport plunged into the debate by means of an interjection while the hon. member for Yeoville was speaking.

It was a very well put question.

He wanted to know where there was any difference of opinion in his ranks. The hon. member for Yeoville gave me a translation of what was said in this connection by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. This is what he said—

That was said by the hon. the Minister at the congress of Sabra in Pretoria last week.

There are one or two other matters with which I want to deal in the short space of time still available to me. Firstly, I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the Workmen’s Compensation Fund. The hon. the Minister will know that this fund has R50,500,000 standing to its credit at the present moment in comparison with R38,000,000 in 1964, i.e. a difference of approximately R12,000,000. This fund is there to meet demands upon it as a result of accidents sustained by workmen. The Minister must now realize that he cannot just continue building up this fund without any limit whatsoever. The workers who are injured in the course of their work deserve better compensation than they are getting at the present moment. The rate of compensation was fixed years ago. I cannot see any danger of this fund being exhausted. I cannot see a sudden epidemic of accidents coming which will appreciably reduce this fund. As a matter of fact, the demand on the fund is relatively constant. During 1964 this fund paid out R7,500,000 in comparison with R8.500,000 in 1965. In that period, however, he collected something like R7,000,000. This fund is, therefore, growing and I think the time has come where an injured workman should get a little more for the injuries he sustained than he is getting at the moment. I should like the hon. Minister to alter the entire method of compensation. I am not satisfied with the way in which it is being given at the moment. For instance, I think the time has come where an injured workman can be attended to by his own private doctor but compensation should no longer be determined through the passing of forms from one person to another. For that there must be a body of people trained in industrial medicine who should determine compensation on examination.

What happens to-day? A man loses his finger and he is paid so much for its amputation. It makes no difference whether the man is an artist, a piano player or an artisan, if he loses his finger, so much he will get for it. The time has come where each case should be treated differently and where every workman may have to be treated differently. If that means that a higher rate of insurance should be paid against injury, then it should be done. But I cannot see how it is possible to compensate people the way in which the hon. the Minister is doing it at the moment. No wonder this fund is growing. He is not paying out enough money to these people, and not only is he not paying out enough but he is too slow in paying out what has to be paid out. The hon. the Minister ought to know what it means to an injured workman when he is no longer capable of earning a proper living and has to wait for his compensation money to come to him while being in some cases without a cent in the home for months. This has got to be stopped. Some ways and means have to be found for compensation payments to be carried to the injured person much quicker than it is being done at present, and the amount of compensation too must be increased.

Another aspect is that there is at the present moment an amount of nearly R82,000 unclaimed in this fund. What is the Minister doing with this money? What efforts is he making to trace the injured workmen, who apparently have claimed but have never been paid out? I asked this same question a couple of years ago but I did not get a satisfactory reply then either. Something must be done to find these injured workmen so that they can be paid out this amount of money, and not only the amount which was originally granted to them but the amount concerned plus interest for the time the Government has been using it.

The hon. member for Brentwood and the hon. member for Brakpan raised two very important matters. I think the way in which the inspectorate is functioning at the moment is not satisfactory. For example there are the asbestos workers who are fitted with masks but the report on it says that these workers are using these masks “reasonably well”. That I think is a ridiculous state of affairs. I say that if a man cannot properly use a mask in a dangerous occupation such as this he ought to be fined in order to protect him against exposing himself to the dangers of getting cancer of the lungs. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Rosettenville raised a matter which I also want to raise, namely the unclaimed compensation in the Workmen’s Compensation Fund. I wish to raise this particularly with reference to African workmen who were injured in the course of their work and therefore entitled to this compensation. I asked the hon. the Minister a question on this earlier this Session. There is a considerable amount of unclaimed money lying to the credit of the Workmen’s Compensation Fund. Something more should be done, particularly as far as workers of this type are concerned, to inform these people what their rights are under the law. Most of them do not read Government Gazettes—in fact, I would say that 99 per cent of them never consult Government Gazettes and do not know when they are entitled to compensation. I think the fund can take the simple step of advertising these claims in newspapers which are widely read by Africans. I believe this is one way of tackling the matter. Furthermore, it should be the policy in factories to acquaint the workers with the rights they have under the law.

The other point I want to raise is the question of wage board determinations and I should like to warn the hon. the Minister to see to it that these determinations are not allowed to lag too far behind to constant rises in the cost of living index. We have had the experience in South Africa that during a certain period of 14 years, wages in the unskilled occupations, occupations carrying wages as low as, as it was then, from £2 to £3 per week and not much more even to-day, remained unchanged while cost of living rose and the value of money dropped considerably. This happened to the dissatisfaction of the huge body of workers in unskilled occupations, people who in any case were living below the poverty datum line and thus being subject to malnutrition, tuberculosis and other diseases. Consequently I hope this hon. Minister is going to see to it that there are frequent and recurrent examinations into the whole question of wage board determinations for the unskilled occupations in South Africa.

I do not wish to follow the political line of jeering at the Government because more non-Whites have entered semi-skilled occupations in this country. I believe that this is one of the good things which has happened in South Africa. There are not very many good things for which I can commend the Government. Perhaps these things are happening despite the Government even. The Government could perhaps have used its powers to try and prevent this from happening but has not done so. Personally I am very glad that it has not happened and that non-Whites are increasingly being used in semi-skilled occupations in this country. I believe this is the way in which to ensure prosperity in South Africa since thereby our internal market is expanded by the creation of a larger consumer body capable of absorbing the product of our manufacturing industry. Our whole future is going to depend upon increasing our production of manufactured goods, particularly as we know that the top level of the production of gold has been reached and is likely from now on to start decreasing. Consequently it is in the manufacturing field to which South Africa is going to have to look for the maintenance of standards of living. This depends on the international market which in turn depends upon the vast majority of our population, i.e. the non-Whites. Therefore the more we can train people and absorb them into semi-skilled occupations, the more we can persuade White trade unionists that it is in their interests as well to allow non-Whites to come into jobs which should be reclassified in order to permit their entry, the better it will be for the future of this country.

I do not therefore make political capital out of this; I am delighted that it is happening and I only wish that it would happen faster than it is happening. The same applies, as far as I am concerned, to this question of increased numbers of Africans in the urban areas of this country. I see no great profit for anybody in South Africa in keeping millions of Africans locked up in unproductive or semi-productive occupations, either in the reserves or even in White rural areas. Again I see the future prosperity of this country completely identified with the increasing use, to better advantage, of our available labour resources, White and non-White. I am glad that this is going to happen and it will happen despite anything that the Government does and despite any political capital which anybody might wish to make out of the fact that this is happening because, fortunately for South Africa, economics in this country is stronger than politics and that has perhaps been the thing which has saved South Africa. Despite all efforts these changes are taking place and the faster they take place and the greater the extent to which they take place, I believe the better for this country.

Sir, I want to say that surely the Government must realize, when it still repeats this magic formula of 1978, that we are already half-way to that date, from the time it was first propounded, which was in the report of the Tomlinson Commission, which was produced roundabout 1956. From 1956 to 1978 is a matter of 22 years and nearly 11 years have already elapsed since the publication of that report, so I think the Government should start re-thinking its ultimate aims in terms of labour policy if it still hopes that by 1978 there will be a reversal of the flow of labour to the urban areas back to the reserves. This is simply not going to happen and it is not going to be possible for us to rely on migratory labour as an alternative course for the simple reason that all the technological advances in South Africa go contrary to the utilization of migratory labour. If we are going to have technological advances in this country, as we will have to have, then we want labour that is more and better trained and in order to have more and better trained labour we must have stabilized labour and not labour which migrates from rural to urban industrial occupations, acquiring skills in neither of these occupations. I believe the Government should take a more realistic view, and I am not saying this with any desire to gain political advantage or with a view to having any form of political dialogue about this. I just believe that these are the economic facts of the situation in this country and it is absurd for us to try to place reliance on any other system, which just is not going to come about, and equally we are not going to be able to build up our industrial system on the basis of border industries. Industry goes where industry is required, and that is in the areas where the raw material is to be found, where the markets are to be found, where skilled labour is to be found and where power and transport are to be found. Those are the factors which determine where one locates one’s industry and not any of the policies or policy-making machinery that the Government can hope to apply. Sir, I ask the hon. the Minister to re-think his labour policy realistically and not to come back to the House with theories which he knows as well as I do are simply not going to work.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that the National Party Government has never been unduly taken up with theories. One cannot have the progress and the peace which we have in this country if one builds on academic theories. Only people who are rooted in reality can achieve the success which this Government has achieved.

I want to limit myself briefly to a few of the points which have been raised here. The hon. member need not be concerned about the Wage Board investigations. To-day 17 investigations are being made per year, in contrast to the seven which were being made in 1957, and those investigations sometimes cover 30 industries. She can rest assured that these unschooled workers are dealt with in investigations at least every three or four years. She can rest quite assured in regard to that matter.

As far as the unclaimed moneys in the Workmen’s Compensation Fund is concerned, the problem is that there is in fact an amount, but that amount, as a percentage, is a negligible one. It is only .6 per cent of the payments which are made and if one takes into consideration the fact that the Bantu population is a migratory part of the population then it is really an achievement that only .6 per cent has not been paid out. But we have nevertheless made a change in the system. Major employers have now been empowered to make the payment in the case of a permanent labour disability and they are afterwards compensated for that by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. This has been done precisely to be able to prevent non-payment.

The hon. member for Rosettenville made a plea here for improvement in the payments made out of the Compensation Fund. I can just give him the assurance that we are engaged in drafting a measure with a view to introducing those improvements, and we hope to be able to introduce legislation next year which will result in improved benefits for people who are covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Fund.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow that the matter of manpower training is being seriously tackled by the Government. I cannot elaborate now on all the steps which have already been taken, except to say that, as far as the employers are concerned, we cannot of course compel them to pay a levy for training purposes. Fortunately there are many of them who are already doing it willingly and we are grateful for that.

I then come to the hon. member for Springs who referred to 70-year-olds for whom sheltered work must be found. I just want to tell the hon. member that we must take into consideration the fact that 70-year-olds are of course already drawing old-age pension. As a rule they do not therefore qualify for subsidized labour. However, this rule is not being applied strictly. If there are people who can still work at the age of 70 years and who are still capable of doing labour, then they are in fact being taken into consideration very thoroughly. I want to tell the hon. member for Turffontein that Avalon does not fall under the Department of Labour. It is a private welfare organization. The Department of Labour of course finances the rehabilitation centre out of the Workmen’s Compensation Fund. That is where our responsibility lies and the same applies in the case of sheltered labour factories. Avalon will actually have to apply to the Department of Social Welfare and I shall be glad if the hon. member would encourage them to do so if they desire any grant from the State in that connection.

Then there is just a final remark arising from what the hon. member for Yeoville said. If Bantu workers establish trade unions in Bantu areas such as the Transkei, then the Republic does not have any say in the matter. Labour regulations have been transferred to the Transkei Government. With the exception of the administration of the Unemployment Insurance Fund and the Workmen’s Compensation Fund, the rest of the labour regulations have been transferred to the Transkeian Government, in the same way as it will also be transferred to all other Bantu areas which will become independent in the future. If the Bantu workers there want to establish Bantu trade unions and if the Transkeian Government wants to recognize those trade unions, then it is simply and solely their affair. We have nothing to say about it; it does not concern us.

With the right to strike of course?

Of course. If the Bantu workers in the Transkei want to establish a trade union and if the Transkeian Government recognizes the trade union and they have the right to strike, then it is of course their affair. We do not want to prescribe to them how they must regulate their trade unions. Why are we then recognizing this Bantu area as a state which is capable of making its own laws?

And in the border industries?

The border industries fall under the Republic of South Africa. The Cyril Lord factory in East London for example does not fall under the Transkei. The Bantu workers there are working in the Republic in a White area, and if they work in a White area then they must behave themselves in the same way as the Italians who are working in Swiss factories and who have to obey Swiss laws, are doing.

Although these people are working in Cyril Lord’s factory, is it not the idea that they must live in their own area?

That is correct.

Can they not establish a trade union there?

Surely a trade union is not a kind of civic society; they cannot live in the Transkei and establish a trade union there if they are working in a White area? Surely a trade union is centred around the site of the factory where one is working. Mr. Chairman, I am afraid that at this stage I cannot act as school master to hon. members on that side. If they have not yet acquired this elementary knowledge of the trade unions, then it is very late in the day for me to teach them about it now.

I just want to say a few words about the political aspect, because the hon. member for Yeoville was continually alluding to that. The standpoint of the Government is crystal clear. The Bantus living here in the White areas are not here as permanent inhabitants. At this stage that policy ought to be crystal clear to the hon. member. They are not here as permanent residents; they do not have any political rights here; they can go and exercise political rights in the Transkei. That is and remains the policy of this Government.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 50,—“Coloured Affairs”, R46,075,000. and Loan Vote P,—“Coloured

Affairs”, R5,018,000.

May I claim the privilege of the half-hour? Sir, I have listened with great interest to the debates which have taken place in connection with various Votes submitted for the approval of this Committee, and I would now like to put the point of view of the Coloured community in connection with the Vote which applies to them.

The first point I wish to deal with is the shortage of jobs by the year 1969. I mention that, Sir, because I believe that the time has come when the Government should stop kidding the public and get down to the facts as they are before us. I mention this simply in order to state the following fact: According to the economic development programme, which is drawn up by the committee which advises the hon. the Prime Minister, taking into account the number of immigrants coming into this country, i.e. 20,000 a year, and taking into account the efforts of the Government to move Bantu or Africans from the Republic into the reserves, the report states, that there will still be a shortage of 46,800 jobs which could or should be filled by Whites. I submit that the people who should fill those jobs are the Coloured people. After all, the Coloured people are with us; they belong with us and they are best qualified to fill these positions which are going to need filling. I want to say right away that we must not delude ourselves into thinking that the system of economic development in this country is going to evolve into any other system than a system, under which Coloured people will be integrated more and more into our industrial system. The whole history of the Coloured people and the whole history of this country is that Coloured persons are capable and competent and well-qualified to do these jobs. They are already doing so and they can do even better than they have done before, but we must first have a reservoir of personnel on whom we can draw. I therefore want to start right down at the bottom, namely with those who are the least privileged amongst the Coloured people. I refer to the Coloured persons on the platteland who through no fault of their own, find themselves confined to the small towns, of which there is a large number in this country. We have heard a tremendous amount of discussion in this House about the effects of the drought, but up to now, nobody has mentioned the welfare and the fate of the hundreds and thousands of Coloured people, who are affected by the drought, and who are gravitating to the small towns in the platteland, with no hope of a job, with no prospects and in most cases with no accommodation. We find that these people have little or no future and I ask the hon. the Minister to give his attention to them and to enable them to make headway and progress so that they can share in the wealth with which this country is so abundantly endowed and in opportunities offered in this country. The first thing we find is that there are no jobs for these people. Let it be said that the Department has sent a team consisting of a White and a Coloured man to the platteland to make some sort of survey as to the condition under which these people live. They are told that if they can only get to Cape Town there is plenty of work for them there, but unfortunately there is no housing for them there. We find that the policy of the Government and of the local authorities, especially the smaller ones, forces these people out into townships situated on the outskirts of the towns. In the main these people are occupying small two-roomed houses with no ceilings, no floors, no inside doors. I believe that unless the Government tackles this problem of the uplift of the Coloured people living in these houses in the platteland—there are many thousands of them; they stand in rows in every town in the Cape Province and particularly in the Karoo constituency—I think that their position will deteriorate to such an extent that they will become a most serious liability to the country and not an asset as they should be. I believe that we are dealing here with a sociological problem of tremendous magnitude, a problem which is growing and I see no effort by the Government to uplift these people. They are in the main illiterate and unskilled and they have no prospects and no future. I say that a sociological problem of tremendous magnitude is unfolding before our very eyes, because, what do we find? We find that a husband and wife with two or three children, in many cases adolescent children, boys and girls of the ages of 15, 16 and upwards, live together and sleep together in one room, usually on the floor, with water facilities provided by way of a stand pipe anything up to 500 ft. down the road, and with no washing or bathing facilities at all. I say that as a civilized community we cannot permit that sort of thing to continue. It can be said that these properties are better than some of the “afdakke” and the shanties that these people occupied before. They have been forced off the farms into these towns and they have nowhere to go and do not quite know what to do. Sir, we hear a tremendous amount of talk about separate development. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that the Government must stop kidding the public. The Coloured community cannot be expected to develop separately in a small township on the perimeters or on the outskirts of the 101 small townships in the Karoo, to speak only of that particular area; it is a physical impossibility. The whole economy of the Karoo as such revolves around farming, and I put it to the hon. the Minister that it is impossible for these people to follow any other calling or trade unless some provision is made for them to receive training. What we must do is to turn our attention to education. Let it be said that the Department is doing quite a bit—indeed a tremendous amount—in this connection. I do not want in any way to belittle the Department’s efforts, except to say that the bulk of the schools are primary schools. There are very few secondary (middelbare) or high schools. Sir, I wonder how many people realize that between Worcester and Steinkopf at the top end of Namaqualand, there is no secondary or high school, and the distance between Worcester and Steinkopf is 400 miles. The nearest high school on the east is at Calvinia; the next nearest high school is at Upington, and then you have high schools further east at Beaufort West and De Aar and, further east still, at Graaff-Reinet. These are the secondary schools, plus two at Kimberley and one at Vryburg. I ask the hon. the Minister in all fairness how he can propagate the myth, that these people can become anything other than hewers of wood and drawers of water, unless adequate educational facilities are provided for them? I find further, that in these primary schools there is a tremendous shortage of books. Let it be said that the Department does make some provision for books on the basis that the expenditure of last year is divided by the number of pupils and that that result is multiplied by the number of pupils in the new year. My information is that apart from readers, pencils and perhaps scribblers or writing material, text books are few and far between. In Natal and in the Transvaal, by contrast, books are provided free, and in the Free State a percentage is paid, amounting to about 25 per cent of,” I think. R3 in the case of primary schools and R8 in the case of secondary schools. Sir, the theme of my remarks is this: If the Government intends the Coloured man to take his rightful place, we should first of all educate and train him before we can ever talk about separating him from his White brothers. Because that is exactly what we are doing: We are putting the cart before the horse. We are separating these people, we are hurling them out of their homes in the urban areas, where they have been for years; we are pushing them out: we are forcing them to go into these sub-economic townships and we are creating a sociological problem of tremendous and far-reaching consequences to us as White people in this country. Sir, I do not want to belittle the amount of money that is provided for in the Estimates, but if you look at Loan Vote P, you will find that the amount of money provided for there is a drop in the ocean having regard to the needs and requirements of the Coloured people in the rural areas. I asked the hon. the Minister once before to institute a system of compulsory education for which the old Cape Ordinance made provision, and he told the newspapers in an interview that that would be foolish. The hon. the Minister also quoted some figures about the number of children attending school. I want to say here this evening that my information is that of the children going to primary schools, a very small number gets to Std. VI; a very much smaller number gets to Std. VIII and even fewer reach matriculation. Those who wish to follow a university career find themselves hedged round with difficulties; they are precluded from the White universities, and in this country where the great cry is for separate development we find that there are no fewer than ten universities, plus an additional one of which we approved this week, for Whites, while there is only one, which is not fully equipped to offer every course that should be available to these people, for the Coloured people. In other words, the ratio is one to ten. I ask the hon. the Minister: Is that a fair ratio? We have 1,250,000 Coloured people, and if we are going to have separate development then surely some effort must be made to accelerate the provision of educational facilities for Coloured people wishing to attend university.

You are now reproaching your own party.

I am not talking about my party; my hon. friend’s party has been in power for nearly 20 years. Sir, I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to a complaint which is most serious. The medium of instruction at the Western Cape University College is Afrikaans. In reply to various questions which have been put on the Order Paper the Government has maintained that the Western Cape University College is a bilingual university college. My information is quite different. My information is that boys or girls who want to be lectured in English are told to read their textbooks because the textbooks are in English. Without being too critical I say that the time has come when at least at that university college the lecturers should be able to lecture with equal facility in both languages. If they were to do that, I think you would find that the Coloured people would welcome that university college much more than they do. Alternatively, the opportunity is with us for the establishment of a second university where English should be the medium of instruction, because I am told that in the Transvaal and Natal and certainly in the northern areas of the province the Coloured students prefer to be lectured in English because that is the medium in which they were taught up to high school standard.

Nonsense!

Those hon. members do not know what they are talking about. Then we come to the old bugbear of job reservation. That was designed to exclude the Coloured man from entering into the field of industry and the occupations of the Whites. We have heard that no fewer than nine out of 17 of the job reservation determinations have had to be relaxed. I say quite frankly that the Minister should face the facts, because if the Minister of Labour would just talk to the Minister of Coloured Affairs he would find that he is fighting on two fronts. I have listened here so often to “protecting the White man”, but I want to place on record again that no Coloured man expects to get any job at the expense of any White person in such a job, but by the same token he does not expect to be thrown out of a job if some White man comes along and wants it. He expects to be treated according to his ability and his skill, and both of these are considerable. They are the hallmark of all good Coloured artisans and workmen.

The hon. the Minister has said that the percentage of tradesmen in this country has been constant, but what he did not say was that there had been tremendous development in this country in every field. Every field of activity has expanded and percentages mean nothing because a percentage is only a part of the whole. I want to go further and tell the hon. the Minister this. Does he know that in regard to agriculture when the Bill granting credit to the farmers was before the House, I asked that an amendment be introduced, which was done by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District, to exclude the word “White”, so that all the facilities and the credit to farmers will not be for the White man only, because there are large numbers of Coloured farmers and these people are not considered. I have gone to the trouble of making some inquiries. I would like the Minister to tell me not what the Department is doing in connection with the Coloured settlements, but for the Coloured farmers outside the Reserves, and there are many who farm on their own account. I raised another point with the Minister of Mines and he told me that the training facilities in mining applied only to the gold mines, and a horde of speakers on that side by way of interjections told me that that was a White activity. I am not asking that the Coloured man should be involved here, but what I say is that if he is to develop in this country along the lines indicated by the Government then surely he must have access to every type of activity and every type of industry. We have already discussed the question of fishing. Hon. members opposite have said from time to time that there are Coloured fishermen earning good money. That is true, and there are even many who own their own boats, but in the real money side of the business there are no Coloured men. The entrepreneurs, the men who make the money, the men who have big quotas, do not include any Coloured men. There are no Coloured concession-holders, and I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a further point. When I tackled the hon. the Minister of Mines on the question of concessions in regard to diamonds, what did he tell me? It was not his Department; the concession was given to the Coloured Development Corporation. Now, my information is that the Coloured Development Corporation gets a percentage, which is a small percentage. Why should not Coloured persons who are competent and able to prospect for diamonds get a direct share in the wealth of these concessions, particularly in Namaqualand? If one looks at the directorates of the various companies operating there, one is shocked and astonished to find that no Coloured men’s names appear.

A concession has been granted to them.

There was no concession granted to them at all. These are the things which concern the Coloured people. The hon. the Minister made great play the other day of telling me what the Coloured Development Corporation does. He mentioned that there were no fewer than 16 bottle-store licences and restaurant licences granted. According to my figures, this constitutes one-third of the total amount of money spent by that Corporation up to the time those figures were submitted. I ask the Minister whether he thinks that a remark to the effect that a Coloured man can now take a drink sitting down instead of standing up proves that he is a decent person? The Coloured community view with concern this emphasis on the sale of liquor in the Coloured townships. They do not think it is a good thing at all. The reason why so many Coloured people are in the position in which they are, is because of this iniquitous system of paying part of the wages by way of liquor. Do not let us hoodwink ourselves that that is not so. because it is so. I think the Corporation must confine itself to only one thing, which came from the Minister himself when he said that in commerce the Development Corporation has launched no fewer than 45 persons in the retail trade, 13 in liquor businesses. five in hotels, and then we get the ordinary businesses like transport, cinemas, building contractors, drycleaners, manufacturers, and sundries of which there are five. What I am trying to tell the hon. the Minister is, that establishing retail businesses in Coloured townships does not benefit the Coloured person as such, because the Government refuses to face the fact that the large departmental stores and the chain stores without exception site their properties and businesses in close proximity to these townships and the Coloured trader must buy his stuff in small quantities from wholesalers, whereas he is competing, unfairly, against these people who have the big financial houses and who have no restrictions and who can serve White, Black and Yellow in their businesses around the Coloured townships. I say the time has arrived that the Minister should look into these things and he should make an effort to see that these injustices are rectified and see to it, that the Coloured man gets a fair deal and that this practice is stopped. We have over a long period of years got ourselves into the position, where anybody who speaks about colour is regarded as being somewhat leftist. I say the Government has been left at the post, because this country is developing at such a pace. We have listened to arguments proving without any doubt that this policy of separate development cannot work. It must fail and it will fail. For all we know to the contrary, we may make a big discovery of oil or other minerals because they are here to be found. We will need people to do the work and to develop these things. I say it is foolish and stupid to think for one moment that we can have an exclusively White community developing these things and getting this wealth out of the ground and that the Coloured person must fulfil a secondary role and that he must develop only in these small townships that are laid out by the local authorities. I want the Minister to deal with that in some detail. It is all very well to talk about some development at Bonteheuwel. in the complex between Bellville and Cape Town. I ask the Minister in all sincerity how can the Coloured community in the small towns outside Springbok and Carnarvon and Prieska develop on their own and become what they should be and what they would like to be. These are the questions which concern the Coloured man and these are the points which the Coloured man feels should be ventilated. These are the things in regard to which he wants redress. The hon. the Minister has said that provision is being made here at the Cape for 1,200 apprentices at the Technical College. That is very good, but why is it that in other parts of the country it is so difficult to get Coloured youths apprenticed in any trade? I say the time has arrived for the Government to be realistic. At least the Minister should be realistic. Instead of defending the Government’s attitude, he should be the chief protagonist of the needs and the desires and the hopes and the ambitions of the Coloureds who are with us, and who are the only other group of people in this country who speak Afrikaans as their home language, who go to the same churches and who have the same traditions and the same background and who are in every way qualified to be first-class citizens and to share in the prosperity of this country. The Minister of Immigration, after a passage with me, said they were unable to get immigrants from Northern Europe and they were getting immigrants from Southern Europe. I have no quarrel with that, but what I would say to the Minister is this, that those people will take three generations or longer before they become first-class South African citizens thinking of this country as we all do, whereas right with us we have 1,750,000 Coloured persons whose history and traditions are identical with ours and from whom we could draw and from whom we would be able to get the salt of the earth, because they are good people. [Time limit.]

The speech made by the hon. member for Karoo was something in the nature of the Omnibus Act. He scraped together all the bits and pieces he possibly could. The hon. member made as if nothing has been achieved for the Coloureds under the new dispensation in recent years. It seems as if the hon. member is a stranger in Jerusalem. I want to point out a few statements which the hon. member made. He stated that as a result of the drought the Coloureds had become unemployed. I think I have a little knowledge of farming in the dry areas. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that in the worst drought-stricken areas no Coloureds have as yet become unemployed as a result of the drought there. On the contrary, there is, right up to the present day, a shortage of Coloured labour on the farms in the worst drought-stricken areas. The hon. member made insinuations about the housing for Coloureds in the rural areas. Nobody who is realistic and nobody who keeps his eyes open in the country will say that all is well with Coloured housing in the rural areas, just as we cannot lay claim to all being well as regards Coloured housing in the cities. That applies to all of us. Neither is there as much housing as we would like to see for Whites. But nobody who travels through the country with his eyes open is going to dare deny that there has not been a tremendous improvement in the rural areas and on the farms as far as Coloured housing is concerned. The hon. member cannot hurl any reproaches at the Government or at the National Party.

The hon. member complains—and this is something which really struck me—about the number of high schools in the Cape. The hon. member for Karoo was for a long time member of the Executive Committee in the Cape under the United Party Government. And the hon. member was not only Executive Committee member, he was also leader of the United Party in the Cape Province while he was member of the Executive Committee. Now you know, Sir, that more than two years has elapsed since this Department of Coloured Affairs took over Coloured education. Do you know. Sir, that when this Department took over Coloured education there was in the whole Republic only 25 high [schools in 1964, and that after two years under the Department of Coloured Affairs, at the end of last year, there was 65. In a period of two years they have almost tripled. But now the hon. member comes along and tries to lay the fact that there are not enough high schools at the door of the Government and of the Department of Coloured Affairs. I want to make this statement here to-night. There has been a radical change in the ideas of the Whites of this country, including the hon. member for Karoo, in respect of Coloured politics—it was really a radical change, Sir. The Coloureds have in the past and in this same debate in this House been used as a football by the Whites. I say that there has been a radical change and that all the Whites have gained new insights. But the development of the Coloured population in the past few years has been as radical as that change. I would like to illustrate how radical the change in the line of thought of the Whites in the political field has been. In 1958 when the election of Coloured representatives took place on a separate roll for the first time, the four candidates to be elected and who ultimately became members here were four acknowledged and well-known United Party supporters. Three of them immediately took their seats here as independents. One remained a member of the United Party but a change has taken place in his line of thought as well. He sat here as a member of the United Party until 1961, and since 1961, after the second election on the separate roll, all the candidates stood as independents. They did not want to be bound to a party, and all four returned as independents.

But what happened to Daantjie then?

I shall tell you. The hon. member should really have asked what happened at a by-election. With the by-election one single member was elected as a United Party representative, and amongst the Whites it seems to me that with the exception perhaps of the hon. member for Houghton the hon. member for Karoo is the only one who is off-side, precisely because he is not sitting here to represent the Coloured interests but to represent the United Party’s interests. What we actually have in this House —and then I am saying this on behalf of both [sides of the House—good reason to thank the Coloured representatives, these three members who have contributed much towards achieving a better spirit. One has died, the former hon. member for Karoo, the late Mr. Tot le Roux, who also contributed much towards obtaining objectivity in respect of the Coloureds in this House. I say that we owe them a debt of gratitude for having brought so much objectivity into this House as well as outside of it. f say that there has been a radical change in the political thought of the Whites on both sides, and also on the side of the United Party, but I want to say that the change has been as great in respect of the progress which the Coloureds have made under National Party rule and under separate development. Nobody in this House or in the country who ponders on these matters can deny that there is one shortcoming in particular amongst the Coloured population. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member for Malmesbury for the compliment he has paid us. It has taken him a few years to realize just what excellent men we are in Parliament, but at last the admission had to come and I thank him for it. It is quite impossible to deal in ten minutes with all the matters that affect the Coloured people of our country. I do not have the time to go into the very many aspects of the Coloured question raised by the hon. member for Karoo. I want to confine myself to one or two matters which I thank affect the Coloured people and I should like to be as constructive as I can in regard thereto. Perhaps I can first say that I wish the hon. the Minister luck in his new portfolio. I think it is the first time that the Minister has introduced or been in charge of this Vote since his appointment, and I wish him luck. He has no sinecure, I can assure him, but as far as we are concerned as far as it is possible to assist in matters affecting the Coloureds and the welfare of the Coloureds, we offer the Minister our co-operation. At the same time we will also criticize, and criticize as sharply as we have done in the past, any steps which we feel are not in the interests of the Coloured people.

Mr. Chairman, I should like in the short space of time allotted to me to deal with one or two matters which I regard of paramount importance. I want to deal with the question of education of the Coloured people. It is tragic when one sees the figures that in the sub-standards we find thousands and thousands of Coloured children going to school, but when it comes to the question of Matric, those thousands are reduced to hundreds. I ask myself just what happens to these thousands of Coloured children who go to school and never reach the matriculation standard. Now, the Minister will tell me that it is not possible at this stage to have control because it has not yet been possible to introduce compulsory education. I am going to make a very strong appeal to the Minister to-night. We know, Sir, that it is enshrined in our law that there shall be compulsory education for Coloured children. We realize that it cannot come overnight. We realize that it is a very big task, a very important task but a very big one, and that it has to come step by step. But we should like to see a better beginning than we have seen up to now. We know that there has been an unfortunate drain of teachers from South Africa. I am not prepared to blame anybody. We know some of the reasons. We find that because of the dearth of teachers we cannot as yet have that compulsory education which is so desirable. I know that the Government desires it. We desire it. The Coloured people want it. I ask if the Minister cannot give us some indication of when we can expect that compulsory education might be introduced to a greater measure than at present, and what steps the Government is taking in regard to this very important question. Because I want to say that if a Coloured boy or a Coloured girl can become matriculated then there are opportunities for them. I want to quote from a statement made by the Secretary of Coloured Affairs speaking of the vacancies in the public service for Coloured youths. This is what he said—

Then there comes this question, says the editor, “Where must the matriculants come from?” They cannot come from the schools in the numbers desired because they never reach there. Only hundreds instead of thousands who regularly start in the lower classes reach matric. It is a very important question and, as I said earlier, it is a Herculean task to get these people to go to the schools. But the economic position of the Coloured people to-day does not permit a child to go as far as matric because as soon as he reaches 13 or 14 years of age he has to go to work in order to supplement the income of the home.

Mr. Chairman, if we really want to discuss this question of skollies, what brings the skolly, why there are so many skollies, then we only have to go into the question of why so many children have remained at home when they are still youngsters instead of being at school? The mother and father both go to work and these children are left to the mercy of others. There is no control over them, and that is the beginning of the skolly menace in South Africa. On the other hand, if they become matriculated, there will, as the Secretary for Coloured Affairs says, be opportunities for them.

Now, Sir, I do not want to pay the Minister unnecessary compliments. I am not trying to play up to the Government. But I am quite prepared to admit that the Minister since he has been appointed has shown an interest in Coloured matters. He has attended the university, he has attended conferences. He has shown his interest. But I do want the Minister to make a statement to-night, if he can, to try and tell the Coloured people when a start will be made in regard to compulsory education. We know that it applies in about five or six places. But I should like to know whether it is possible to do it, whether the Government has something in mind. I do not want to spend much more time on this aspect because I want to deal very quickly with something else, namely the question of Coloured teachers.

I see the Coloured Council is sitting and the question of Coloured teachers’ salaries is coming up, and something has been said there. I do not want to anticipate that. But flowing from this matter I want to refer to a circular which was sent out by the Provincial Administration some time in 1963 in regard to the pensions of teachers. It deals with the question of teachers who have broken periods of service. I now find that teachers who have had as much as 20 years’ service but who have had a break of a few months, and who have failed to apply for condonation through no fault of their own—because the circular was never brought to their notice—now have to lose 20 odd years of service from the point of view of pensionable service. But not only do they lose that period in regard to possible pensions, but they have also not received back their contributions. I understand the Department does not want to refund their contributions. That seems to be unfair. That apparently is the position according to a letter which I have received and according to an interview which I had this morning with another source. I am raising this so that the Minister can go into the matter and allay the suspicions or the fears of many hundreds of Coloured teachers who are affected by this rule. If nothing can be done to condone at this late stage the break in their service, then at least something should be done to have these people’s contributions refunded to them, prime limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall leave it to the hon. the Minister to reply to the hon. member for Boland, since he is speaking on another level and would apparently prefer a reply from the hon. the Minister on that level.

I should like to request the attention of this Committee for a very important aspect of the activities of the Department of Coloured Affairs. I find it significant that hon. members who look after the interests of the Coloureds, as well as those members who so much like to talk about the interests of the Coloureds, refer so infrequently to this aspect. I am referring to the comprehensive welfare services which the Department of Coloured Affairs is undertaking for the Coloureds. The Estimates indicate that more than 30 per cent thereof is being spent on welfare services. This year almost R2,500,000 more has been made available for those services than in the previous year. That is besides services which are still being rendered by the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and which have not been included in this part of the Estimates under Coloured Affairs. In this regard I want to refer to a few statements in the latest available Report of the Department of Coloured Affairs. I am referring to what appears in chapter (IV), on page 11, where it is stated that the Department of Social Welfare is responsible for professional and probation services, the adoption of children and the subsidization of social workers employed by voluntary welfare organizations.

For me it is particularly important that this major part of the welfare work which we generally regard as the professional part of the work is not yet in the hands of the Department of Coloured Affairs. There are very good reasons for that. In its report the Department also furnishes one of the reasons, i.e. the major shortage of professional Coloureds to do that professional work. Now there has been a certain development in regard to welfare work throughout the world, and particularly according to our own pattern in this country, a method whereby welfare services can be rendered. There is a healthy co-ordination between the services rendered by the State and that rendered by voluntary organizations. It appears that there are at the moment approximately 300 welfare organizations which render welfare services in the interests of the Coloured community. Only 15 per cent of them are under the control of the Coloureds themselves. Actually as much as 75 per cent is still in the hands of Whites who take an interest in this work.

I want to submit that the Department of Coloured Affairs will find it difficult to further the development of this service amongst the Coloureds if those people comprising that 75 per cent—the 75 per cent of Whites who control the voluntary welfare organizations amongst Coloureds—are not prepared to hand those services over gradually to the Coloureds, where they belong. Now we know, Sir, that the people are perhaps not all that experienced. We know that there are many of them who would have been suitable if they had gradually been afforded the opportunity of taking the lead amongst their own people and rendering these services. But then the facilities must be created for them. That is why I am so pleased to have noted time and again in the Report of the Department that the Department has a Field and Information Service which is particularly closely linked to the teaching services which the Department render, and that the Department in its annual report repeatedly emphasizes the fact that they are going out of their way to bring these services home to the Coloureds themselves. We note, for example, that the Department is still obliged, as is not the case in the development of welfare work amongst Whites, to establish State homes for their aged and children. That is a development which would not have been necessary if a voluntary service amongst their own people also helped to tackle these tasks. It struck me that the people who plead in the interests of the Coloureds have let the emphasis fall on the material needs of the Coloureds. But we must ask ourselves whether those people are doing enough to make the Coloureds aware of the fact that they also have social and spiritual needs, and that the Coloureds can best render those services by doing so themselves to their own people who find themselves in those distressing circumstances. We do find it in respect of education, and it works. We find it in respect of religion, and that works. We therefore know all the more from our experience that it would also work if the welfare services can be handed over to experienced and developed Coloureds from their own community. But then they must be guided to that point.

I want to maintain that it is necessary that much more will have to be done in the near future by the Department itself to place the welfare services of the Department under the supervision of professionals. Initially they will have to be Whites because we only have a few trained Coloured social workers and sociologists in the country. But the Department must make a start by perhaps taking over the probation services, those services which are a direct result of the Child Act, as rapidly as possible.

In my opinion, a second matter which the Department must also tackle, is to try and use those people who are available in the country and who are possibly not in the service of the Department of Coloured Affairs but who do have the necessary background and training—if need be people from the teaching profession—to develop the welfare services. To do that, I believe that it is essential that the Department will have to see to it that the conditions of service of those people are placed on a proper and sound basis. I am not thinking now of conditions of service in the sense only of higher salaries. I am thinking of conditions of service in general, for example the opportunities afforded them to render services to their own people. I am mentioning this specifically because I know how the business world, the people who can make money out of the Coloureds, will pounce upon individual Coloureds who have already become proficient in this particular direction. The business world will swallow them up in the more paying professions if they could only succeed in getting them. I think that since we are on the verge of a totally new development, and since this Department is still a young one, particularly as far as the welfare services amongst the Coloureds are concerned, the Department should not let a chance go by to employ as many as possible of those people in order to develop those fine services, for which it has already done the spade work, in respect of child care, the care of the aged and so on, further. In particular there is also this aspect that the Department of Coloured Affairs, in close touch with the Department of Social Welfare, will have to see to it that the available subsidies are applied in the first place for the development of these services under the guidance of Coloured workers.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Westdene who has just sat down made a great point both at the beginning and the end of his speech about the welfare services for the Coloured people which are being carried out by this Government, and he referred especially to the welfare services for the children. Of course, he is quite right, but then any welfare work that is done amongst adults or children is admirable, and we support it. But I wonder whether the hon. member would like to look at the Estimates, which presumably he has in front of him. If he has not, he should have. If the hon. member would look at page 295 he will see that a sum of R3,973,000 has been entered here for “Child Welfare”, and that R3,382,000 has been entered for Primary, Secondary and High Schools and the Training of Teachers.

In other words, R591,000 more, over R500,000 more, is needed in terms of these Estimates for child welfare for the Coloured people than for education itself. Of course, here I am not referring to money voted under the Loan Vote, nor to money voted under Public Works for buildings—I am talking about administration. If the hon. member who has just made his speech will have a look at these figures he will probably be as depressed as I am about them. I consider this to be the saddest reflection on the Government’s failure to deal adequately with the education problem. I know that they are trying very hard. I do not deny this. [Interjections.] It is a very sad reflection upon the current position. The Government has had three years now in which to deal with it.

What did you do about it?

The Government still has to allocate more than R500,000 more in their Budget allocations for indigent and delinquent children rather than to preparing healthy youngsters by putting them into school to become qualified and disciplined wage-earners.

I know that there are lots of practical difficulties in the way. We have dealt with Coloured education in this province for many years and I am not unrealistic about this matter. I should like to join with the hon. member for Boland—who has now left the Chamber —and welcome the hon. the Minister to this portfolio. I should like to say that I am reliably informed that he has shown, and is showing, great sympathy and dedication in his new post. I wish him luck. I think he has a very unenviable task under this Government. All the same, Sir, I wish him luck.

We are also very grateful—let us be frank about this—for all that is undoubtedly being attempted by the Minister’s Department in very many fields as far as education is concerned. Now, Sir, I look at the programmes, I read the Department’s magazine every month, and I follow these things with great care. I sometimes wonder whether the Minister has not, in regard to education, cast his net just a little bit too wide and is trying to piecemeal with too many things and tending to neglect some of the fundamentals. I want to deal with the teaching position. Since 1963 well over 1,000 Coloured people have emigrated from South Africa to Canada. The majority of them were teachers, doctors, nurses, businessmen and artisans. They were skilled people—that is the point. Many have gone to other countries as well. Here we have a Government which is quite rightly trying desperately to catch up with the backlog in the training of teachers in order to make these Coloured people self-sufficient and competent as a community. It sounds an admirable concept. But the trouble is that unfortunately the majority of these Coloured people themselves —for one reason or another—and this is what makes it so difficult for the Government—had rejected the Government’s policies for them in any case. I would say that where they are only too willing to accept the socio-economic programme which the Government is attempting to apply to them, they are very reluctant indeed—and I do not blame them—to accept all the ideological strings which are attached to this programme. The Minister of the Interior refused to give me any figures when I asked him how many of these emigrants had left South Africa on exist permits.