During the second reading debate yesterday afternoon, I pointed out to the House that certain difficulties existed in regard to the definition of “wine” and in regard to the traditional uses of medicinal wines. In the reply of the hon. the Deputy Minister he indicated that he was sympathetic to the point which had been raised and that he would investigate it. Subsequently in conversation with him it was agreed that I should contact the Registrar of the S.A. Pharmacy Board with a view to getting from him a suggestion which might meet with the approval of the hon. the Minister. There has not been very much time but I have been able to elicit from the Registrar of the S.A. Pharmacy Board a telegram in which he suggests a way in which our case can be met in regard to purely medicinal wine. I believe that the hon. the Minister fully understands what is meant by “medicinal wine” in this context. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has had an opportunity of studying the document which I transmitted through his Department to him at the earliest opportunity and whether he feels that it will be possible to introduce an amendment either here or in the Other Place to make provision for the difficulty which has been placed before the House.

I have taken special precautions and I have also taken special steps to investigate the problem of the hon. member for Durban (Berea). I was supplied with his suggested amendment to Clause 3. First of all I want to mention that in comparing the term “medicinal wine” with “medicated wine” I came up against a lot of trouble in different dictionaries. Medicated wine has a wine base. It is wine treated with medicine. In the amendment on the Order Paper we make provision in Clause 8 for medicated wines, but medicinal wine is a medicine; it is a preparation relating to medicine. There is no wine in this medicine. In Clause 3 we make an exception in the case of ginger wine and sparkling wine, but the base of those would still be wine. It is a wine to which, in the case of ginger wine, for example, ginger is added. Medicinal wine has no wine as a base and no wine may be present. I would even go further. I had a look at the little bottle of “ipecacuanha wine” which was offered to me yesterday.

Did you drink it?

Naturally I did not drink it. I want to state here most emphatically that if anybody addicted to wine would drink this he would be out! This is the proof that it is no wine. This “ipecacuanha wine” is prepared from the “ipecacuanha plant”, to which alcohol is added. I find that some chemists do not sell it as “ipecacuanha wine”; they sell it only as “ipecacuanha”. I think it is only Lennon’s or the Holland people who sell it as “ipecacuanha wine”. The hon. member also mentioned that orange wine is one of the wines which he is worried about. I investigated this and I found that since 1949 no orange wine was made in South Africa by any chemist. There are other people who make orange wine nowadays. This wine is totally different from medicated or medicinal wine.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, should that bottle not be impounded?

I would like to assist the hon. member for Berea, but I cannot find that a case has been made out for the amendment on this clause.

The hon. the Deputy Minister is trying to save his face and he is arguing with fate, because ipecacuanha wine has been known as such since long before this hon. Minister was born. But it is a name, and a name which will persist despite any legislation which this hon. Deputy Minister might introduce into this House. It is used throughout the whole of the civilized world and has been used for many years. We accept the fact that there is no wine in it. That is correct. Nevertheless whether you introduce 10 Bills into this House, or 20 Bills, people will still ask for ipecacuanha wine. This is the point and I think the hon. the Minister must realize that you can introduce all the legislation in the world, but the woman whose child has whooping cough will go to the chemist and ask for a bottle of ipecacuanha wine. What does the chemist do? Does he label it “ipecacuanha wine”? I would do it. It contains no wine, Sir, but according to this measure I would be committing an offence if I called it ipecacuanha wine, because it does not contain any wine.

Under the present Act that is the position also.

Yes, I accept that, but it is being done and it is the accepted practice and has been so for many many years. I think the hon. the Minister is not facing the facts. He cannot just ask people to stop a practice which they have followed for many years just because he finds some difficulty in amending a clause in this Bill.

I would like to refer the hon. the Minister to the fact that this request initially was not put forward lightly. It came forward officially from the S.A. Pharmacy Board which is a statutory body. I appreciate the hon. the Minister’s difficulties in this matter, but I do believe that an exception along the lines suggested to the hon. the Minister would not open the door for any abuse in respect of any other wines.

While I am on my feet, I want to clarify the position in regard to orange wine. I accept everything the hon. the Minister has said about medicinal orange wine, that its use in South Africa has been strictly limited. I felt however that if I wanted to place the position fairly before the House, I should mention every wine about which I knew and which appeared in the reference books, and orange wine was one which to me presented a difficulty because like ipecacuanha wine it contains no alcohol. So I mentioned it in the knowledge that it was still official in the sense that it appears in reference books, although it is not used to any great extent in pharmaceutical circles. But if the hon. the Minister had seen fit to provide an exemption for orange wine—when I talked about orange wine (I saw the Minister producing his large bottle) I talked of a different substance, the vin auranti of the British Pharmacopoeia codex, a recognized standard medicinal formula, and I believe that the amendment which the Registrar has suggested in draft form would cope adequately with that and eliminate any possibility of the orange wine, of which the hon. the Minister seems to have a nice supply on his seat, being confused with the orange wine that is a medicinal wine. Sir, the hon. the Minister has referred to the fact that instead of labelling the product ipecacuanha wine, it should be labelled “ipecacuanha”. Well, Sir, that to my mind would be completely incorrect, and I doubt whether it could be regarded as legal, because ipecacuanha, as the Minister has said, is a root, and then I believe you would be referring to the substance Ipecacuanha and you would not be qualifying in what form the ipecacuanha is being sold or asked for, for instance in a liquid form, namely a wine. For those reasons I would ask the hon. the Minister to give further consideration to the matter with a view possibly to introducing some amendment in the Other Place.

The hon. members are compelling me to refer to the dictionary. I find that “medicated”, as translated here, is related to “gesondheidskoffie, verbandwatte, verbandpluksel, sanitêre papier, en medisinale seep”, and if I look at “medicinal”, I find the following—it is “geneeskragtig, medisinaal, geneeskundig en medies”.

But, Mr. Chairman, I have also consulted the medical dictionary, and in the medical dictionary I find no mention of a “medicated wine” or a “medicated preparation”. What they do mention under “medicinal” is “having healing qualities pertaining to medicine or to healing”. But nowhere does one find “medicated”. You find that in the Afrikaans translation “medicated” and “medicinal” are one and the same, namely a medicinal preparation or beverage. As I have said, we are now making provision in the amendment under Clause 8, which is a great concession to the pharmaceutical industry, to enable them to remove the various preparations sold by them in the past from the jurisdiction of our Department and to put it back under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health. If I were to make special provision in Clause 3 to exempt those medicinal beverages or medicinal wine beverages, I would be introducing an exception to the Act. Now I want to ask the hon. member: If I were to make an exception in respect of those medicines that are sold in such minimal quantities, how would I justify that? Most of the chemists in South Africa are already no longer selling it under the name of wine. I do not want to mention names, but “ipecacuanha”, simply “ipecacuanha”, manufactured by different manufacturing pharmacists, is marketed in South Africa, and it is only the Lennon group or the Netherlands group that imports Dutch medicines that still use the name “ipecacuanha wine”. The others call it simply “ipecacuanha”. The hon. member will agree with me that it is not wine. If I were to buy it under the impression that it was wine and drink it, a whole bottle of it, I would look rather miserable—that I can assure you. One can drink at the most 5 to 10 drops of it at a time. Why should one except a medicine which is no longer called a wine by the great majority of manufacturing pharmacists in South Africa, but which is simply designated according to its origin, while the citrus industry, which is manufacturing orange wine at present, and the apple industry, which is manufacturing apple wine at the moment, are denied the use of the name “wine”? It has become necessary to deny the above-mentioned industries the use of the name wine, because we are forced to maintain our overseas export market at the highest level, with a view to earning foreign exchange and also for the sake of the prestige of our export product. The same is done by the Wool Board and by all other boards that handle export products. Now I want to ask hon. members why Australian wine is not very famous abroad. The reason is that they marketed some of their poorer wines. In Australia there are districts that can make wine just as good as that of the Western Province. But because that mediocre wine was put on the world market along with their other wines, the reputation of Australian wine had an adverse influence on the industry and is detrimental to the small number of good producers. We have built up such a fine industry in South Africa; why should we go and spoil it by making just this one exception? Where are we going to draw the line? In the past the sale of this medicinal wine was illegal. It was illegal under the old Act, as I put it to you yesterday. But there were no prosecutions because we knew that only small quantities of patent medicines were sold. I appeal to hon. members to drop the matter. Let us continue as in the past, and let us put this Act right.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that but by virtue of the fact that in the past there has been no prosecution, surely the Minister could see his way clear to ensure that in future the position would be safeguarded. The Minister has obviously gone to a lot of trouble to decide in his mind the difference between “medicinal” and “medicated”. I realize that there could be difficulties there, and that there could be difficulties in regard to translation. But I want to come back to the protection which we suggested could be most effective in this regard, and that is to take the protection offered by the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, where a “recognized medical preparation” is defined. I want to refer briefly to that section again. It reads—

Now, perhaps the Minister’s difficulty would be overcome if we refer to the Afrikaans version in the Medical. Dental and Pharmacy Act, which reads as follows—

Therefore. Sir. I believe that if one looked into this question of what was a “recognized medical preparation”—“ ’n ‘erkende geneeskundige preparaat’ ”—there would be a means of expressing clearly in the Bill the intention to deal with this particular situation without creating any difficulty. I do not believe for one moment that if the Minister were to make this concession we would find ourselves in the same situation as Australia does, namely that our sales of wine on the export market might decline. I do not think it would make any difference.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is aware that he is creating difficulties for his colleague, the Minister of Justice. During the session before last the Minister of Justice introduced a special amendment in this House, and that Minister knows about it. I think I remember the speech he made on that occasion. An amendment was introduced in this House, on the insistence of wine producers and others, dealing with the question of medicinal preparations containing more than 2 per cent of alcohol. There is a special provision in the Liquor Act which provides that certain medicinal preparations may be examined by the Minister of Health—when he is dealing with Health and not with the S.A.B.C.—and as such declared to be liquors suitable for sale by a chemist. These liquors are prescribed by law, they are sent to the Department of Health, they are examined, approved, and then gazetted as being medicinal preparations containing alcohol. The question arose regarding a preparation called “brandywyn” or brandy wine. It was a preparation which in fact contained no wine at all, or only a taste of wine. But it contained more than 2 per cent of alcohol. As a result of protests this particular preparation was placed under control, and the Department of Health had to approve any such preparation for sale by a chemist shop. This House has gone to considerable trouble to provide specifically for these medicines, which may be known as wines or which may be known by a combination of terms implying an alcoholic content. Before they may be sold by a chemist they must be approved by the Minister of Health. In other words, there is no danger whatsoever that the wine industry as such, which this measure attempts to protect, may be harmed. Because, Sir, no pseudo-wine could be sold as a medicinal preparation and therefore come into competition with wine, because that would be illegal in terms of the Liquor Act of 1928, as amended. Therefore there is no danger whatsoever to wine.

Order! I think the hon. member is now making a second-reading speech. It has really nothing to do with this clause.

This clause deals with the prohibition of the sale of any preparation, which is not made of wine, under the name of wine. The intention of this clause is to protect the reputation of wine, to prevent other preparations not made from the grape being sold under the name of wine.

Order! This is only the definition clause.

Sir, this deals with the prohibition of the sale of beverages under certain names.

Not this clause. This clause deals with the definitions of wines. The hon. member is therefore out of order.

Mr. Chairman, that is exactly what I am dealing with, namely the definition of wines.

Order! I am not going to allow the hon. member to make a general speech about the prohibition of the sale of certain wines.

May I take a new point then, Sir? May I take the point that protection for the sale of wine is already provided in our legislation. Therefore I ask the Minister whether he is in fact now not introducing legislation in conflict with laws already upon the Statute Book of South Africa?

I suggest that the Minister should seriously reconsider the position to ensure that he is not creating an anomaly here which will afterwards create a difficulty.

Order!

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURAL AND WATER AFFAIRS:

I move the amendment standing in my name, namely—

Finally I just want to say that I am not a chemist, but let me nevertheless tell our chemist friends here that “Ipecacuanha wine” is a patent medicine.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must not repeat what he said previously.

No, Mr. Chairman, I am now making another point. In actual fact it is a tincture of “ipecacuanha” and it is the pharmaceutical substance which is used. A tincture means an alcoholic extract which is not a wine but some other product. It must therefore not be tried to bring it under this clause.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name—

in line 48, to omit “medicated,”; and in lines 52 and 53, to omit “be lawful to manufacture and to sell such beverage, but only” and to substitute “not be unlawful in terms of this section to sell such beverage”.

This is an occasion when the Minister and I see eye to eye on a matter. I think it fair to express appreciation that the Minister has seen fit to accept the recommendation put forward in order to protect the position in regard to the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, and also in order to give the Minister the powers that he needs under this Act. I hope that this clause will be completely successful in eliminating any form of abuse, which the Minister and I know only too well existed in the past.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 10:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing on the Order Paper—

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

New Clause 16:

*The DEPUTY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURAL AND WATER AFFAIRS: Mr.

Chairman, I move—

follow Clause 15:

16. Section 18 of the principal Act is hereby amended by the substitution for paragraph (h) of the following paragraph:

Agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This Bill is self-explanatory and is to be attributed exclusively to certain administrative problems that are experienced under the existing legislation and that have to be met. All it contains are amendments that have to be made to six Acts, and because it contains no central concept or general principle, I deal with the clauses one by one.

Clause 1 is intended to facilitate compliance with technical aspects of the Bantu Administration Act, 1927, as regards the sittings of courts. In terms of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the above-mentioned Act, a Bantu Affairs Commissioner holds his criminal court in his area at his seat or at some other place designated by the Minister. It is of course customary that for the convenience of the police, the accused and witnesses the court is frequently held at central places in the area of the Bantu Affairs Commissioner. Now subsection (2) of Section 10 contains a similar provision in respect of the holding of a civil court. The result is that if a Bantu Affairs Commissioner wants to hold a criminal as well as a civil court at some place in his area, I have to designate that place under two different legal provisions as a place of sittings for the two different courts, and all that is now proposed is to change the position to the effect that designations for a civil court will also apply automatically to the criminal court. This procedure was decided on because the existing provision with regard to criminal courts came into operation only in 1957, whereas many places in the country have been designated for civil courts over the years, and they will therefore now apply automatically in respect of criminal courts in order that criminal courts may be held there when necessary.

Clause 2 is self-explanatory. The necessity for a time limit for the institution of civil actions has been acknowledged in many laws. Thus, for example, there are limitations in the Police Act of 1958, the Railways and Harbours Control and Management (Consolidation) Act of 1957, and the Public Service Act of 1957. In the case of the limitation under consideration, it is particularly necessary because in the kind of action in question the Courts have to rely on the evidence of people who are sometimes of mediocre literacy and who may be confused readily by cross-examination on details such as day, date and place, the more so when the actions, as happens in most cases, are instituted years after the particular cause. A further problem is staff turnover. Officials are transferred or resign or retire from the Service, and after years it is difficult to trace the required witnesses. For example, in an application which is pending in the Supreme Court at present, it is asked that certain findings be set aside which were made by an official who inquired into the proprietary rights of a certain chief in terms of sub-section (7)bis of Section 2 of the Bantu Administration Act. That inquiry was carried out in 1956, and in July, 1964—eight years later—an application was filed with the Court suing that the proceedings be set aside. The officer who instituted the inquiry and who was naturally an indispensable witness had by then retired from the Service and had since died. Now, after two years, the case has not been disposed of! Then there is another case I may mention, namely where one Bantu person obtained cession of the claims of approximately 590 Bantu persons in respect of alleged causes of debts arising from the imposition of fines by a chief in 1958. In 1963 an action was instituted against the chief, but is also still pending. The examples I mentioned are not affected by the proposed legislation, of course, but those actions have already been instituted. The ordinary superannuation Act does not cover such cases satisfactorily either, because in the case of the 590 Bantu persons, for example, I was advised that if they were in fact entitled to claim, their right would superannuate only after 30 years.

Clause 3 actually arises from the provisions of the Transkei Constitution Act of 1963. In terms of Section 39 (g) of that Act the Transkeian Legislative Assembly has no power to make laws in relation to—and I quote from the Act—

It is therefore self-evident that legislation is required to regulate the entry of non-citizens into the Transkei and the logical provisions to apply in this respect are sub-sections (1), (2) and (3), of Section 24 of the Bantu Trust and Land Act of 1936, which have been used all these years to regulate entry into the Bantu areas, and therefore also applied in respect of the entry into the Transkei of non-Bantus, until 1st April, 1966, when the land was transferred to the Transkeian Government. As you will notice in sub-section (2), the amendment will come into operation on a date to be fixed by the State President by proclamation in the Gazette. This allows enough time to have the necessary consultations with interested concerns.

Clause 4 is purely an administrative matter. It is now apparent that as Section 40bis of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945, reads at present, the staff of a control board cannot participate in pension schemes established for the employees of local authorities, and that a Province as such has no power to legislate in order to make anything of the kind possible.

Furthermore, the only management board established until now, namely the Management Board of Sebokeng, near Vereeniging, has drawn personnel from various municipalities, and the officials are now faced with the problem that they can no longer be members of the pension schemes to which they belonged previously, and there is no alternative scheme which they can join. In terms of the proposed amendment the way will be cleared to officers of such management boards to enable them to belong to the pension scheme for employees of local authorities. The Province concerned is quite amenable to having those people retain their membership of the scheme for local authorities, and is also prepared, if the required legislative powers are granted, to admit them with effect from the date on which they entered the employment of Sebokeng’s Board, so that there will be no breaks in pension benefits.

Clause 5 is aimed at facilitating the functioning of the Bantu Affairs Commission. As the existing sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the Bantu Affairs Act, 1959, reads at present I have to appoint somebody ad hoc as deputy chairman every time I cannot act as chairman at a meeting of the commission. I think all members of this House will agree that it is better, as proposed now, to designate a member of the commission permanently, i.e. for the duration of his period of office, as deputy chairman.

Clause 6 is necessary to smooth out a problem in the accounting of the Transkeian Government finance. The money to be collected in terms of the Acts mentioned in the existing sub-paragraph (i), which is substituted hereby, must be paid into the Transkeian Revenue Fund in terms of the preceding provisions of Section 52 of the Transkei Constitution Act, 1963. In many cases, however, the money is due to minor authorities and other concerns in the Transkei. Thus, for example, the proceeds of a levy in terms of Act No. 41 of 1925 are due to the tribe concerned; a tax imposed by a regional authority in terms of Proclamation No. 180 of 1956 is due to that authority, and thus there are many other cases where the money is also due to minor concerns.

But now, as I have said, the money has to be paid into the Transkeian Revenue Fund in terms of the existing wording of the relevant sub-paragraph in the Transkei Constitution Act. That means that the Transkeian Government must in turn appropriate the money to the minor concerns to whom it is due. This is a cumbersome and unnecessary procedure and it is now proposed to empower the Legislative Assembly to waive the requirement that the money should be paid into the Transkeian Revenue Fund in cases where it is deemed proper.

The motive for Clause 7 is as follows. In terms of sub-section (3) of Section 15 of the Bantu Homelands Development Corporation Act, 1965, the Bantu Trust is the only shareholder in the Corporation established in terms of that Act. Then Section 18 provides that all income and property, and all profits of a corporation, from whatever source the same may be acquired, shall be applied exclusively to the promotion of the objects of a corporation and no dividend shall be paid to the shareholder.

A corporation in terms of the Act is therefore not a profit-making organization, and all proceeds must be applied again in the interests of the Bantu homeland for which the corporation has been established. There is therefore no reason why a corporation should be subject to taxation—in actual fact, it merely reduces the capital available for development. It is therefore sought to grant exemption from taxation in this case also. I say “also”, because other similar bodies have already been exempted from taxation, and here I am thinking in particular of the exemption enjoyed by the Bantu Investment Corporation in terms of Section 14 of the Bantu Investment Corporation Act, 1959. So far only one development corporation has been established, namely the Xhosa Development Corporation, and the proposed exemption is granted with retrospective effect from the date of establishment, i.e. from 1st September, 1965.

Mr. Speaker, I remember past sessions when Bantu Bills were the most hotly contested of all measures introduced by the Government. I am glad to see that the Government has now reached the end of its restrictive and ideological legislation—so much so that it can entrust its Bills now to a junior Deputy Minister. I am also glad that we have been freed of irksome legislation in regard to the Bantu. I think for the last three years we have had nothing really contentious in Bantu legislation. As far as this Bill is concerned, there is only one clause which gives us any trouble and which may be termed contentious in a way, namely Clause 3. This clause has become necessary mainly due to the lack of foresight on the part of the Government in applying its ideological laws and constitutional development to the Bantu.

Clause 1 enables the magistrates to hold their criminal courts at places other than the seat of the magistracy or the seat of the Bantu Affairs Commissioners’ Court. The hon. Deputy Minister has explained that this measure was introduced to facilitate the administration of justice and that it already applied as far as civil matters are concerned. We appreciate that. While we do not quite like giving these powers to hold courts at other places, we do not object to it strongly enough to oppose it. I know that the Bantu themselves do not like having their cases tried in periodical courts and in places away from the magistracy because of the expense often incurred in obtaining legal representation. It becomes more expensive for them to litigate or to defend themselves in criminal matters where the lawyers have to travel distances. On the other hand we appreciate that it facilitates obtaining the evidence for the State and also for the parties to a case when a court sits near the place of residence of the witnesses. So there is something to be said in favour of the amendment as well.

The second clause is a prescriptive clause. We have no objection to that, although we will move an amendment in the Committee Stage applying the same restriction as there is I think in the Public Service Act, that is, to amend it to have the prescriptive period only start from the time when the aggrieved person is deemed to have known that he has an action. As it reads at the moment, he loses his action if he does not take action within the period of 12 months from the date on which the cause of the action arose. In cases of this nature where the people are not of the most intelligent or educated it may be that in fact the aggrieved party does not know that he has an action.

If he tells you after five years, he must still be able to come forward?

I want to remind the hon. Deputy Minister that we are not creating something new and that this position does apply in other laws as we will tell him in the Committee Stage when we introduce our amendment.

We approve of the extended pensions provided for in Clause 4. In regard to Clause 5, the law reads at present as follows—

Now it has been altered to take out the words "fit and proper person”. There may be some reason for them having to delete these words as regards finding a chairman of the Bantu Affairs Commission.

Clause 6 we approve also because there the final say is left to the Transkei. If they want to put the money into some other account they may do so. In regard to Clause 7, we will have something to say on this question of relieving the Xhosa Trust of the obligation to pay licence fees where they are in competition with other traders. We shall deal with that more fully, too, in the Committee Stage.

Now, with regard to Clause 3, the Minister, in explaining Clause 3, said it had become necessary because of Section 39 (g) of the Transkei Constitution Act. That, as you know. Sir, lays down that the Transkeian Government may not legislate for the entry of persons other than Transkeian citizens into the Transkei. The Government handed control to the trustee of trust land, the State President, who is the Trustee of all land vested in the Bantu Trust, and he could stop undesirable people from entering the scheduled or released areas. They could not enter without a permit from him. They could not be there and reside there unless they had a permit. But of course this Government, floundering as it does, with two additional Deputy Ministers to aid the Minister on his way towards floundering more and more, went faster in their haste to do something to show that they are “kragdadig”. and they passed a proclamation divesting the trustee of all his rights and control over trust lands, and they transferred everything to the Transkeian Government. The Minister himself has said that after 1st April the trustee could no longer stop undesirables who are not Transkeian citizens from being or residing or carrying on business in the Transkei. Now, in order to rectify the position, they have introduced this measure. All they are doing is to re-state *he law as it was, and to reinvest the State President and the Minister with certain powers they had under the Trust and Land Act. As far as the first sub-section is concerned, we on this side give it our support because in terms of our policy we maintain that there should be effective control over the Transkei and all other Reserves, and that control should be retained in the hands of the Government of the Republic of South Africa. Naturally we did not agree with this divesting of rights, with this abdication of our control by this Government, as they did when they passed this proclamation on 1st April. The first section of the clause which gives the control of entry into the hands of the Republican Government forbids the entry of other people, other than Bantu, into the Transkei or any Native area without the authority of the trustee, and there is a proviso to that clause, too. It is provided that any person who at the commencement of this Act in 1936 is lawfully residing or carrying on business or a profession, trade or calling upon such land, or is the holder of the mineral rights or the prospecting rights—I am not going to deal with all that, but any person who had any rights when this Act was passed in 1936 retains his rights. Then sub-section (3), which is now reintroduced, says that no licence to carry on any profession, business, trade or calling in any scheduled Native area or on land in a released area of which the Trust or a Native is the registered owner shall be issued or renewed save with the permission of the Minister first being obtained. That means that no licence could be granted to any trader who is not a Bantu without the permission of the Minister. So a person, if he obtained permission from the State President, the Trustee, to enter the Reserve and reside there, could trade there if he could obtain a licence from the Minister. When the Transkei Constitution Act was passed, the Transkeian Government was given permission and the power to control all licences. The power given to the Transkei Government is set out in the Schedule to the Act. It is Part B of the First Schedule and sets out that the matters falling within the classes of subjects in respect of which the Transkeian Legislative Assembly shall have power to make laws and referred to in Section 37. One of these matters gives them the power of control and licensing of trading stations and businesses in the Transkei, but excludes the licensing for dealing in arms and ammunition. The Transkeian Government was given the power to pass legislation to control the issue of licences. Section 38 of the Transkei Constitution Act lays down that the legislative power in respect of all matters not contained in the Schedule which I have just read out shall remain vested in the Parliament of the Republic. All matters not appearing in the Schedule I read out shall remain vested in the Parliament of the Republic, but the State President may from time to time add further matters to it. There is no power given to him here to take away any powers from the Legislative Assembly. In fact, the previous section, Section 37, says that the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei shall have the power to make laws not inconsistent with this Act, in relation to all matters appearing in Part B, and I have read out one of the matters appearing in Part B. and to provide in any such law for the amendment or repeal of any law including any Act of this Parliament in so far as it relates to any such matter and applies to the Transkei or any citizen of the Transkei, whether such citizen is resident within or outside the Transkei. So not only can the Transkeian Government legislate for these matters included in the Schedule, but they can also amend any Act of this Parliament which deals with any of those matters. Sub-section (3) of the same clause says no law made after the commencement of this Act, i.e. by this Parliament, including any Act of Parliament or ordinance of a Provincial Council shall apply in the Transkei or in relation to any citizen of the Transkei in respect of which the Legislative Assembly is empowered to make laws in so far as that matter is concerned.

When we passed the Transkeian Constitution Act, we gave the Transkeian Legislative Assembly the power to control the issue of licences, and in the same Act we laid down that no Act of this Parliament would affect the Transkei where the Transkeian Government had that power. In fact we went further and said that if any Act passed by us did affect any matter in which the Transkeian Legislative Assembly had the power to legislate, then that Act would not apply to the Transkei. The Minister says that this clause will only affect non-Transkeian subjects who enter the Transkei. They would have to get permission from the President, and before the proclamation appeared on the 1st April non-Transkeian subjects had to get permission from the President before they could reside there even if they could get a licence. They could not get a licence before that date without the permission of the Minister of Bantu Administration. But once that proclamation was promulgated, these powers were lost and the Transkeian Government had the sole control in issuing licences even to non-Transkeians. The Minister says that the Transkeian Government cannot make laws in regard to the entry of non-Transkeians; that is quite true, but if non-Transkeians are there, the Transkeian Government does not have to pass any law: if it wants to keep them there then they can stay there. Certain of these people have vested rights. You see, Sir, Clause 3 (1) of this Bill amends the Bantu Trust and Land Act of 1936 by the addition of the following sub-sections, amongst others—

In other words, they shall be deemed to have acquired their rights already under this sub-section. I may say that at the moment this will only apply to the Transkei because there are no other self-governing territories. If there is a person in the Transkei who has the right to reside there and the Transkeian Government wishes to give him a licence to trade, then they could give him a licence to trade because they control the issue of licences. I submit that the Transkeian Government should have been consulted before the passing of this measure. The Minister has said that sub-section (2) is being included here to give him time to consult with the interested parties. Sir, I think it is a scandalous thing that this Government should have introduced a measure of this nature, where they are tampering with the rights of the Transkeian Legislative Assembly without consulting the Legislative Assembly.

They are making a mockery of their own policy.

On the Minister’s own admission they are going to consult with the interested parties. Sir, not only do they have to consult with the Transkeian Government or the Chief Minister or any other Minister, they have to consult with the Legislative Assembly, because the powers are given not to the Transkeian Government but to the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei. I say therefore that they should have consulted with the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei. The Legislative Assembly should have been told that the Transkeian Government is agreeable to an amendment to the Constitution, an amendment which in fact interferes with a power which was given to the Legislative Assembly, Sir, I do not know how long it is going to take for them to consult. The Transkeian Legislative Assembly will not meet again until next year.

Where was that power given to them?

I have just read out the Schedule which specifies the matters in regard to which they have the right to legislate. The Minister himself says that they are going to consult. Who are the interested parties that he says they are going to consult? It must be the Transkeian Government, and I say that it is not only the Transkeian Government they have to consult, it is the Legislative Assembly they have to consult because the power is given to the Legislative Assembly, not the Transkeian Government. That Legislative Assembly is not going to meet until next year again. What is going to happen in the meantime? Are we going to live in a state of uncertainty now until the Legislative Assembly meets again? How soon does the Deputy Minister expect to be able to consult with these people and to apply this law which we are now passing? He admits that the Government of the Republic has no control over the entry of people into the Transkei; undesirables can go and live in the Transkei and the Transkeian Government cannot do anything about it according to him, and his own Government cannot do anything now either because they have divested themselves of the right. Until the State President by proclamation in the Gazette fixes the date on which this measure will come into force, we will have no control whatsoever. I say that this Government has proved by the way in which it has handled this matter how right we were when the Transkeian Constitution Act was passed and when we pointed out in discussions which took place in this House before the passing of that Act that they had not considered all the implications of the Act. They are now trying to carry out the terms of the Act and we find that one of the first steps taken by them is a blunder and that they are giving away powers which they never intended to give away. Sir, this makes us fear that they may hand over some other right which they will not find as easy to take back as in the case of this particular right, because we happen to agree with the Government that they should retain the right to control the entry of non-Transkeians into the Transkei in order to ensure that undesirables do not enter. There may be some people who we think should be kept out and therefore we say that somebody should have the power to keep them out. Sir, this is probably quite a trivial matter but it could have been much more serious and it can be much more serious, and I say it is time the country realize that this Government is not a fit and proper Government to control any major constitutional changes in the country.

The hon. member for Transkei has hold of the wrong end of the stick this afternoon. He has actually argued past the whole matter. This specific clause, Clause 3. deals with land transferred to the Transkeian Government by the Trust; it is in the nature of a private-law transaction, and not a political matter, because the Trust was the owner of certain lands, and that property is now transferred to another person, i.e. the Transkeian Government. In other words, this land no longer complies with the definition of Trust property. This particular clause deals with land that belonged to the Trust as a private person. It is now transferred and it becomes the property of another person, and it so happens that in this instance that other person is the Transkeian Government. Therefore this land no longer comes under the definition, and consequently that particular section is also no longer applicable to this land. But, in transferring the land, no legislative powers were transferred: we in this House have reserved for ourselves those legislative powers. I submit that there is no need whatsoever to consult the Transkeian Government, because the matter in question is legislative powers reserved by this House for itself, because it affects only persons who are not Transkeian citizens. It has nothing to do with Transkeian citizens; it has to do only with non-citizens of the Transkei and it is in respect of them that this legislation has to be introduced for the sake of clarity because when the land ceased to comply with the definition of trust property, we could no longer apply that particular section to non-citizens of the Transkei, although that was always the intention. It is in order to bring those persons back under our jurisdiction, persons in respect of whom we have always had the right to pass legislation, that we are introducing this legislation. That is why we are making this alteration. Why the hon. member should be making so much ado about this clause is not clear to me. Surely he agrees with me that it was never the intention of the Transkei Constitution Act or any other legislation to grant the Transkeian Government legislative powers in respect of land or in respect of persons who do not fall under them—who are not Transkeian citizens or which is not Transkeian territory. He should not see this clause merely from the point of view of the Transkei, but he should also see it with a view to the future. There will be other trust land that will have to be transferred to other self-governing territories in course of time. That may come in course of time.

When?

The hon. member should contain his curiosity. The hon. members over there are always speaking of “foresight”, but it always appears that they have only “hindsight”, and they are always trying to indulge in “hindsight”. It is much easier to speak with “hindsight” than with “foresight”, and the hon. member has never really spoken with “foresight” in this House. And this section does not relate to the Transkei only, as the hon. member put it, it relates to all Bantu land that will cease being Bantu Trust land in future and that will then have to be transferred to a Government which is self-governing, and that will then be transferred as a private-law transaction, proprietary right which is transferred from one person to another, and because it then ceases to comply with the definition of Trust land, certain sections are no longer of application. This particular sub-section is applied to provide for those cases. I do not think any further reply is required.

I think the hon. member for Transkei made such a convincing analysis of this Clause 3 and it has been completely unshaken by what the hon. member for Heilbron has said. For example, the hon. the Deputy Minister said that there would be consultation, “oorlegpleging”. He did not specify with whom. But now we hear from the hon. member for Heilbron that he considers that there is no need for consultation. There would appear to be a definite difference of opinion …

Not a difference of opinion, but whether it is absolutely necessary or not.

The hon. member for Heilbron said moreover that it only applies to people who are Transkeian citizens. But in fact the power of granting licences in terms of Part B of the First Schedule of the Transkeian Constitution Act is given to the Transkei, and is not limited merely to Transkeian citizens. I refer the hon. member to paragraph 21 of Part B of the First Schedule which gives the power of control and licensing of trading and business in the Transkei, with certain exceptions, to the Transkeian authorities. Therefore a non-Transkeian citizen can be affected by this licensing power.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Heilbron also called this merely a private-law transaction, but it certainly has constitutional effects, and above all I do not think he can deny that it has left unregulated the various matters which we are now seeking to regulate. In fact when this land was vested in the Transkeian Government in April this year, a new situation was brought about which left a vacuum. It is in this respect that the hon. member for Transkei pointed out that the Government did not have the necessary foresight. I do not think that can be questioned.

It is only necessary, Mr. Speaker, to touch very lightly on one or two of the other clauses which have been dealt with already. I think it is necessary to make the point that as far as Clause 1 is concerned, the heading to the Bill is perhaps slightly misleading, where it says that it “makes provision for the holding of a criminal court at a place designated for the hearing of civil cases”. I say that it is misleading because in fact, of course, criminal cases have for a long time been held at places where civil cases are heard*—this has occurred because there are other powers to permit this to be done where the Minister so designates. So it is not as if this is a new situation brought about; it is simply simplification of the method by which this occurs. I think it is just worth noting that, because otherwise it may seem that some rather surprising new innovation is being made, which is not the case.

You are looking for surprises and could not find any.

I am seeking merely to show that nothing far-reaching is being attempted, and that it is merely a perpetuation in a different form of a situation that has existed all along.

Mr. Speaker, so far as Clause 2 is concerned, a little more might be said. This introduces into the Act a limitation on the right of bringing actions. This particular piece of legislation has for 40 years had no clause limiting the right of bringing actions. I am referring to the Bantu Administration Act of 1927. This is now done. We have no objection that a limitation clause should be introduced, a limitation on the right of action, but we feel that it goes very, very far and is too severe. At present, as I say, there is no limitation of action at all under that Act. Now we are faced with a Clause which introduces a very, very severe limitation. After one year has passed from the time the cause of action arises, the right of action is lost. The hon. the Deputy Minister …

Did you refer to the Police Act?

Mr. J. O. N. THOMPSON: I did. The hon. the Minister mentioned the Police Act and the S.A. Railways and Harbours Act and the Public Service Act of 1957. As far as the Police Act is concerned, the position is quite different. There too the limitation is very, very severe; but it can be argued in that case that the person affected would have immediate knowledge of the act or omission which gave rise to the cause of action. Here we are dealing with a different situation. We are dealing with a situation much more akin to the Public Service Act of 1957. The Public Service Act of 1957 also contains a limitation of one year, but with an important saving, and that saving is that the person who has the right of action “shall have known or should reasonably have known of the cause of action”, before he loses his right. It is for this type of amelioration that we shall contend. We are quite prepared to accept that the limitation can be as restrictive as one year, but we feel that it should be brought into line with the Act that the hon. the Deputy Minister himself mentioned, namely the Public Service Act of 1957. The hon. Deputy Minister interjected: “Oh yes, Oh yes, but what if the person alleges that he did not know of it, even as long as five years later?” Well, I appreciate that interjection, because I am quite certain that if the hon. the Deputy Minister realized that the amendment for which we will contend would not fall outside the limitation in this case, he would feel differently about our amendment. In other words, we do not merely contend that the person having the cause of action should have knowledge that he had a cause of action—we are also saying that he can lose his action if he should reasonably have known. I hope therefore that the hon. the Deputy Minister will give careful consideration to introducing this limitation of actions in the form in which it appears in the Public Service Act of 1957. We do not want any more than that. I hope he may find his way clear to accept that.

Act 70 of 1957. We use the very same words in this Bill.

No, the Public Service Act uses this form that it should be limited to one year, “unless the action is brought before the expiry of a period of 12 calendar months after the date upon which the claimant had knowledge, or after the date on which the claimant might reasonably have been expected to have knowledge of the cause of action, whichever is the earlier date”. So that we already have the hon. the Deputy Minister being prepared to think along those lines, and I hope that between now and the Committee Stage he may see his way clear to accepting our suggestion.

Mr. Speaker, nothing needs to be added to what the hon. member for Transkei has said about Clause 3. He also stated that Clause 4 gives us no difficulties. It is only right that persons employed by management boards who consist of the same sort of people as those employed by local authorities should be able to have pensions and other benefits. We are glad that Clause 5 introduces much clearer language so far as the Bantu Affairs Commission is concerned. It was certainly most obscure before. It seems as if you would have a chairman, or alternatively a deputy chairman, which is a very strange state of affairs— you obviously want a chairman and a deputy chairman in certain cases, and that appears to be achieved by the new wording. Furthermore there is no difficulty about Clause 6.

Clause 7, the hon. the Deputy Minister sought to justify on the ground that these development corporations do not make profits and they pay no dividends. Well, that is something to be said for them. At the same time they are competing with trading establishments in these areas. We would be glad to know why they should be privileged above an ordinary trader there in regard to this matter. A trader has to pay taxes, he has to pay his licences. Surely a provision of this kind will enable any trading institution under these corporations to compete on very, very advantageous terms as against the existing traders. I do not think that that could have been the intention. It is true, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, that the Bantu Investment Corporation contains the same clause; but the Industrial Development Corporation Act does not contain this clause. We would need something more convincing to satisfy us that this type of clause should be introduced in a case of this kind.

Mr. Speaker, I notice that many of the hon. members on the other side have just left the Chamber. I have no doubt that the reason is that they are afraid that they might be asked to speak on this Bill and after the performance of the hon. member for Heilbron and the hon. the Deputy Minister, I am not surprised. I think the most remarkable thing that has happened in this Chamber this afternoon was that the hon. the Deputy Minister, when the hon. member for Transkei was talking about the Transkeian Legislative Assembly having powers to deal with licences, said:

“But where do they have those powers?” Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. the Deputy Minister and all the hon. members on that side of the House must remember what we are dealing with here. We are dealing here with a constitution which was put on the Statute Book by this Parliament in all seriousness.

Did I question the right of dealing with licences?

What did the hon. the Deputy Minister ask the hon. member for Transkei? What then was his question?

It is not my fault if you have nightmares.

As I was saying, one must appreciate what one is dealing with here is a constitutional matter. We are dealing with the Transkei Constitution directly in this Bill, a constitution which had written into it certain things whereby this Parliament bound its successors to the letter of the law, although of course the letter of the law cannot bind any future Parliament, but it was there in the spirit of the law. But what a cavalcade of constitutional chaos this Bill is, if I may say so.

Do you understand the Bill?

I hope to point out a few things to the hon. the Deputy Minister whereby he himself can decide what it is he is going to do in relation to this Bill and in relation to other Bills and other Acts which are affected by this Bill.

It is quite obvious that he does not understand it.

As my hon. friend says, the hon. the Deputy Minister does not understand it. Sir, constitutions are based on good faith, we rely on the spirit of a constitution, not so much on the letter of the law, and the good faith which the hon. member for Transkei mentioned here is somewhat lacking on the part of the Government in relation to their Transkeian Constitution. Not, Sir, that we expect this from hon. members on the other side. Their record in such matters as constitutional reforms, as to what constitutions are, is not a very good one. But, Sir, here they are in trouble not because of the law. The law is very clear. Here they are in trouble because as always the spirit of the Transkeian Constitution has not been adhered to. As has been pointed out, the Dower was given to the Transkeian Assembly by Section 37 of the Transkei Constitution Act …

Read Section 39.

I am coming to all the Sections if the hon. the Minister will just contain himself. Section 37 (1) of the Transkei Constitution Act says—

And in Part B of the First Schedule, amongst the things that they have the power to deal with, is “the control and licensing of trading and business in the Transkei, but excluding the licensing of dealings in arms and ammunition and explosives”. Sir, it was put into the law, written into the law in Section 37 (3) that “no law made after the commencement of this Act (including any Act of Parliament) which relates to any matter referred to in sub-section (1) …” that is the Schedule, the power to deal with licences … “shall apply in the Transkei or in relation to any citizen of the Transkei in respect of which the Legislative Assembly is empowered to make laws in so far as that matter is concerned”. In other words, Sir, so much does this Government think of this Constitution that it wrote in a provision that it hoped—because that was all it could do—that no future Parliament of the Republic of South Africa would make any law having application in the Transkei, dealing with the matter of licences, amongst other things.

Read Sections 38 and 39 as well.

Section 38 says that the legislative power in respect of all matters not appearing in the First Schedule shall remain vested in the Parliament of the Republic. As this does appear in the First Schedule this is not relevant at all.

And 39?

Perhaps the hon. member himself will read that and then he will realize that these sections will have no application whatsoever.

Sir, despite the fact that the Transkei Constitution Act says that this Parliament should not pass any law having application in the Transkei in relation to licensing matters, we now have this Bill. And perhaps when the hon. the Deputy Minister replies, he will tell us why that was put into the Transkei Constitution Act. I am not saying that he is not entitled to bring a Bill to deal with it. He is. But what I would like him to tell us is why he put it in, why that was put into the Transkei Constitution Act and what it means. It seems to me that it means as much as any other thing means in constitutional law. It does not matter what you write; what is important is the spirit in which you approach your constitution.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that in the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act we deliberately put in a provision which provided that no provincial rights should be restricted except by petition from a Provincial Council. We have seen time and time again an invasion of those rights by this Government. Why is this provision in the Transkei Constitution Act? What does it mean? Is this the sort of gobbledee-goop we get from this Government in connection with constitutional matters, that they can make promises, put them in the law while they mean nothing whatever to future generations? The matter is even much more serious. What is remarkable about this Bill is that as a result of the attitude of this Government, as a result of its law and as a result of this Bill we are going to have the following situation. Clause 3 of this Bill is, as the hon. member for Transkei has indicated, the essence of the Bill. If we are going to pass this into law it means that we are going to give the trustee and the Minister the power to deal with licences. Now, the position which will be created by this is that Section 3 of this Act passed by this Parliament can be repealed by the Transkeian Legislative Assembly. The hon. the Deputy Minister reacts by saying “Huh!” But it is perfectly true.

How do you arrive at that?

I will show the hon. member how I arrive at that. But imagine the absurd situation that the hon. the Deputy Minister who introduces this Bill does not, inter alia, realize that that is so. Let us now look at Section 37 (1) of the Transkei Constitution Act (Act No. 48 of 1963) which reads—

1. (a) to make laws not inconsistent with this Act in relation to all matters appearing in Part B of the First Schedule to this Act; and
2. (b) to provide in any such law for the amendment or repeal of any law, including any Act of Parliament in so far as it relates to any such matter and applies in the Transkei or to any citizen of the Transkei whether such citizen is or is resident within or outside the Transkei.

The Transkeian Legislative Assembly has been given the powers specifically to repeal an Act of this Parliament so far as it applies in the Transkei and relates to any matter in the Schedule—in other words, to licensing. That is very clear. They have that power. And here we are, as a result of the blundering of this Government, passing a Bill containing a clause dealing with licensing in the Transkei while at the same time they have provided in the Transkei Constitution Act, their own Act, that the Transkeian Legislative Assembly when it gets together again can, if it wants to, repeal the very measure which we here in Parliament are enacting. We are not amending the Transkei Constitution Act. That remains as it is. So they retain that power.

It is only because this Bill has been introduced that this situation has arisen. It should not have arisen. It was never intended to arise. That is why; a provision was included that future Parliaments should not legislate upon such matters as are entrusted to the Transkei. But here we are doing it. But here we deliberately—I can only assume it is deliberate unless, of course, the hon. the Deputy Minister has never thought of it—put ourselves into the position that we are passing something which the Transkei Legislative Assembly may repeal. Imagine, what an absurd situation.

Read what it says, namely “with reference to …”.

Here we are in Parliament assembled, the sovereign Parliament of this land dealing with matters relating to the whole of the Republic being placed in a position where this Government has given the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei the power to repeal what we are making here and which is declared to be a statute of the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. What one should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister is whether, if he is going to take away the powers of the Transkeian Legislative Assembly, he is going to amend the Transkei Constitution Act? If this is the intention, then that is the proper thing to do. But it seems to me to be improper to land us in a situation where we as the sovereign Parliament passes a law which can in law be repealed by another body, no matter what body it is. It seems to me that the situation at which we have arrived is an absurd one.

Order! The hon. member has said that now at least five times.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I had to do it because it does not seem to penetrate with the hon. the Deputy Minister. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to indicate whether he is going to do anything about this and also what sort of consultation he proposes to have. It is quite true that the hon. member for Froneman … [Laughter.]

That shows how confused you are.

I must apologize to the hon. member, Mr. Chairman. It was really a Freudian error. I could not believe he was really representing the views of anyone else but himself in this House if the hon. member for Heilbron had, in his intersections, referred to Section 40 of the Transkei Constitution Act it would have been more relevant because in that section it is provided that the State President must assent to every law passed by the Legislative Assembly of the Transkei. But is this really the situation which this Parliament intended? Is this really the situation this Parliament intended the State President should be placed in? Was it the intention that there should be two competing legislatures in relation to the same subject matter while he as State President should assent to the laws of both? Was it intended that he should be placed in a position where he has to choose, in case of conflict, which one he is going to assent to and which not? Was it intended that he should be placed in a position where he should first assent to a law of the one and thereafter to change his mind and assent to the law of another?

Order! The hon. member is repeating the same argument, only using different wording.

I am dealing with Section 40. Section 40 does in effect give the Government the power to prevent this from happening. I should, therefore, like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister what he intends doing should this in fact happen.

Will the hon. the Deputy Minister perhaps also tell this House whether or not he has consulted with the Transkeian Government, whether he has consulted with them about this and whether they have given their consent to having themselves denuded of this right which was originally given to them in their own constitution? Has he consulted them, Sir? And if so, did they agree to it? [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister can sit here and say that no such right has been given to them in their constitution. Indeed, we even went so far as to say that we should never legislate in relation to those matters given to them in the constitution.

Not in respect of that for which we are legislating here in Clause 3.

Mr. Chairman, what are we legislating for in Clause 3?

HON. MEMBERS: Read it.

We are dealing with licences for trading.

Read it again.

Mr. Chairman, I suppose someone has to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister. Clause 3 amends Section 24 of Act No. 18 of 1936. In the first instance, it is provided that sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall mutatis mutandis apply with reference to any territory which by an Act of Parliament has been or is declared a self-governing territory within the Republic. Section 24 (1) of Act No. 18 of 1936 reads—

Sub-section (3) provides—

This is where it appears. If the hon. the Deputy Minister will now read paragraph 21 of part B of the First Schedule of the Transkei Constitution Act he will see there that the Transkei Government is given the power for the control and licensing of trading and business in the Transkei. So it seems to me that the hon. the Deputy Minister has produced a Bill without quite appreciating what effects it is going to have and without realizing what a ridiculous situation he is now creating in relation to the Transkeian Legislative Assembly. If this is his intention, the proper thing to do is for the hon. the Deputy Minister to amend the Transkei Constitution Act if he wants to avoid this situation. But to do that he would obviously have to consult with the Transkeian Legislative Assembly.

Order! The hon. member is still repeating the same old story.

In any event. Sir, I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister has got my point and I do hope we will get a reply from him.

In the absence of any attempt from the Government side to reply to the case put up by this side of the House perhaps it is necessary for a layman now to clarify what the legal pundits … [Laughter.] In the first place, the hon. the Deputy Minister has been less than frank with us in so far as he claims that Clause 3 applies to Section 24 (1). It is not merely, as the hon. the Deputy Minister stated, a reinstatement of power. It is more than that and the hon. the Deputy Minister ought to know. It is an extension of power. The hon. the Deputy Minister blandly stood up here this afternoon and told us that he was merely reinstating the power which the Trust enjoyed before it transferred the title deed of the land to the Transkei. I refer to the proclamation of April this year. The Deputy Minister implied that all he was doing was merely to take back a power which he had. But, of course, he knows he has done more than that. He knows that he has extended that power. The reason why I draw attention to this is that he has extended it in terms of United Party policy. He has taken the power to retain White leadership and control over the entry of persons into the Transkei. Under the Act of 1936 the Governor-General, now the State President, had the right to control the entry of non-Natives—in other words, Whites, Coloureds and Asiatics. He did not have the right in terms of Section 24 to control the entry of a Native into a Native area. Section 24 (1) states in this connection—

That is the power which the Minister had, i.e. the power to prohibit a non-Native from entry. That power was, due to the inefficiency of this Government—through plain and blatant inefficiency of this Government—not retained when title deed was transferred to the Transkei. I want to charge the hon. the Minister with a dereliction of duty.

Order! That is not under discussion here.

This Bill, Mr, Chairman, seeks to control the right of entry into the Transkei. It seeks to give to the Minister, or to the State President, the right to control the entry of certain persons into that part of South Africa which is the Transkei. I am charging the Minister with a dereliction of duty in that from April to October, i.e. 7 months, the Government of South Africa has had no control whatever over the movement of people into the Transkei. I say this is why the hon. the Deputy Minister is now coming with this clause. For seven months this Government has failed in its duty to control, as any Government should, the movement of any person, White or non-White, in or out of the Transkei. What control it has exercised was illegal control because only now, i.e. in October, does the hon. the Deputy Minister come to rectify a weakness which he himself had created by the transfer of title to the land in April this year. In that proclamation he waived control, control which he now seeks to restore. Instead, however, of merely restoring that control he is now extending it to any person who is not a Transkeian citizen—in other words, any White person, Coloured, Asiatic or Bantu who is not a Transkeian citizen. He can in terms of this say that no Zulu, Venda or Tswana or any other Bantu in South Africa may enter the Transkei. And if the Transkeian Government wants a Zulu from Zululand to come and take a job with the Government— because he is, for instance, a highly qualified doctor or specialist in any field—the Transkei is not entitled to accept that person because the Minister is the person who controls his entry. I say that we support this power but there are three things against which we take exception. Firstly, there is the failure of the Government to notice its own mistake; secondly the fact that the Government left the situation completely uncontrolled for seven months; and, thirdly, that the hon. the Deputy Minister now comes with an extended power whilst trying to cover it up with a few frilly words without telling us the honest plain truth of the matter, which is that he is now taking the power to control all Bantu. We say, “Fine! You need that power.” But that is the policy of this side of the House and not that of the Government. What we want to point out is that the Government in this Bill is acting contrary to its own policy. It has apparently accepted the warnings which this side of the House gave when the original Act was passed. We then warned the Government that it was handing over greater powers than it should but they went ahead despite our warnings. Now they have to crawl back, and accept the warnings which we gave them and, re-establish powers which it abrogated when it handed over the title deed to the land.

Now we come to the other point on which the hon. the Deputy Minister as well as the hon. member for Heilbron were so adamant.

This is that Clause 3, in applying the provisions of Section 24 of Act 18 of 1936, in fact only applies it to non-Transkeian citizens. The hon. the Deputy Minister has interjected four or five times by saying: Read Section 39 (g). Seeing that the hon. the Deputy Minister is so anxious I shall read it. The legislative assembly shall have control of various matters and Section 39 (g) reads “the entry of persons other than Transkeian citizens into the Transkei”.

Exactly.

Exactly. Thank you, that is all I wanted. I wanted the hon. member for Heilbron to put his foot into the same hole as the one the hon. the Deputy Minister has put his foot into. Now I have them both standing on one leg. They are standing one-legged on a clause which says the Transkei may not control entry. We have accepted that. We say so. But the purport and the intent of Clause 3 is not simply to control entry. And I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister to deny it. I challenge any member on that side of the House. And I challenge particularly the legal fraternity to stand up and deny that Clause 3 which we are now being asked to pass in fact goes far beyond entry. Sub-section (1) certainly deals with entry. Sub-section (1) of Section 24 … [Interjections.] If that hon. member had the sense to know what any Bill was about then he would be of some value to this House. But as long as he sits there and makes inane interjections he would be making a greater contribution by keeping quiet. Sub-section (1) of Section 24 deals with entry. Sub-section (2) deals with the creation of an offence. But subsection (3) has nothing to do with entry. It has nothing whatsoever to do with entry. It reads: No licence to carry on any profession, business, trade or calling in any scheduled Native area … etc.

… any person who is not a citizen of that territory.

I challenge the hon. member for Heilbron and I am prepared to sit down if in this sub-section he can read those words he has just quoted. In this clause …

May I accept that challenge? The section provides that no licence may be issued to a person, in respect of …

Order! The hon. member is not entitled to the explanation asked for by the hon. member. The hon. member may not speak a second time.

I offered the hon. member an opportunity to quote words which he, by way of interjection, said were in this subsection. [Interjections.] I will then quote the whole sub-section. It reads:

That is the complete sub-section. [Interjections.]

Read Clause 3 now.

The amendment introduced by this Bill applies mutatis mutandis to this sub-section (3) of Section 24 which I have just read. It provides that “sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) shall mutatis mutandis apply with reference to any territory which by an Act of Parliament has been or is declared a self-governing territory within the Republic, and also with reference to any person who is not a citizen of that territory”. It reads, “And also”. In other words it applies to the territory “and also” to any person who is not a citizen, i.e. a Zulu, or a Sotho or a Shangaan. But subsection (3) does not refer to a person. There is no reference to a person. It says no licence may be issued. There is no reference to a person. [Interjections.] It refers to the issue of a licence. And that includes a trading licence issued in the territory referred to herein, namely the territory declared a self-governing territory. In other words, any licence issued within the territory of the Transkei. The operative words are “and also” to a person who is a non-citizen. It affects any licence issued and I challenge any …

How many times does the hon. member want to repeat that?

As often as that hon. member denies it.

No, I am not going to allow him to do so.

I hope that the hon. member will now cease denying it. We have here an extension of power which goes beyond what the hon. the Minister said and which in fact does not achieve what he claims it achieves. We have claimed that an undertaking was given to the Transkei. I do not want to elaborate that argument. What I do want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister is whether it is now, with the passing of this Act, the intention of the Government without consultation to override any other provisions of the Transkei constitution, and if so, what provisions.

Order! That point has been made over and over again.

I am not dealing with this particular overriding. I am dealing with other overridings.

That is not at issue.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with the question of Clause 7 in respect of which the hon. the Deputy Minister said that the Bantu Homelands Development Corporation was a non-profitmaking organization. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether in fact this Corporation does not own and conduct under its direction trading stores, and whether those trading stores are in fact profitmaking or non-profitmaking organizations. Do the stores which they own make a profit or not?

They do not own a single one.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Heilbron says they do not own a single store. And yet we are told in debate after debate that the traders need not worry.

You are speaking of the Bantu Investment Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Heilbron should listen. My question is whether the Homelands Development Corporation … [Interjections.] This is the Xhosa one which we are dealing with now. The hon. member spoke so strangely that I wanted to check. And I found that he was wrong in fact. The wording of the Bill is: “The Bantu Homelands”—plural—“Development Corporations”—plural. That is not what the hon. member said. My question is whether these corporations and in particular the Xhosa Corporation, in fact would be involved in any trading whatsoever or in any industry whatsoever or any economic activity in competition with private enterprise. And if that is so, Mr. Speaker, whether those particular enterprises which it subsidizes and which it underwrites or which it assists in any way are in fact profitmaking or non-profit-making. We on this side of the House would like an assurance that there will be no unfair competition through the exemption from taxation of an organization set up by Parliament with State funds which in fact can and will in any way compete with private enterprise in the same field.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I want to say that we are going to vote for this Bill and we are going to vote for it because this reflects much of the policy of the United Party. We want it to be completely clear—and I think it has become clear from the silence on that side of the House—that the Government is unable to deny and has failed to deny that the position is as we have put it from this side.

Mr. Speaker, I am supposed to thank the Opposition very much for the fact that they support this Bill, but you know, Sir, one sometimes feels very much like responding to all the covert prods you receive in passing, and I cannot help responding to a few of them. Remarks levelled at me in person leave me cold. If it is said that I am a junior Minister entrusted with a matter, and that I cannot understand what hon. members are trying to convey to me, it leaves me cold. I do not take much notice of that. But it is of interest to me that this Government’s legislation relating to Bantu Affairs has progressed to the point where the United Party is also beginning to agree with it, and unanimously.

The hon. member for Transkei said that the stipulation that the chairman or the deputy chairman has to be a “fit and proper person” has been omitted from Clause 5. But I want to tell him that this Government has such fit and proper people on its Bantu Affairs Commission that there is no need to specify it by legislation. On the various clauses we have had certain arguments that could have been more properly dealt with in the Committee Stage, and we shall probably still deal with them in that stage. I therefore do not intend dealing with the clauses one by one again. But there has been an attempt to attribute sinister motives to us, and I should like to say something about that.

There was an attempt to prove that this Government has discovered that it transferred certain powers to the Transkeian Legislative Assembly which it now seeks to withdraw, and that we seek to regain the licensing of businesses in the Transkei by passing Clause 3. Nothing can be further from the truth. The Transkeian Government will retain the powers conferred on it by the Transkei Constitution Act. Because it was argued that in passing Clause 3 we are now trying to abrogate certain rights which were previously held by the Transkeian Government, I just want to reiterate that until 1st April we held all those rights stipulated in Clause 3. If accusations are levelled against us to the effect that we allowed the situation to continue and that for seven months there was no control, then I must tell the hon. member that from October to April is not seven months.

But that act has not been signed. It will be seven months.

With the generous support I am receiving from the United Party, we hope that the Bill will be passed in a day or two, and then it is barely six months. [Interjection.]

Order!

There is no intention of withdrawing powers. If it is now alleged that we have made “a slip-up” or that there has been “lack of foresight”, then I suppose one will have to resign oneself to that, but when the land that had belonged to the Trust was transferred on 1st April, it appeared that there might be a misunderstanding as regards the powers which were previously exercised in terms of Sections 24 (1), (2) and (3), which we always exercised and which are still being exercised in other Bantu areas, and that we no longer had control over that land as we had previously. That is the only reason.

Was not Section 24 (3) automatically cancelled by the Transkei Institution Act?

Licensing was transferred to them and will still vest in the Transkeian Government. There is no intention of taking it away from them. The control which is being taken relates to the influx of non-Bantu in the Transkei. That control is now retained.

We have listened attentively to the various arguments raised by hon. members, and I was very pleased when the hon. member for Durban (Point) rose. He and I can talk to one another. He is also a layman on legal matters, just as I am. But when I listened to the other two gentlemen, it reminded me of the man who was accused and who hired a lawyer to defend him. He sat listening to the lawyer and finally told him: “I think you had better sit down; you are going to have me convicted”. In particular, I listened to the hon. member for Transkei, and there was hardly a clause in the legislation which he did not read out, but he missed the entire crux of the legislation before us. The hon. member for Pinelands objected to Clause 1, and that objection was also raised by other hon. members, because there would now supposedly be identical conditions, or identical places for criminal courts and civil courts. I do not want to accuse the hon. member of things of which he is not guilty.

Your lawyers have let you down badly.

You should have listened to farmers and not to lawyers.

If only the hon. members would not make so many interjections, I might be better able to follow them. It was objected that a criminal court and a civil court would be held in the same place. I do not think that was a serious objection, nor did it sound like one. [Interjections.] Sir, you called the hon. member for Durban (North) to order repeatedly, because he tried repeatedly to make a point and I could see that the hon. member was eventually becoming confused by his own statements, and when he became confused he said that he could not get it across to me. I do not know whom he is trying to convince, but perhaps one should not hold it against the hon. member. You know, Sir, he has not had many opportunities of speaking lately. There were certain reasons why he had to keep quiet, and when he was given an opportunity to speak this afternoon, he made good use of it … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister is now also digressing too far from the Bill.

I shall not continue arguing that, Sir. I have not even replied to the hon. member yet, but I am going to do so now. The hon. member alleged that we were dealing with a constitutional measure; that we were amending the Transkei constitution this afternoon. I do not know what gave the hon. member that notion, that we want to withdraw powers that were previously conferred upon them. I do not know what gave the hon. member the idea that the licensing will now be undertaken by the Minister again. Clause 24 (3) has been read out repeatedly, but hon. members may read (4) as well, which authorizes the Minister to transfer certain powers, and that has already been done in the case of the Transkeian Government. They have that power. Why it is alleged that those powers are being withdrawn, I fail to understand.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) asked another question to which I should like to reply. It relates to Clause 7, that no licence fees or any other taxes shall be paid by corporations. Here, too, the impression was created that these corporations would provide unfair competition. But surely hon. members know what was the object with those corporations when the Act passed last year. The object was to stimulate business undertakings, industries, etc., for the benefit of the Bantu themselves. It is solely for that reason that this provision is inserted, because it would otherwise merely have meant, if licence fees and income tax were in fact payable, that it would have been necessary to augment those funds in some other way if one wanted to render the same services for the benefit of the Bantu. There is no question of preferring the corporations to private enterprise. In fact, the idea will be quite welcome where there is private initiative among the Bantu which can be employed for the benefit of the Bantu. These corporations were established with the sole object of stimulating the Bantu to set up industries and business undertakings. With a view to that I believe it to be essential that the corporations should not pay taxes.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether an industry owned by the corporation will also be released from taxation; whether a property or an industry they buy, would pay tax?

The hon. member is now asking a very general question. The idea of this corporation is not to own industries. The idea is to stimulate industries. It may be that a corporation will own an industry until such time as it can be taken over by the Bantu themselves. But even in that case I do not believe it should pay tax, because no matter what profits are made, they are ploughed back for the benefit of the Bantu themselves. With a view to that object I think it is obvious that there should be no necessity for a corporation to pay taxes and licence fees.

Whom are you going to consult?

Order! That hon. member cannot ask any more questions. The point can be cleared up in the Committee Stage.

On a point or order, why can I not ask a question?

The hon. member for Durban (Point) asked a question that was clearly answered, and it is in any event a clause with regard to which the particulars can be furnished in the Committee Stage.

In all fairness, I think I owe the hon. member a reply. We said that as regards Clause 3, a proclamation will be issued because it is intended that there should be consultation. On that point I believe I should reply briefly to the hon. member for Transkei. We shall consult the Government and the Minister concerned, of course. But I see no reason why the hon. member wants us. to wait until the Legislative Assembly is in session. If there is any consultation to be done, then the Minister in charge of that Department is consulted in this Parliament; and if Parliament is not in session, it does not necessarily mean that such consultation should be held in abeyance until Parliament is in session, and that Parliament should take a decision on the matter. We believe that the relevant Minister there, with the support of the Government, has adequate powers at his disposal in order that consultation may in fact take place.

The remaining points can be cleared up in the Committee Stage. I want to thank the Opposition for the support they have lent this measure.

Bill read a Second Time.

When this House adjourned last night the Mines Vote was under discussion. The question was asked whether sufficient preparations were being made for the future of our mining industry. If one takes the past 15 years into consideration one is inclined to say that those years have been a period of complete progress in the field of mining and also in respect of the tracing, the development and the working of the Republic’s mineral resources. Over the past 15 years we have reached high-water marks in so far as the development and the mining of our various minerals are concerned. During this period we have also experienced a marked increase in our production and in the value of such production. We can be nothing but appreciative of what the Minister and the Department of Mines have done in connection with this fantastic development. We find that the Minister is responsible for formulating the policy, as well as for its implementation, and he has to exercise proper supervision over the allocation of prospecting rights to mines, as well as over other matters affecting mining. The Minister and his Department are responsible not only for mining the various minerals but also for tracing new mineral resources. We find that the geological survey division plays a major role in this connection and that a great deal of success has been achieved in recent times as regards the discovery of aluminium ore, perlite, zinc and phosphate. If we consider the production of minerals in recent times, we find that the value of such production amounted to R504,000,000 in 1955 and that this figure increased to R1,085,000,000 in 1964. We also find a tremendous increase as regards our production of gold, and similarly our production of diamonds, copper, platinum and coal has shown a tremendous increase. But something which has really caught our imaginations, something which is of great value to us in the Republic and something for which we want to praise the Minister and his Department, is the search for oil which is taking place on a large scale at present. In this connection we want to tell the Minister, where he has established a State corporation with a capital of R10,000,000 appropriated by this Parliament, that the general public expects him and his Department to investigate all possible sources. Even if the chances are very slim, an investigation should still be instituted, because we are convinced that the moment we discover oil in the Republic pressure from the outside world will decrease to a large extent. We want to congratulate the Minister on the interest he has aroused on the part of large companies in the outside world to join in the search and to place at our disposal the knowledge they have acquired in the course of many years in connection with searching for oil. However, in this large-scale development of the mining industry which is due to sound planning and to the necessary capital, modern machinery and scientific techniques being available, we find that the mineworker remains the most important link between all these undertakings. The mineworker remains the most important link between all these things. Even if we do have the capital, the machinery and the technique and we do not have the mineworker to break the rock, we cannot be sure that all these things would not collapse like a house of cards. Where the mineworker is the important link in this mining chain I want to ask the Minister in view of the fact that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction and misunderstanding amongst the mineworkers, especially as regards the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act, 1962, whether the time has not arrived for revising that Act? We have been given the assurance in this House that the Minister was prepared to allow this legislation to undergo a trial period. I want to ask the Minister whether the time has not arrived for convening a proper conference of all Members of Parliament interested in this legislation at which conference the Minister must act as chairman? Let us scrutinize this legislation of 1962 so as to ascertain whether we cannot eliminate unnecessary points of friction. We find points of friction such as a mineworker having to get a red card. He is healthy when he first goes underground but when he has been working underground for 15 years he is suddenly warned that he may no longer work underground because he has an enlarged heart or high blood pressure or eczema or arthritis. He is put out and he is told that he may no longer work underground or in dusty atmospheres and he is deprived of a pension because he is not suffering from pneumoconiosis. As regards tuberculosis, we find a great deal of dissatisfaction about the single payment made to the mineworker. They would like to receive pensions. We find that there is dissatisfaction as regards the children’s allowance. Where the mineworker received an attendant’s allowance in terms of the 1956 legislation, we find that that has been taken away in terms of the 1962 legislation. Has the time not arrived for us to meet at a conference table in order to ascertain how we shall be able to eliminate these difficulties and unnecessary points of friction? Then I want to make a further plea to the hon. the Minister. Where we have a large number of new members in Parliament representing mineworkers’ constituencies, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to enable us to have discussions once again with the director and the officials of the medical bureau for mineworkers. We should like to have an opportunity of seeing how the medical bureau operates. The hon. the Minister created such an opportunity for us shortly after his appointment as Minister and it was highly appreciated by us. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the time has not arrived to take us there once again so that we may enlighten ourselves and see for ourselves whether or not the complaints we receive from time to time are justified and whether improvements cannot be effected. We will be very grateful to the hon. the Minister if he can arrange that for us.

Sir, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Brakpan, but I would remind him that if he wants to talk about sick miners he must remember that the Pneumoconiosis Act refers to men suffering from pneumoconiosis. If they have arthritis or some other disease, then he must ask the hon. the Minister to institute an inquiry under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. So long as the miner insists on being judged only on his pneumoconiosis, he must accept it. He falls under another measure if he suffers from other illnesses which are occupational illnesses—and arthritis in the wet environment in which the miner works is a natural sequel of the conditions under which he works; it is an occupational disease. The same applies to skin diseases. It is unfortunate that the injured miner or the miner who suffers from an occupational disease has been segregated from the other medical troubles of the ordinary working man and that he has not received compensation. If the hon. member asks the Minister to put pneumoconiosis under the Department of Health he would probably get good treatment for the miner in all respects. But as it is, this is an occupational disease receiving no treatment and not being properly administered because it falls under the wrong Department. Sir, I would have liked to have pointed out to the hon. member for Geduld that in saying what he did here he was merely repeating what the hon. member for Rosettenville and I myself have been asking for during the last eight years, namely that post mortems should be held in all cases where miners die, and that ex-miners suffering from pneumoconiosis should certainly be supplied with medicine when they are ill.

I want to turn now to the question of aluminium in the prophylaxis of pneumoconiosis or what used to be called silicosis. In this condition at the moment I would rather refer to it as silicosis because in this instance silica is an important item which makes the prospect of using aluminium successfully rather better than in other pneumoconiosis. I know that the hon. the Minister’s predecessor sent three medical men to Canada to investigate the value or otherwise of aluminium and that they returned and reported adversely on the matter. If he had asked them whether aluminium would prevent pneumoconiosis, they would have been correct in saying that they thought that for that purpose it was valueless. I think it is generally agreed that aluminium as a cure is of no value whatsoever, but is aluminium of no benefit to the working miner? Will it not bring him some relief and will it not to a large extent delay the onset of this disease? Sir, to reject that off-hand, in the face of considerable information and authoritative reports, merely on the strength of a report resulting from a short visit to Canada by some members of the Minister’s staff, is, I think, not justified and I would like to ask the Minister to give a second thought to this matter. We cannot look upon prophylaxis with aluminium as a substitute for dust control. I want to emphasize that; it is not a substitute for engineering, but there are reports from Germany and from the American Society of Chest Physicians, a very important body, and from Canada to the effect that dust control and engineering cannot prevent all miners from breathing dust. That is the point. The point is that all efforts of engineers, all discipline and all the water in the drills, do not prevent some miners from breathing dust at some time or other.

It can be brought down to a minimum.

Everybody knows that. Nobody underrates the value of our engineers in dust control, but there are still cases of pneumoconiosis. If there were not, there would not be arguments in this House under the Mines Vote and there would not be people asking for more benefits for the miners, so there must be some miners breathing some dust, and these are the miners who come before the Bureau for care and attention. The claim for aluminium is that if it is used some of the miners who, under the conditions under which they work, would otherwise develop pheumoconiosis, will not develop it. The reports from the one mine in Canada where it has been used are extremely favourable. The amount of pneumoconiosis developed in that particular mine has diminished a great deal since the introduction of aluminium. Aluminium has now been in use long enough for us to accept that it is not harmful. The cost of its application is extremely low. It is certainly less than the cost of compensating miners for pneumoconiosis. I would beg the Minister to give this matter a little more thought and to see if he cannot persuade some of the mines to try it out in their mines and then to compare the results with the results obtained in other mines. If aluminium is of value, then it is not right that it is not being used. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give it a trial.

Sir, I want to leave that aspect and turn to the question of asbestosis, probably the most deadly of the dusts to which humans are exposed. I know that the hon. the Minister had a report from the C.S.I.R. in 1965. I hope he will make that report available to us: I would like to see it. I would like to know what he is doing about the area around the mines on the surface. It is stated in that report that it is now accepted—and indeed it is common knowledge—that very little exposure is needed to produce asbestosis in humans. It has even been found in rats which only run about on the surface. What precautions is the Minister taking with regard to the packing of the asbestos when it leaves the mines and how is he preventing the environmental conditions from being such as to cause asbestosis? [Time limit.]

This afternoon I should like to thank one of the spokesmen for the mineworkers, the hon. member for Rosettenville, for the contribution made by him last night when he pleaded for better salaries, better conditions and better pensions for mineworkers. I was pleased to hear that a member of the United Party was taking up the cudgels for the mineworkers after all these years.

We have always done so.

We know how we had to hurry from one place to another to find mineworkers during the big strike in 1947-8. They fled from one town to another. The hon. member for Rosettenville said that he expected the Government to subsidize mines so as to enable them to pay the mine-workers the increased salaries for which the hon. member pleaded. We all feel that the mineworker should receive a better pension and a better salary in the future. We are all in favour of the mineworker being paid a decent monthly salary. But then it is the duty of the employers and of the Chamber of Mines to come forward with a scheme for once, perhaps for the first time, and to tell the mineworker: “I am offering you an increased salary in recognition of the contribution you have made to the economy of this country.” No, that they do not do. The Government is always the one that is called upon to do its duty and the matter is left at that. Sir, I thank the hon. the Minister of Mines and the Government for what they have done for the mineworkers in the past and for what they are still going to do in the future. I only hope that the hon. member for Rosettenville, on his return to his constituency, will request the Chamber of Mines to do its duty towards the mineworkers. Let us for one moment consider what the position is in the gold mining industry. In the year 1957-8 49,400 White workers were employed in the gold mining industry; in the year 1964-5 there were 47,000 White mine-workers, in other words a decrease of 2,400 White mineworkers in the gold mining industry alone. But let us consider the gold production during the years I have mentioned here. In 1957-8 the gold production was R440.000,000 and in the year 1964-5 it was R766,500,000, an increase of R326,000,000 but this higher gold production was achieved in spite of a decrease of 2,400 in the number of White mineworkers. This only goes to show how the duties of the mineworker have increased. Therefore, is the Chamber of Mines not indebted to the White mineworkers who, even though their numbers have decreased, have nevertheless increased the gold production by more than R300,000,000? Is that not an achievement?

I thank the hon. member for Brakpan for making an appeal to the Minister for a conference to be convened. I hope that such a conference will be held in the near future so as to eliminate the difficulties existing under the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act, 1962, as the hon. member said, but I shall be failing in my duty if I do not thank the hon. the Minister for what he has already done. This legislation has been amended and improved often during the period since its promulgation in 1910 up to 1962, and I trust that it will again be amended and improved in the future in so far as the mineworker is concerned. The hon. member for Durban (Central) said that it was virtually impossible to combat pneumoconiosis. I wholeheartedly agree with him. We are indebted to our engineers and to all the scientists for the methods employed in combating this serious disease, but we know that the results are not 100 per cent yet. We trust that we shall also achieve better results in that direction in the future. The mining industry in South Africa is certainly the largest industry in the country, but we have more than the gold mining industry. We also have our coa* mining industry; we have our diamond mines; our iron-ore mines, our platinum mines and our asbestos mines. It is precisely on account of our mining industry that our secondary industries have expanded to such a tremendous extent and that new industries have been created for the manufacture of mining material and machinery. Those industries employ in e thousands of White and non-Whites owe their existence to the mining industry, and for this reason we want to tell the mine-owners, the Chamber of Mines, that they must not expect the State to do everything. When a mine becomes a marginal mine the State has to subsidize such mine; the State has to plough back into that mine the taxes it has collected; the State has to grant tax relief to that mine. But what do the shareholders do? Are they also prepared to make concessions? Are they prepared to receive lower dividends on their shares? No, they just want to skim the cream off the milk. I say that the Chamber of Mines and the mining magnates and the shareholders just want to skim the cream off the milk. [Time limit.]

Sir, having listened to the hon. member for Stilfontein, one is a little surprised at his indignation at the speech of the hon. member for Rosettenville. The hon. member for Rosettenville has pleaded the cause of the mineworkers, a cause which I should have thought would have received the full support of hon. members on the other side of the House. It appears, however, that his plea in the interests of the mineworkers has met with a certain amount of criticism from hon. members on that side of the House. I believe that there are certain aspects affecting the mineworkers to which further consideration should be given during this debate, by the hon. the Minister of Mines. First of all there is the question of pensions becoming payable to certain miners who find that it is necessary for them to go on pension, sometimes after a period of service of 25 years. The plea has been made by hon. members on this side of the House on previous occasions that a mineworker who has served the industry for 25 years should be entitled to a decent pension. We know that there are certain pension schemes operated by the Chamber of Mines and other organizations. We believe that it is also in the interests of the mines from the point of view of recruitment that the conditions of service of the mineworkers should be improved. One of the important factors in the recruitment of labour is the question of security. The recruit wants to be certain that he will have a degree of security in his employment.

Order! Is the hon. member referring to the pneumoconiosis pension?

No, I was talking about a pension scheme for the miners.

Ordinary pension schemes and labour fall under the Department of Labour.

Sir, I merely mention this point since it was raised last evening by the hon. members for Geduld and Krugersdorp. I felt that I should indicate that we on this side of the House share the concern expressed by those hon. members.

On a point of order, I think the hon. member is quite in order if he suggests that there should be such a pension scheme.

In any case it falls under the Department of Labour.

Sir, if you wish me to leave this subject I shall do so.

I do not think the hon. member should pursue this matter too far.

The next point I would like to raise is the question of pneumoconiosis compensation. Provision is made in this connection in the Estimates. We also know that during the past few years this matter has been discussed in this House on numerous occasions. Sir, it is when one deals with these cases that one discovers the complexity of the legislation and of the amendments passed by this House. The legislation in this regard is so complex that Members of Parliament find it most confusing, and it is difficult for the miners themselves to know what they are entitled to and what their rights are. We know that in 1965 the hon. the Minister of Mines introduced legislation in terms of which an increase of 20 per cent was given to persons in receipt of pneumoconiosis compensation. We know that a commission of inquiry was to pointed on the 3rd August. 1964. The terms of reference of that commission were to investigate the whole question of pneumoconiosis compensation and to consider the scheme which had been put forward by the employers and the employees.

On reading this report and studying the recommendations one finds that certain very important factors have come to light since the amending legislation was passed in 1965. I believe that this is an appropriate time for the hon. the Minister to give this Committee some indication as to whether he accept the recommendations of this commission and on what basis he accepts them. It is important that the miners should know precisely what their rights are as far as pneumoconiosis compensation is concerned, and I feel that the scheme which was put forward with the mutual approval of the employers and employees should receive the hon. the Minister’s early attention. I understand that this report was tabled during the 1965 session, but it is rather difficult for one to study the report because there is only one copy available. I think it is a pity that the hon. the Minister has not been able to make further copies available so that it can have a wider circulation.

It is very difficult to study this report when there is only one copy available. I believe that the seven points on which agreement was reached are all vital matters as far as pneumoconiosis compensation is concerned. The seven points on which agreement was reached were the following: (1) the number of certifications, (2) the basis of compensation, (3) the standards of certification, (4) work in dusty atmospheres whilst in receipt of pensions, (5) the political aspects, (6) the doctor and patient relationship and (7) the reduction of interested parties to two. I do not think that it is in the best interests of the mineworker and of the sufferer that when amendments are put before this House the matter becomes a political issue. I think a scheme should be devised, in the interests of the mineworkers, in terms of which the employer and the employee will be able to negotiate the most beneficial scheme to the miners and the sufferers concerned. Sir, I have already mentioned that in 1965 this House passed a measure in terms of which an increase of 20 per cent was granted to pneumoconiosis sufferers. I want to deal with a certain group of persons who receive that 20 per cent increase. Although that increase was granted in order to assist these people to meet the increased cost of living, there is a certain group which did not benefit from that increase at all. I refer to the compensation payable to a widow over 60 years of age who becomes a social pensioner or an old-age pensioner.

We know that the 1962 Act provided for a compensation of R30 per month to be paid to that widow. In terms of the legislation passed last year, she received a 20 per cent increase, thus increasing her pension to R36 per month. On the face of it it would seem that she benefits to the tune of R6 per month but we find that this particular group of widows over 60 years of age, who are also old-age pensioners, then have their old-age pension reduced by a similar amount, which means that they are no better off. A widow receiving R30 per month would qualify for an old-age pension of R14 per month, making a total of R44 per month, but when the pneumoconiosis pension was increased to R36 per month as from the 1st October, 1965, the old-age pension of the widow was reduced to R8 per month, making a total of R44. The whole object of affording some form of relief to these people has been completely nullified by the application of the means test. My appeal to the hon. the Minister there* fore is that as the Minister responsible for this group of people he should make strong representations to the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions and try to ascertain whether it is not possible for such compensation to be exempted from the means test. Sir, these people, whose husbands sacrificed their health and gave their lives for the benefit of this country’s economy, should receive some special consideration. Sir, if such special consideration is given to these people it would not be an isolated case. In other fields, the hon. the Minister’s colleagues have taken cognizance of the fact that these people de serve special consideration. When we look at the Income Tax Act, No. 58 of 1962, we find the following provision in Section 10 (1) (g)—

It appears therefore that the hon. the Minister of Finance does try to ensure that these people are granted exemption as far as taxation is concerned.

Therefore I do hope that the hon. the Minister will give an indication to this Committee that steps will be taken by him with his colleagues to ensure that these people will receive certain benefits which will be beneficial to them.

There is one other point on which I should like to have clarification from the hon. the Minister. I notice on the Estimates a new item under sub-head E “Miscellaneous Expenses” reflecting an amount of R25,000 for the production of a departmental film. We shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister could give us an indication of what is involved in this departmental film so that we could know for what purpose these funds will be utilized.

In passing, I, too, should like to refer to the pension scheme of which the hon. member for Umbilo spoke. In this connection I want to tell him that we believe that a pension scheme is a matter for negotiation between employer and employee and that we may safely leave this matter in the hands of the trade union concerned. Then he also referred to the recommendations of the Silk Commission and asked that pneumoconiosis compensation should be exempted from the means test. These are all matters which may be fruitfully discussed in the manner suggested by the hon. member for Brakpan. We think that the time has arrived for holding a conference to discuss the various aspects regarding pneumoconiosis compensation with a view to ascertaining whether something cannot be done about it. Naturally I find no fault with the argument of the hon. member. I am only pointing out that he, too, made a case for such a discussion.

I now want to deal with something else, namely marginal mines. Last year I also spoke about the subject but on this occasion there is another aspect of the matter I want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. Marginal mines are a cause of concern to us. In the first instance this leads to gold-bearing ore which cannot be mined economically remaining in the mines. Another aspect is that when such mines close down it involves the livelihood of employees, something about which one must be concerned. In recent times we have experienced a shortage of flowers of sulphur in this country. There is not only a shortage but the price of flowers of sulphur soared. However, we find ourselves in the fortunate position that a considerable number of our mines has iron pyrites ore which can be processed to produce sulphuric acid. In this connection I want to refer specifically to a mine in my constituency, namely the Virginia Mine, one which has a large plant for the production of sulphuric acid from iron pyrites. Now it happens that the production of sulphuric acid at this mine has been curtailed for some time because its production could not compete with the production of sulphuric acid from flowers of sulphur. Now. however, we are faced with the fact that supplies of flowers of sulphur are not readily obtainable and that the price thereof has soared in any event.

The manufacture of sulphuric acid from iron pyrites, a by-product of the mines, can now be undertaken on an economic basis. For this reason I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the Government cannot enter into an agreement with the gold mines so as to encourage the production of sulphuric acid from iron pyrites, even if it has to be done on the basis that the price thereof will have to be guaranteed for five years. I am mentioning this because that would enable us in times of emergency to be independent of the outside world in so far as our flowers of sulphur requirements are concerned. In addition this may result in marginal mines being able to operate for a longer period. This, in brief, is my plea to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not follow up the points made by the hon. member for Virginia because I would prefer to return to certain other issues which were raised by hon. members in the course of this debate. Attention has been drawn to the importance of the mining industry in the economy of our country. Other hon. members have shown how the mines continue to be a main earner of foreign currency, a major employer of manpower and a consumer on a massive scale of locally manufactured items. I think, however, that two issues did not emerge from the discussion so far and I think it is appropriate that attention should be drawn to these two particular issues. Both of these concern productivity and hence the whole field of profitability of our mines. Both of them also concern the employment of non-White labour. Firstly, I want to show how dependent our mines, and particularly our gold mines are on the availability of non-White labour and, secondly, I should like to put before this Committee an estimate of the cost of the migratory system in operation at the moment.

In contrast to other industries which can pass on higher working costs to the consumer, the gold mines—as has already been pointed out—cannot do so because they sell their product at a fixed price. Hence working costs must be stabilized at the existing levels otherwise these mines will go out of production. What is not generally realized is that actual labour costs constitute about 50 per cent of the total working costs. Hence it is equally true to say that labour costs must be stabilized at the existing level. I suggest this Committee should consider now what would happen if for one reason or another non-White labour was no longer available for work in our gold mines. Right at the moment the average earning rate of the White workers amounts to about R250 per month. To this should be added certain fringe benefits, in the form of housing and other subsidies which would take this figure to well over R300 per month. If we assume that these mines have to be worked by White workers only, it would immediately be held that the White workers would be more productive than the non-Whites. This, obviously, is so and in this connection we could consider two situations.

In the first instance, let us assume that White workers would be 100 per cent more productive than non-White workers. If we assume this and if we keep our working costs and our labour costs constant we find that under these conditions the White workers on the average would earn only R100 per month. These, however, would be the total earnings whereas the direct earnings would only be about one-third of that figure. The second situation I should like to quote is where we assume that the White workers are 400 per cent more productive than non-White labour. If we assume this we find that the total earnings of the White worker will amount to R170 per month of which direct earnings will account for only R100. I think this clearly proves my contention. It shows quite clearly that we can only keep our mines going because we have a vast non-White working force. We have difficulty right at this moment in filling vacancies despite the fact that we are paying people R300 per month. So how would we ever be able to fill these vacancies if we only pay them R100 per month? Indeed, Sir, this argument can be taken even further. If the gold which is here in South Africa happened to be elsewhere in the world, most of it would, at any rate in the Western world, remain where it is at the moment, i.e. 5,000 to 10,000 feet below the surface.

Various hon. members of this House in pleading for better working conditions for White workers as they should do, have pointed out that dividends must be slashed and that the mine owners must hand over more and more money. But there is also another way of looking at it. Clearly it is necessary that we make our mines more profitable and one of the very first things we should do is to investigate the migratory system of labour in operation at present. I think we should look at it in this way. Our mines in South Africa at present employ over 600,000 non-White workers. The average turnover rate is just over 100 per cent per year, which means that in any one year you get a complete change of the non-White labour force. It is true, Sir, that some of them come back for additional periods of work. It has, however* been estimated that the industrial life of the non-White migrant worker is only about ten years. This must be contrasted with the comparable figure for Whites, i.e. 30 years. In other words, for this important group of workers there is a loss of 20 man-years. If you now take 20 man-years and multiply that by 600,000, i.e. the number of non-White workers we employ in our mines at the moment, we arrive at a figure of 12,000,000 man-years. That, however, applies only to that particular group who happens to be at work at the moment. It must be remembered that the workers are changing all the time, so that even this figure has to be multiplied and probably has to be trebled.

But there are also the direct costs involved in migratory labour. The other day the hon. member for Rosettenville speculated and asked what it cost the industry to recruit and transport these workers to the mines. I can tell him. It costs R20 per worker per tour of duty—purely for recruitment and transportation. It must be remembered that once you have got them to the mines you still have to train them. Think, therefore, of your high overhead costs and remember that whilst they are under training they are non-productive and do not earn any revenue. Also remember that even after they have been trained they are only partially productive because according to estimates it takes up to a month and longer before they are fully productive. But these latter factors must be seen in relation to the grade of the mine. It must be remembered that every worker can only handle a certain tonnage. If he happens to be employed in a low grade mine then the revenue involved in what he handles is probably only R2 but when it is a high grade mine it might be as much as R10. If all these items are added together, things which constitute direct costs or losses of revenue involved in migration, you find that if you take a high grade mine it comes to a figure which is close to R1,000,000 per mine per year. That is what migration is costing us at the moment and these are direct costs.

What do you suggest?

There are lots of solutions to it. I suggest, therefore, Sir, that this is one of the first things which the Government should concern itself with, because this is wasteful in the extreme. In addition to this the whole system brings in its wake all sorts of social and other evils which obviously we as a country cannot tolerate. On this particular issue I might have an opportunity to comment later on.

While I was listening to the speech made by the hon. member for Hillbrow on the policy of migration and the fact that a labourer’s family could not accompany him to his place of work, I gained the impression at times that this particular plea was being made by the hon. member for Houghton. The plea made by the hon. member for Hillbrow was that we should not make use of this labour since the cost it involved was too high. Now, what is his alternative? He mentioned an immense number of figures, to absorb which one would need an automatic brain. However, his speech was essentially in respect of two aspects. One of them was the high cost involved in the recruiting and transporting of labour. If that happens to be his argument, we should also look at the alternative. The only alternative is to establish those labourers here permanently. If, in addition, one wants to eliminate the evils to which the hon. member referred, one has to permit labourers to bring their wives and children with them. He pointed out that there were 600,000 non-White workers in the mines at the moment. On the Rand itself there are probably approximately 200,000 to make a rather conservative estimate. If we want to permit all of them to bring their wives and children along, we can form an idea of the major housing problem it will create. At the moment the mines themselves provide their Bantu labourers with housing. The question is whether the mines will also provide the necessary housing if every labourer is to be permitted to bring his whole family with him. If the mine does not want to undertake it, will it be regarded as the duty of the State? If it is the policy of the party opposite to use fewer of these workers and then to permit them to bring their families along, then we are greatly interested in hearing more about that.

The hon. member referred here to productivity. It is correct that there has been an increase in the productivity of our labourers. If we take into consideration the numbers of White as well as non-White workers employed in our mines and the greater quantity of gold mined, it is clear that there has been an increase in the productivity. But it may perhaps also be attributed to the fact that a higher ore content has been processed as a very result of the increase in costs. The increase in costs was there. That is a very important factor in our mines, but I think we have no option. As far as our mines are concerned, they tried their best with mechanization and new mining methods, and in spite of the rise in the cost of living, they have succeeded in increasing their production, although after every rise in costs there are certain marginal ores which cannot be processed.

The hon. member for Rosettenville also referred to foreign labour and in particular he pointed out how important it was, not only to us, but also to those workers who are earning a living in that way. I much prefer that hon. member’s approach as far as this problem is concerned. They receive better wages here than they do in their own countries. They are looked after as far as health services and even clothing are concerned. In respect of their training, their recreation and their hospitalization, they are being cared for very well. The indirect costs to the mines as a result of the provision of these services, are undoubtedly very high. These services are of great value to the employees.

Reference was also made here to the question of marginal mines. It is correct that there are marginal mines, and we shall be saddled with this problem for a long time, since there are certain mines which have reached a stage where it no longer pays to keep them going, and where it does not even pay to keep them going by means of a subsidy. At some time or other a mine becomes defunct. In the past even the Chamber of Mines was opposed to our introducing a subsidy scheme, since that resulted in somebody having to pay for it. The mines felt that there was a possibility of their having to pay for it, and that would not have suited them. That was one of the reasons for their being opposed to it. In recent times assistance was nevertheless granted, and that assistance was granted particularly with a view to a possible increase in the price of gold. That is why two forms of assistance were granted. We are not denying that an important contribution has been made by these marginal mines. They have large numbers of people in their employ—approximately 7,500 Whites and more than 70,000 non-Whites. There are approximately 20 of these marginal mines which are not paying concerns. The income of these marginal mines is approximately R60,000,000, but their expenditure, too, is almost R60,000,000. Amongst them they only show a profit of R500,000. That is on a production of R60,000,000. You see, therefore, that they really are marginal mines. They do not pay any tax. and therefore it is not possible to keen mines of this type going by means of a tax rebate. That is why there are two forms of assistance granted by the State. One of them is in respect of the expenses of those mines which are affected detrimentally when other mines close down. This places a heavier pumping burden on the existing mines, and assistance is being granted in this regard. Sometimes it also happens that these marginal mines want to expand, and then they incur capital expenditure which they cannot meet. In such cases the State grants them, subject to certain conditions, certain loans at a very low rate of interest, which can only be recovered if there is an increase in the price of gold. This assistance is only granted to certain mines which have a large reserve of marginal ore, which may perhaps be processed profitably once again in case there is a higher price of gold. Accordingly the State has in the course of years granted a great deal of assistance in this regard. Approximately R7,000,000 has already been granted to these marginal mines in the form of assistance. When the Loan Vote for this year as well as the provision for pumping costs are added, the amount made available for this purpose will increase to approximately R12,000,000.

There are other forms of assistance as well. There are forms of assistance where uranium contracts were exchanged, and even in respect of the supply of gold ore. Last year we gave you an indication as to what mines had been accommodated in this way. The most recent case was that of an agreement between F.S. Saaiplaats and President Brand. Assistance is therefore being granted as far as that is concerned. The other form of assistance is also for the purpose of encouraging more mines. You know that certain facilities were provided to make it possible that the mine south of the Vaal River could come into operation in conjunction with Vaal Reefs. Other prospecting work is also in progress and the possibility is not ruled out that there may yet be other discoveries in the future. Prospecting is also being carried out near Venterspost in particular, at West Driefontein and even in the vicinity of Alberton. The Government is thoroughly aware of the problem, but there are limits. Several proposals were mentioned here. I think one of the hon. members on that side asked whether greater assistance could not be granted as far as marginal ores were concerned. I do not want to go into that in detail, but what I can in fact say, is that the Chamber of Mines has been asked to make proposals in respect of the way in which they think greater assistance can be granted in order to keep some of these marginal mines going and to process some of this marginal ore. At the moment they are formulating these proposals and they will most probably be submitted at the next meeting of the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Board. We have therefore asked them to make us proposals in respect of the way in which they think some or other form of assistance can be granted.

Reference was made here—amongst others by the hon. member for Krugersdorp and by the hon. member for Umbilo as well—to certain aspects of a pension scheme. I do not want to go into that in detail, but the hon. member for Krugersdorp wanted to know what attempt was being made to make provision for a form of pension. It is correct that there were certain negotiations, and that together with the Pneumoconiosis Act of 1960 it was attempted to make provision for pensions as well. It was attempted to provide that the pensions would not only cover pneumoconiosis, but also be a form of pension for the miner, apart from pneumoconiosis. In 1934 the Chamber of Mines proposed the establishment of a form of pension to their workers, or, alternatively, that a single amount should be paid out to them. However, that proposal was voted down, and consequently provision was only made for a single payment to be paid to the miner on leaving the mine. It is a pity that a pension fund was not established at that time, because it was only established many years later. It is a young fund as yet—it has only been in existence for a few years—and it has been computed actuarially. Since it is only a young scheme, the pensions they receive at this stage are small. It is far from what they actually desire. There was in fact an attempt at consolidation, namely in 1948, after the existing Pneumoconiosis Act was extended so as not to be applicable to rich gold-mines only, when the Government also took steps to apply it to all other mines such as coal, diamond, copper, tin, asbestos, and platinum mines. Subsequent to that, steps were taken to make better provision for the treatment and the protection of the miner, to make better provision for his health on a medical basis. There were negotiations at the time. In 1950, there was an increase in the benefits granted to these pneumoconiosis sufferers. In 1952, chest complaints were recognized as a compensative disease. In 1956, the previous legislation was revised and deleted altogether, and it was substituted by the Pneumoconiosis Act which made provision for considerable improvements and increased benefits. This Act was revised in 1962, and the new Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act was introduced. Certain technical improvements were effected in 1964, and in 1965, the benefits were increased by 20 per cent. But when attempts were made in 1959 to revise this Pneumoconiosis Act, the possibility of simultaneously making provision for an ordinary pension for miners as well, was also investigated. The Minister at that time. Minister De Klerk, sent a committee abroad to investigate all the aspects of this matter. They returned and drafted an act which made provision for pneumoconiosis as well as a form of statutory pension. That draft act was Prepared in 1960. It was then circularised to the parties concerned, to the mine groups as well as to all trade unions. But the reaction to that was such that the Minister could not proceed with it. The reaction, not only of the Chamber of Mines and the other mine groups, but also of the miners themselves, was such that they rejected it. I can refer now to what the reaction of the Miners’ Union itself was. On 16th January, 1961, the late Mr. Ellis, in his capacity as secretary to the Miners’ Union, wrote the following to the Secretary of Mines. (Translation)—

On 25th January, 1961, this was followed by the letter to which he had referred. Their letter to the Secretary was a combined effort—

and they are named—

The same view was held by the Underground Officials’ Association of South Africa, and on 16th February, 1961, the general secretary, Mr. P. J. Malan, wrote the following to the Secretary—

I mention this to show what the view was which these organizations held. In a letter written by the then Minister to inform me as to his findings, he summed up the position as follows (translation)—

That then was the view they held. That is why it was found that the then Minister of Mines subsequently, on 5th May, 1961, Hansard, Col. 6049, announced the following in the House of Assembly: “The result was that we received a tremendous stream of protests not only, as one would have expected, from the mine-owners’ organizations, but also from the trade unions. The trade unions of the miners objected to this scheme.” Then he pointed out that, since they objected to it and wanted to arrange their own affairs, he would continue with the 1962 legislation which made provision for higher pneumoconiosis pensions. It still remains our view that it was a matter for negotiation; higher pensions are a matter of negotiation among these parties. They themselves wanted it, and because they did not want to make use of the envisaged legislation, the State has therefore done its duty in making better provision for the pneumoconiosis sufferer, and after 1962 it was increased once again, i.e. in 1965. They have their own pension scheme. They are contributing towards it. The pensions paid out, are increasing steadily. It has been determined actuarially that if the scheme were to exist for eight years, the pension would be R100 per month, I said that it has improved. As early as 1965 there were as many as 30 pensioners who were receiving more than R40. In previous years there was nobody in that category. If one goes back, one finds that the number becomes smaller all the time. So, the position of that fund is improving, but it is a matter they, the miners and the employers, negotiate.

Reference was made here to monthly wages and it was also said that we had interfered when it was attempted last year to experiment with the replacing of the Bantu and when certain exemptions were made. But I want to point out that we did not interfere unnecessarily. Negotiating wages is a matter between the employer and the employees, but last year that negotiation was coupled to certain exemptions in terms of Regulation 166. Although the State mining engineer and the State are obliged to care for the health and the safety of the miner, there were in this regard other implications as well, and that led to a change being made in the colour-bar, which caused quarrels and labour unrest in the ranks of the miners. Since that labour unrest was caused by the exemption granted by the State mining engineer, in terms of the powers he has to provide for safety and for health, it was a matter where the Government could not stand aloof, and that is why this investigation was ordered. But I want to point out that, although this commission of inquiry insisted that it was in the interests of peace as well as the stability of the miner that this experiment should be called off, the Government subsequently decided and pointed out that, in the light of the findings of the commission concerned that, owing to the detrimental implications it held, the experiment could not be applied on a country-wide basis in its present unchanged form, the exemption granted by the State mining engineer in terms of the regulations of the Mines and Works Act, should be withdrawn, and that the colour-bar should remain in force in the mining industry. But the Government’s statement also went further (translation)—

Who blue-pencilled that report?

What we are dealing with here, is the perpetuation of peace, and not the person who examined this report, but for the hon. member’s information I want to say that I examined it personally. I therefore emphasize that as regards the monthly-wage system which is being negotiated, it is a matter to which the Government has not closed the door. If they can negotiate it successfully, it has its advantages, but I am leaving it there because negotiating a monthly-wage system or even for pension, is a matter for Labour and not for Mines. But I want to point out that this decision taken by the Government has opened the door so that an improvement may in fact be effected. Reference was made to certain technical aspects, and this report shows that there are indeed possibilities for reorganization, which meet with our approval.

Reference was also made here to the search for oil and it was asked how much progress had been made. I want to state briefly that as far as these oil drills are concerned, the drill which is being used at Karreebosch has already penetrated to a depth of more than 7,000 feet, and a second drill is on its way to the Republic. It will arrive soon and it is expected that the second oil drill will start drilling as early as the end of November. There are certain areas which have been selected and they will be designated shortly. They will most probably be in the Eastern Province. These two drills are able to go reasonably deep. We cannot expect much from the first drill before it has reached a depth of 10,000 feet or more when it will have penetrated the Karoo beds, since it has never been determined what really lies below those Karoo beds. Only then will we have an indication as to whether the structure is such, or whether something can be expected in the Karoo.

Apart from this search on land, there are other drills as well, namely those of Soekor. There are other bodies and persons who are drilling as well. Geological Surveys are drilling and private bodies and persons are also drilling in order to investigate possibilities. But the continental shelf has also been granted to Soekor, and they have made it known that they are prepared to grant sub-leases, subject to the approval of the Minister of Mines. The continental shelf is approximately 60,000 square miles in extent, and it has been indicated that areas of approximately 7,000 square miles will be sub-let on condition that they follow a certain exploration programme, a programme which places major financial obligations on the sub-lessors. For instance, within the first two to three years they must incur costs of R1,500,000 on a fixed programme, and subsequent to that a further R4,500,000, i.e. R6,000,000 for such a programme. A great number of applications were received in this regard. When the applications were closed it appeared that there had been up to 11 applications per sub-let area, of which up to five were first options, and except for two smaller odd blocks, applications were received for the whole of the continental shelf. They therefore had applicants for all the other blocks. At present Soekor is negotiating with the various applicants with a view to carrying out this programme, and on 12th October, they will make certain recommendations as far as this is concerned. We can therefore expect that in the first term of 1967 a beginning will be made with the geophysical activities on the continental shelf.

The hon. member for Durban (Central) referred to the aluminium tests in regard to pneu-noconiosis, and he said that they had been called off after an inquiry had been made, if I understood him correctly, but that is not correct. After the commission had made inquiries abroad, the Pneumoconiosis Research Unit was charged with the matter, and if the hon. member looks at the report of the C.S.I.R. for 1954-5 he will notice that they are conducting a considerable number of experiments with animals as far as the use of aluminium is concerned. They have already made considerable progress with these experiments, and the possibility that they may prove that it can be applied successfully, is not at all ruled out; and if these experiments are a success, they will also be applied on an experimental basis as far as the miner is concerned. He can therefore rest assured that it is a new field which can perhaps be very significant as regards the health of the miner. The experiments conducted by the Medical Bureau are therefore being continued and may perhaps show positive results soon.

The hon. member also referred to asbestos. This report also contains certain findings as regards asbestos. I may just point out to the hon. member that after certain findings had been made as regards asbestos, much stricter control was applied to mining lands which are controlled by the Act as regards dust, and certain measures were applied to prevent dust and there was much better supervision of mines. The latest development is that a clinic has eventually been opened at Kuruman and a doctor had been appointed. The Department had many problems in obtaining a suitable site, but they have been successful; a month or two ago a site was made available for this clinic, and a doctor was appointed. Unfortunately he accented another position, but every attempt is being made to send one of the doctors already in our service to Kuruman so that there may also be clinical care as far as the miners there are concerned.

Reference was made here to Anba, the dust agent, and it was asked whether it did not cause a greater number of accidents. I have a finding here which shows that where Anba is used, people were hesitant initially and did not have any experience of the agent, but as experience was gained it became apparent that Anba could be used with a great measure of safety. This finding also showed that the necessary precautionary measures were being taken in regard to dust in cases where Anba was being used. There is also a new agent, Amstal which will be used shortly and which will to a larger extent remove nitro-glycerine in the case of explosions. Therefore I think that the hon. member can rest assured that there is proper supervision and that more technical improvements are being effected all the time.

One of the hon. members also referred to greater after-care. I think it is generally accepted that there is indeed room for taking better care of the miner after he has suffered from some form or other of bronchitis of emphysema. Provision has been made at the hospital in Johannesburg where a clinic has been fitted out for treating out-patients who are pneumoconiosis sufferers, but it was felt that that clinic had to be expanded. Clinics should be established at more places in order that they may be within easy reach of more miners, and at such clinics they should even receive free medicine for the treatment of pneumoconiosis. I may say that there has already been negotiations in this regard between the Department and the Chamber of Mines. In principle they are not unsympathetic, but unfortunately we have not yet reached finality as far as this is concerned. We shall probably be able to report further on that matter soon.

There are still a few matters which were mentioned and with which I shall deal at a later stage.

I think if there is one little matter on which both sides of the House are agreed, then it is this, that if there is any group of people which has contributed a great deal towards making South Africa economically independent and self-reliant, it is the mineworkers. They are people who perform a national service under extremely dangerous, unhealthy and difficult working conditions. That is also why only the fittest and strongest young men are selected to do that work. And therefore it is also necessary for the Government always to keep a watchful eye on the welfare and the health of the mineworkers. I am grateful to be able to say that this National Party Government has always had the interests of the mineworker at heart, and consequently it is not strange that the mineworkers are amongst the most loyal supporters of the Government. But every mineworker’s greatest fear is invariably that at some stage or other he may contract the dreaded pneumoconiosis or develop some chest complaint or other and pass the last years of his life as a human wreck. The Pneumoconiosis Compensation Act of 1962 affords a large measure of protection to these people who are subject to that dreaded disease, but there are a few matters that I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister of Mines and I want to make an appeal that those people should be afforded even greater protection.

Section 8 of the Act provides that the Committee shall have power to summon a medical practitioner and to take evidence or to call for a report from that medical practitioner in regard to the health of such a mineworker. Section 31 provides that a medical practitioner is obliged by law, if he suspects that any person who has worked at a controlled mine has pneumoconiosis or tuberculosis, to report it forthwith to the Committee. But as far as the practical application of that Act is concerned, it appears from inquiries that I have made that proper effect is not being given to that aspect of the Act. The medical practitioners are not all aware of the fact that the Act places an obligation upon them and that they are obliged to do that, and likewise there are many mineworkers who are not aware of that. The result is that in most cases of certification the family doctor’s knowledge of the background of the person concerned is not taken into account. Many cases have occurred where a mineworker’s family doctor had suspected that the person concerned had suffered from some chest complaint or other, but the mineworker had been certified fit by the Pneumoconiosis Board, and a post-mortem examination revealed that he had in fact had pneumoconiosis. According to the periodical Medical Proceedings of 22nd August, 1964, it was found at the post-mortem examination of 88 White mineworkers that 38.7 per cent of the cases had shown no signs of pneumoconiosis at the radiological examination, but that those persons had in fact had pneumoconiosis. I quote from that periodical—

There are also other clinical tests that are applied. but this demonstrates to us how fallible the clinical tests can be. We therefore have to accept that even the best clinical tests do not always give us a true indication of the condition of a person’s heart and lungs. They give the people who have to carry out those tests a rough indication only, and for that reason more details about the background of the mineworker have to be obtained before his percentage of disability is determined. A clinical examination may vary from day to day; it may not always indicate the same percentage of disability on different days. It may vary in the sense that it indicates a deterioration or an improvement in the condition of the person concerned. For example, at the moment when a person is examined he may be suffering from some additional complaint and may consequently show a higher degree of disability according to the clinical test. Over against that one finds the case where a person has only recently recovered from bronchitis, for example, and consequently shows a lower clinical rating. It is accepted and it has been proved that a person who suffers from pneumoconiosis is more susceptible to secondary pulmonary conditions and that his true condition is not reflected at the moment the examination takes place. I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister that more use should be made of the relevant section of the Act. That section should be brought to the notice of the medical practitioners so that they may know what is expected of them and what their real obligations in terms of the Act are. My main plea, however, is that where any doubt exists as to whether or not a mine-worker has pneumoconiosis, the mineworker should be given the benefit of the doubt. It is true that the average man, the man in the street, has confidence in his family doctor. I therefore feel that, in order to restrict such doubt to the minimum, the family doctor should have more say in the certification. The hon. the Minister said that attention had already been given to the question of after-care in cases where persons had already been certified. I want to make an appeal here that we should not only pay attention to the material care of such persons; there should be social care as well. A person who suffers from pneumoconiosis does receive a pension, but he is unfit for any other work. He therefore has to try to adapt himself in the community as a sick person. As a result of his physical condition he has difficulty in looking after himself. Is it not possible to establish a welfare organization to visit those people regularly and to render assistance by, for example, finding suitable part-time employment for them? Let us not only try to compensate and to look after those people from the economic point of view, but let us also try to make that disease more bearable for them and to see to it that their condition does not deteriorate.

The hon. member for Bokburg, in a very constructive contribution to this debate, has made a plea for an improvement in the conditions of the miner. I want to say that we are on common ground here and I want to assure him that any suggestion which will improve the lot of the miner will always have the full support of this side of the House.

Sir, because the gold mines of South Africa have always been so closely linked with the economic growth and prosperity of our country. it is not surprising that in a debate on this Vote the emphasis should be placed almost entirely on matters relating to the goldmining industry. I believe that it is precisely because of our great concern for the future of our goldmining industry that we are inclined at times to overlook the importance of the diamond mining industry. I am quite certain that not many people realize that all the diamond mines in South Africa have grown old and that with the possible exception of one they are all very rapidly reaching the stage where they will either be unproductive or entirely uneconomical to mine. This is a very disturbing situation Mr. Chairman, because it would mean that unless new sources of rough diamonds are found within the next few years, the diamond industry in South Africa, an industry which has played such a valuable part over the past 100 years in the economic growth of South Africa, will be virtually non-existent in 20 years’ time. It would seem too that the continuous search for new sources of rough diamonds has been, to say the least, very disappointing. I think a very good example here is the case of the De Beers organization which, after spending more than R6,500,000 in 1964 on a very intensive campaign of prospecting, had to report that nothing of any consequence had been found. We know too that the very high hopes which were held out at one stage with regard to the recovery of diamonds from the sea-bed, have certainly not been realized. We find that because of the very high cost involved in the recovery of these diamonds and because of the fact that the diamonds which have been recovered are very small, it is very difficult to assess at this stage what the contribution from this source will be to our future overall diamond production. There is no doubt that if we want the diamond industry in South Africa to continue to play the very important part that it has played in the past, there will have to be a very concerted effort by everyone concerned to discover new sources of rough diamonds. I would like here to ask the hon. the Minister to tell us whether his Department has any plans in this respect. Possibly at the same time the hon. the Minister could tell us whether the 1960 Precious Stones Amendment Act, which was introduced specifically to encourage private prospectors, has had the desired effect and what the results have been.

Sir, when we leave the diamond mines proper and have a look at the State alluvial fields at Alexander Bay, we find here, that although it would seem that this particular diamond field has a fairly long life ahead of it, there has been a rather alarming drop in production at these fields. The figures show that production dropped from 156,539 carats in 1961 to 122,854 carats in 1964, and what is even more important is the fact that the sizes of the diamonds recovered from these fields have shown a very marked decline in size. For instance, the Agues show that the caratage of diamonds of 10 carats and over dropped from 8,697 carats in 1961 to 3,142 carats in 1964. Sir, when we have regard to the fact that it is the larger diamond that brings in the most revenue, and that it is the larger diamond that helps to pay for the very costly exercise of recovering the smaller diamonds, then we certainly feel that the position here is very unsatisfactory. Then too, Mr. Chairman to round off a rather gloomy picture of decline in diamond production, we find that South Africa has steadily been losing its position as a major producer of rough diamonds. We find that whereas in 1928 the Union and South West Africa produced no less than 63 per cent of the world’s production of diamonds, this figure had come down to 16 per cent in 1965. Of course, if we do not find new sources of rough diamonds, this figure will drop lower and lower. I know that the hon. the Minister of Mines has instituted a special inquiry into the diamond cutting industry in South Africa, and in fairness to the Minister and because I do not want to anticipate any of the findings of this particular inquiry, I do not intend this evening to delve too deeply into the diamond-cutting industry in South Africa; I believe that there will be other opportunities for me to do this, but I want to say that it is perfectly evident that South Africa is not exporting its fair share of polished diamonds to the world markets. When we look at the figures we find for instance, that exports in 1964 to the United States, the most important and largest buyer of diamonds in the world, were as follows: Belgium exported no less than 424,264 carats; Israel exported 324,467 carats and South Africa was a very bad third with the very low figure of 16,146 carats. Obviously this position is very unsatisfactory. As I have said before, I do not intend pressing this matter this evening, but I want to leave this thought with the hon. the Minister and ask him whether he does not agree with me that the time has come when we should think very seriously of processing the bulk of the diamond production in South Africa, in South Africa, through South African labour?

Since I began listening to this debate last night I have come to the conclusion that hon. members on that side of the House are suddenly now trying to come forward as the so-called champions of the interests of the miners in South Africa. Sir, you know and I know, and I think hon. members on that side of the House know that the miners of South Africa have no confidence whatsoever in them and in their party. Surely we all know that a few months ago their party was totally rejected by the miners of South Africa. We also know that hon. members on the opposite side represent no miners’ constituencies in South Africa whatsoever. As a person who comes into direct contact daily with miners I can only say that I have no confidence whatsoever in the authority with which the hon. Opposition speaks on matters pertaining to miners. We sat here last night listening to them kicking up the dust and trying to prove that they were the champions of the interests of the miners in South Africa. We heard pleas being made here for increased pensions to be paid to miners. The hon. member for Parktown, if I am not mistaken, pointed out that the Government was collecting R117,000,000 per annum from the mining industry by way of taxation and he hinted that the Government should now, as it were, pay back a portion of that taxation which had been collected from the mining industry to the mine-workers. I am particularly grateful that the hon. Minister made it very clear to this House this afternoon that the question of salaries and pensions is a question of bargaining between employers and employees.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to discuss a few points concerning the diamond industry with the hon. the Minister. First of all I should like to say how glad I am to have had the opportunity this afternoon to listen to a man engaged in the diamond industry, namely the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) who placed some startling figures before the hon. the Minister in connection with the diamond industry. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what his attitude is going to be towards the diamond-cutting industry now that the export tax on rough diamonds has been increased from 10 per cent to 15 per cent. It is generally acknowledged that the Diamond-Cutting Industry Control Board is loath to give licences to people to cut diamonds and that would-be cutters find themselves faced with opposition from the Diamond-Cutting Industry Control Board. If they can get a supply or a quota from the diamond producers, they would be able to obtain a licence. When they approach the producer he says that if they can get a licence from the Diamond-Cutting Industry Control Board, they will then get a quota. We therefore find ourselves in a position similar to a dog chasing his tail. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would make a statement this evening in regard to his attitude towards the cutting industry. I am aware of the fact that a commission of inquiry is investigating the possibility of cutting small stones. I also know that a cutter in Johannesburg is cutting diamonds of the size of ¾ carat and less quite successfully. It has been my contention for years that the cutting of small stones is a field which should rightly be directed to the Coloured community, whom I think will be well-suited to that particular kind of cutting. I do not wish to pursue the matter further other than to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would reassure me, that when the investigations have been completed, he will give consideration to the establishment of a mass-production factory to be staffed by Coloured personnel who will do the cutting of small diamonds of 3/4 carats or less. I want it to be acknowledged that the hon. the Minister has given technical advice to the cutter in the Transvaal, who is cutting these stones successfully to-day.

I believe that we have lost a tremendous opportunity to expand the diamond-cutting industry. When one considers the figures quoted by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North), one finds that to-day South Africa, which is by far the greatest producer of diamonds in the world is at the tail of the hunt when it comes to the cutting industry and that cut stones are being exported by cutting countries at a profit, after, they have been imported from countries like South Africa. It seems to me that we should be very conscious of the fact that the diamond industry and the supply of rough diamonds will be on the wane unless discoveries are made, which will restore the balance and put us where we used to be, namely in the forefront of countries producing rough diamonds. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he would not make a statement in this regard because I think it must be said that this inquiry which I understand is being carried out at present is taking an unconscionable time, and that by now, there should be some interim report for the benefit of hon. members.

The next point I should like to raise concerns the position of Coloured persons in the mining industry. I notice from the Estimates that an amount of R537,000 is to be allocated for the provision of training colleges and that this appears only to provide for the training of White miners. As far as I know Coloured persons are engaged as miners in mining other than gold mining, particularly in Namaqualand in the copper mining industry. I should like the hon. the Minister to say what his policy is in regard, firstly, to the training of Coloured persons for mining and, secondly, the employment of Coloured miners in existing mines. It has been brought to my notice that there is, to use a mild word, some interference by the mine-workers union and, I understand, the Department of Labour, in the activities of those companies which are mining in Coloured areas and employ Coloured miners. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is true or not that the granting of blasting certificates to Coloured persons does not meet with the favour of his Department. If I am wrong, I should like him to reassure me that the granting of blasting certificates to Coloured persons is not restricted because of the colour of their skin but is governed by the ability to pass any test that may be set for the acquisition of a blasting certificate. The policy of the Government is that there should be separate development but one finds that there is a lot of separation and very little development. I refer to the undertaking at Bellsbank in the division of Barkly West where Coloured diggers find themselves in difficulties in regard to the employment of White miners because the White miner is in possession of a blasting certificate. They have been told to get Coloured miners, because as Coloured employers, they are expected to employ Coloured personnel. I should like the hon. the Minister to give us a statement of his policy in this regard.

Finally, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to make a statement as to the success or otherwise of the recovery of diamonds from the concessions in Namaqualand which he knows is a matter in which I have taken an interest for several years. I should like to know whether all the concessionaires are working the concessions which were granted to them; which concessionaires have discovered diamonds and whether or not there are concessions which will change hands. To be perfectly straightforward I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what the reasons are that a company of the size of De Beers Consolidated Mines which has spent millions of rand in the search for sources of rough and uncut diamonds and for future potential mines … [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned I had pointed out to you that hon. members on the opposite side were trying to blame the Government for the inadequate salaries and meagre pension benefits of our miners. I listened to the hon. member for Orange Grove when he said by way of an interjection that the hon. the Minister had given an explanation to the effect that this entire matter rested on the matter of bargaining between the two parties. There is just something I want to lay at his door. If I had been sitting in this House for such a long time and did not yet know that the salaries and pension benefits of miners was a question of bargaining I would definitely have resigned as member of the House of Assembly. Mr. Chairman. that is typical of the hon. member for Orange Grove. He proved conclusively again this afternoon that he is continually busy with nonsense and with trying to throw dust in the hon. members’ and particularly the mine-workers’ eyes. I have listened with the greatest interest to the arguments put forward by hon. members on that side in regard to this entire matter and I want to say that I must express my regret and my dissatisfaction at the fact that not one of those hon. members made a friendly request to the Chamber of Mines, the mine-owners in South Africa, to treat the miners better. I could not expect them to do so because we know that they are actually of the same ilk, they are actually birds of a feather and we know that the exposition really sides with the capitalists in South Africa and has no contact with the workers because the workers are really beneath them. I want state on this occasion that the Chamber of Mines, as the employers of the miners, have over the years made tremendous profits and have in suite of that treated the miners in South Africa very shabbily. In this regard I just want to mention a few figures in order to Drove the phenomenal developments which have taken place in the field of mining. I want to sketch the phenomenal revenue which has been acquired by the mine-owners in South Africa and against that I want to put the way in which they have treated the miners in South Africa in respect of their salaries. In 1961 the value of our general mineral production was R893,280,000. In 1965 it was R1,152,907,000. That was therefore an increase of R259,627,000 and as a percentage it means an increase of approximately 35 per cent. In respect of our gold-mining industry we find that in 1966 the amount was R574,900,000. In 1965 it was R766.550.000. Over the same period of four years therefore that means an increase of R191,650,000. As a percentage it means an increase of approximately 70 per cent. It is interesting to know that the mining industry and the mine-owners derived tremendous financial benefit as a result of the expansion in the field of mining. Now to analyse the comparative figures in respect of the salaries paid to mineworkers in South Africa. We find that in 1961 there were 86,724 Whites associated with the mining industry. In the case of non-Whites the number was 596.819. Wages and salaries to the amount of R293,259,061 was paid to Whites and non-Whites. Now what do we find in 1964, and hon. members must bear in mind that there was an increase in respect of our gold production of approximately 70 per cent and an increase of approximately 35 per cent of our total mineral production? We now find that after four years the salaries and wages paid to Whites and non-Whites of South Africa amounted to R302,988,000—an increase of approximately 2 per cent. Mr. Chairman, if that is not conclusive proof that the Chamber of Mines has shamefully neglected the miners of South Africa as far as an improvement in their salaries is concerned, then I do not know what is. On this occasion then I want to make a serious appeal to the Chamber of Mines to make an improvement, if it is at all possible, in the economic living conditions of the miner, who with his basic salary and pension cannot maintain a reasonably civilized standard of living …

Order! The hon. member may not discuss miners’ salaries here.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In respect of this matter I just want to say that the Chamber of Mines should in the years ahead be more grateful to those people who …

The hon. member cannot evade my ruling by stating his opinion in other words.

I accept your ruling. I should like, as far as miners are concerned, to proceed to another matter. I want to avail myself of this opportunity of thanking the hon. the Minister of Labour very sincerely for the interest he had displayed in mining.

The Department of Labour is not under discussion now.

Mr. Chairman, since the miners’ trade union itself is shortly going to hold an election I want to express the hope and trust that the members of this powerful Mineworkers’ Union—those who are satisfied as well as those who are not—will stand together so as to find a satisfactory solution for their differences. If they can do that it would mean the end of the mutual quarrels which sow discord and dissension in their ranks. Surely it is a well-known fact that, just as in the case of any other organization, the Mineworkers’ Union cannot function as efficiently as it would like to if effective uniformity and co-operation does not also exist. Personally I do not want to place the blame upon the shoulders of one or other of the two sides and I by no means want to try and defend the conduct of either one side or the other. I feel, however, that the time has come for the Mine-workers’ Union to stand together again so that, with a united front, they will once more be worthy of that position of trust which has always been its best quality. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall endeavour to observe the rules of order to your satisfaction. Not only have the mineral riches of the Republic of South Africa played a great role in the history of our country, but I believe that in years to come they will continue to make a major contribution to the economic powers of resistance of this country. The announcement by the Managing Director of the Rustenburg Platinum Mine about the large-scale expansion of this mine is great news in the mining world. If I say to-night that it is the endeavour of this company to increase its platinum production over a period of four years to four times the quantity it is producing at present, it means that it aims to produce 750,000 ounces of platinum in 1970. At a very conservative estimate of the price of platinum, i.e. R100 per ounce, the value of that production in foreign exchange would amount to R75,000,000. This expansion of the Rustenburg Platinum Mine offers great advantages to mining. Between 450 and 600 White mineworkers will have to be absorbed to make this expansion possible. This expansion may therefore serve the exhausted goldmines as a good off-loading zone. The main advantage offered by this platinum mine is that its life expectancy is estimated at 100 years or more. There is a great demand for platinum throughout the world. It is used in numerous industries, for example petrol industries and glass-fibre industries. In view of the industrial development that is taking place throughout the world, I am convinced that we are assured of a stable platinum market. However, the expansions at the Rustenburg Platinum Mine offer further advantages. In a town such as Rustenburg large-scale housing schemes are being undertaken. It is an example which may be followed by other industries. Secondly, it is the sincere intention of this company to participate in the life of the community. The company makes significant contributions, for example, by means of donations to schools, hospitals and nature parks. We are very grateful for that. Furthermore, this mine adjoins a Bantu homeland and is situated in a border industrial area. We are all aware of the fact that industries usually develop around mining complexes, and I am convinced that large-scale border industries will develop in this complex. Between 5.000 and 6,000 Bantu are needed for the future development. The hon. member for Rosettenville pointed out that we should follow the policy of employing Bantu from our own homelands in future. Here we are given an opportunity of ascertaining whether our own Bantu can be used in the mines instead of Bantu from other territories. I am fully confident that it will be possible to employ our own Bantu in the mines.

I should like to make a few observations to-night about the welfare of the workers with whom I come into close contact. I wish to speak about the medical aspect of their life as mineworkers. Through the years, particularly the past 50 years, a great deal has been done as regards pneumoconiosis and tuberculosis. The amendments to the legislation—on no fewer than 19 occasions—provide evidence of the large-scale medical research that is taking place. I am convinced that as this scientific research progresses, the legislation will be amended over the years. I remember that in the old days when the platinum mine at Rustenburg was still very small, it was said that there was no pneumoconiosis whatsoever in that area. In respect of one year, however, post-mortem examinations showed that of 219 cases no fewer than 64 had been pneumoconiosis sufferers. What causes me concern, however, is that in my view we are concentrating too much on pneumoconiosis only. I want to suggest to-night that the mining industry is an industry which is exposed to many more industrial diseases than is generally realized. I want to pay tribute to the mine-worker, who is exposed to industrial diseases which we may at present perhaps not be prepared to associate or to couple with their work. Here I am thinking in particular of respiratory affections. It is frequently said that chronic bronchitis is the result of pneumoconiosis. There are many cases, however, where bronchitis has no connection with pneumoconiosis. Thus there are numerous other industrial diseases—many more than we realize at present. In terms of the legislation the safety as well as the medical aspect of the mine-worker falls under the jurisdiction of the hon. the Minister. I therefore want to plead tonight—and I think I am justified in doing so— for a much more extensive and more adequate medical service for the mineworker. One finds that many mine employers and also the mine-workers in many mines are making a contribution. I know that is the case on the Rand. The’-e are numerous other mines, however, where the employers make no contribution and where these medical funds are solely dependent upon the contributions of the employees. If we want something great and important, and without lip service and flattery such as we have had from the Opposition, and if we are sincere in our intentions towards these people, who mean so much to the economy of our country, the time has come to establish a large-scale medical scheme to carry out regular clinical examinations. These should not be only the examinations carried out annually at the Bureau. They should be clinical examinations by a team of medical doctors at every large mine. Such a medical doctor should be a person who concentrates on research. The two concepts of a sound mind in a sound body would then be very closely correlated and inter-linked. I want to give a few examples of what research can mean to the education and instruction of the mineworker, and as regards the resistance and health of a patient. It frequently happens that people do not realize what they should do in order to remain in sound physical health. I take a simple example, i.e. the common cold. If the mineworker is supplied with a glass of orange juice every morning or every evening before he has to go to his shaft, that dark hole under the earth, we shall find that colds will be eliminated to a large extent. In the medical world we all know that the cold is the advance symptom of other lung ailments. Numerous other industrial diseases may be avoided by means of instruction and education. In making this earnest plea to-night I trust that in the years ahead these people will be provided with a medical service that will be in no way inferior to any other medical aid service in the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that the hon. member for Rustenburg has made a contribution of some value, as distinct from his colleague, the hon. member for Welkom. It surprises me to hear that these young men who have come into the House fresh from an election have not learnt the first thing about politics. [Interjections.] They jeer and be at the efforts of the Opposition to try to get a better deal for mine-workers. We have heard a great deal about mineworkers this afternoon. I want to say that to my certain knowledge the hon. member for Rosettenville has for many years been in the forefront in pleading for better conditions for mineworkers on the Witwatersrand.

I asked the hon. the Minister whether he would not say for what reason a company like De Beers cannot succeed in getting a concession in Namaqualand, particularly because of the fact that they have spent so much money searching for new sources of diamonds. They were the persons who were able to stabilize the diamond market and make a stable industry …

To which application are you referring?

I will concede that the applications have been settled. What I am concerned about is, that certain concessionaires are not exercising the concessions which the hon. the Minister granted them. I want to give the Minister an opportunity to state what has happened in connection with these concessions I refer particularly to the Richterveld. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what has happened to the company which was to have been floated from amongst Coloured diggers to work Leliefontein. I should like to ask the Minister what is happening in regard to Spektakel. [Interjections.] Sir, I cannot understand why hon. members should laugh. It shows that they do not know what is going on. This happens to be a concession in Namaqualand which, if my memory serves me correctly, was a concession to White diggers in the Transvaal.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what has happened in the case of Bonte Koei. Is that a concession where diamonds were discovered and are being worked? I also want to refer to Komaggas, because I was up there recently. I was surprised to find that the consortium of Naskor and of Seeland Mynbou had, according to my information, combined into a company called Buffelsbank Diamante. I will not pursue this, except to say that my information goes further, namely that a company known as the Komaggas-Ontginningsmaatskappy received a concession to work copper in Komaggas. There are Coloured men in that particular concern financed by certain White gentlemen from the Transvaal. In the course of their prospecting for copper, they found diamondiferous gravel. I should like to ask the Minister if he regards it as fair that Coloured persons in a Coloured reserve coming across diamondiferous gravel should not be permitted to work it in preference to the White companies which got the concession, and are working it to their own profit and advantage. I should like to leave the matter there. I think it is only fair that the hon. the Minister should be given an opportunity to make a statement in regard to these things. There is a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction amongst the Coloured community about these particular concessions, which have been allocated and which cannot be withdrawn. What does concern me is that those who were granted the concessions has, to my information, not worked them because they did not get the plum. The plum, of course, was Komaggas.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether any efforts are being made by his Department to assist the University College of the Western Cape in connection with engineering degrees for Coloured persons who wish to follow engineering as a profession. I had a discussion some time ago with the rector of that university. He said that he was hopeful that they would be able to introduce a suitable course. What I am after, Sir, is a course in mining engineering and in science subjects which deal with engineering for Coloured persons. I come back again to the point of view which I have maintained for years. That is that the Coloured community being one-third of the population vis-å-visthe Whites, is entitled to at least a share, if not a one-third share, of all positions in this country because the Coloured people have no homeland. It strikes me that mining is a field in which they would excel.

May I ask the hon. member what that has to do with the Department of Mines? The question of a university falls under another department.

I am referring to item H —Miners’ Training Schools. An amount of R537,000 is being voted for the training of miners.

That is gold mining.

Mr. Chairman, I am quite a fair reader of English. I see no reference here to gold. Item H deals with miners’ training schools—maintenance and general expenditure, training schools and scholarships for study at the University of the Witwatersrand. I am looking for the scholarships for study at the University College of the Western Cape. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister why no provision is made here to assist that university to provide the courses I am suggesting. That is the essence of what I wish to say to the hon. the Minister. I hope that the Minister will divorce himself from the attitude that mining is a preserve exclusively for Whites and that all miners are White, will be White and will remain White.

Finally, I should like to ask the Minister how his experiment is progressing. I am referring to the experiment of introducing Bantu labour in the gold mines. I know this is a touchy subject.

Which experiment is that?

I believe an experiment is going on … [Interjections.] It is all very well for hon. members to laugh, but I am familiar with and aware of what happened when an experiment was in progress in the Transvaal in regard to Bantu labour in the gold mines. There was a big “bohaai” about this question of Bantu doing particular jobs in the gold mines. I have no quarrel with that. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the time has not arrived when Coloured persons should be considered for certain jobs in all spheres of mining. That is my point. I have listened today to all these pleas for the mineworkers. I am in entire sympathy with them. I think it is high time that the Government really did something for them. I do not think there is any question about that. The Minister has explained many things away. The fact remains that speakers on the Opposition side have, I think, made a good case. They have made the case that the position of the mineworkers should be reviewed. We have listened to experts, those various members from the mining constituencies. [Interjection.] Well, they class themselves as experts. They have pointed out the difficulties to the Minister. He, in defence, said that the Gold Producers’ Committee and the Mineworkers’ Union have rejected certain propositions submitted by the Government. Nevertheless the fact remains and the contention of this side of the House is, that the Minister should pay attention to the representations which are being made, and that he should initiate whatever discussions are required to give these people a better deal. In doing so, he should pay attention to my particular plea to give the Coloured man a better deal in the richest industry in the country. I have only touched on the fringes of the industry by referring to the diamond cutting aspect and Coloured miners in the production side. Between these two extremes there is a vast field in which Coloured persons can be employed. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, arising from what the previous speaker has said I can only say that I think that if Coloureds come forward to study mining engineering at a university the Government will in fact make those facilities available to them. However, the fact of the matter is that at the University of the Witwatersrand, the only place where degree courses in mining engineering are given, members of the non-White groups have very seldom come forward to have themselves enrolled for these courses. That was the experience even in the years when the United Party was in power.

I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister. It is not clear to me what yardstick is being used in respect of the marginal mines in order to judge when a mine is a marginal mine so that it can obtain a subsidy for which the Government has now made certain funds available. It seems strange to me that a mine which has for example been paying large dividends suddenly comes forward as a marginal mine. I am just wondering when a mine such as the Blyvooruitsig mine for example will be described as a marginal mine. If the Government does not at this stage already take steps in regard to the future regulation of our gold mines then I wonder whether this matter will not subsequently have a snowball effect, for this simple reason that a mine could then pay out large dividends and apply wasteful exploitation at will, exhaust the richest ore in the mine and then leave behind ore below one or two inches pennyweight—whatever the profitable margin is—in the mine. All the richest ore has then been exhausted and the dividends have gone by the board. This is a problem I foresee and I just wanted to warn against it. I am not against the subsidy having to be paid, but I believe that the State will have to take care that this kind of thing does not have a snowball effect.

There is another point which was raised here by the hon. member for North Rand in connection with other mines. I think that sooner or later we shall have to give attention to this question of other mines, particularly the base-metal mines, and that sooner or later we shall have to forget about the gold mines as those productive mines which will take care of our national income. I do not know, but to me it seems as if we shall have to take steps to stimulate the development of base-metals, particularly in the direction of technical advice which will have to be given to the smaller mines. If we adopt the attitude that we must stimulate the development of those mines, we shall have to furnish guidance on almost the same basis as guidance is to-day being furnished in regard to agriculture. Much has been said in this House about what is being done for the farmers and as far as I can see at the moment the small mine-owner lags far behind the farmer in regard to what the State is doing for him. The State may as well give attention to this matter in this respect that in the same way information officers are being made available to the farmers, technical officers have to be made available in the various fields of the mining industry so that the development of the small mines can be stimulated further. This system works very well in Rhodesia and I may perhaps enlarge on this matter during the next session. I have already used up some of the time I wanted to devote to another matter, but I want to return to where I stopped last night when the Chairman did not rule me out of order. It is in regard to the basic scientific development in the field of mining. I mentioned here what was being done in regard to the prospecting for oil. They are basic, scientific facts which became apparent and were emphasized by geologists like Drs. Rogers and Cunningham-Craig in the years 1913 to 1917. It is only recently that active attention has again been given to the matter. I also want to express my appreciation of the National Party Government for having displayed this spirit of enterprise in entering this field because, while the private sector did for example develop our gold-mining industry, they simply did not see their way clear to undertaking something as highly speculative as this search for oil. I should like to express my appreciation for that. Even geologists like Drs. Rogers and Cunningham-Craig warned in 1917 already that the project in the southern Karoo was a highly speculative undertaking, but on account of strategic interest the Government has in fact undertaken it. I say that what was under discussion here was basic scientific facts. Of course the same also applies to increased exploitation of our gold and uranium ore. These basic requirements are also essential for the expansion of agriculture. What is of importance here is land and water, and the industrialists on the other hand are dependent upon raw minerals and a source of energy. A constant supply of all these requirements is essential for maintaining the level of civilization we have reached. For this geological research into our raw minerals is absolutely essential. But what is the position in regard to our State geological research? Here the State institutions are actually experiencing a form of frustration in regard to their activities which amounts to their activities being hampered by a shortage of staff as a result of the fact that the State is not paying the geologists enough …

Everyone is frustrated with this Government.

When the hon. member turns round and looks at me he puts me very much in mind of the dinosaurs of the Karoo area in the Paleolithic Age. He should rather keep quiet. I am referring to this staff shortage because we are dealing here with a major question which affects our way of life, and it is being impeded by the Public Service Commission. I have already discussed the matter twice with the hon. the Minister and I want to make representations to him in that regard again. Without this basic research no state or nation can survive. It is absolutely essential for our agriculture and also for our industries. [Time limit.]

If I had been able to hear more of the speech by the hon. member for Etosha, I could have devoted more time to him. I want to say a few words, however, about another speaker on that side of the House, the hon. member for Welkom. I think we were all shocked to hear what he had to say in his speech about the gold-mining industry. He went so far that he virtually advocated Government interference in the gold-mining industry, and even worse. It almost sounded as though he was a youthful new shoot of that erstwhile reformation movement in the mineworkers’ trade unions of which Dr. Albert Hertzog was the head at one stage. It was a dangerous thing that he suggested there, and I think it is high time the hon. the Minister clamped down on the young Turks who make such attacks on the gold-mining industry and who advocate interference in that industry. The Minister was right when he said that his Department aimed at rendering assistance, be it ever so meagre, to the marginal mines, and he pointed out that the annual profit on an investment of R60,000.000 in the gold mines amounts to only about R500,000, less than ½ per cent. So how can the hon. member for Welkom speak of the tremendous profits made by gold mines in South Africa? But I want to come to a more amiable level. I may not agree with the hon. member for Welkom, but there was one speech tonight … [Interjections.] There was one speech to-night with the contents of which I am in complete agreement. I refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Brakpan. In connection with the problems of the mine-workers the hon. member spoke almost the way we on this side had spoken. If I understood him correctly, he said that he wished to ask the Minister, in view of the great dissatisfaction among the mineworkers, particularly as regards the 1962 Pneumoconiosis Act, whether the time had not come to review the Act.

I did not speak of reviewing.

I am not quoting my notes, but his Hansard. The words used by the hon. member were that there was dissatisfaction among the mineworkers, and I want the hon. the Minister to listen to the reasonable appeal made to him by the hon. member for Brakpan. The hon. member for Brakpan went further and said that we should see whether it was not possible to remove the unnecessary points of friction, and he referred to the red

card as a point of friction that should be removed. He also said that he had encountered dissatisfaction about the lump sum received by the mineworkers as regards tuberculosis. But he did not say “dissatisfaction”; according to his Hansard, he said “great dissatisfaction”. He said the mineworker would like to have a pension, and we find that there is great dissatisfaction as regards the children’s allowance. Here he uses the word “dissatisfaction” twice in 15 or 20 lines, the words “great dissatisfaction” once, and the words “points of friction” three times. Of course, that is what we on this side have always said of the mineworkers. The hon. member for Brakpan may plead for those things as often as he likes, but did he notice that the Minister of Mines has not given a single reply to one of those points?

He will.

* Mr. E. G. MALAN: I hope we get those replies, and I also hope there will be a reply to the other point mentioned by the hon. member for Brakpan. He said he wanted to ask the Minister whether the time had not come to convene a proper conference on mining, where the Minister should act as chairman, of all Members of Parliament who are interested in mining legislation. To that we have heard no reply from the Minister either. I can imagine a most interesting conference, with the Minister in the chair and the hon. member for Brakpan present, and also the mineworkers’ trade union and the rebel group that received so much support from certain members on that side of the House. My point is that the hon. member for Brakpan may plead for the mine-worker here, but he is powerless in that party because he receives no reply from the Minister. [Interjections.]

Then there were other speeches with which I am not quite so much in agreement as with that of the hon. member for Brakpan. There was the speech of the hon. member for Krugersdorp. He revived an old bogey which he called Hoggenheimer. Sir, Hoggenheimer is not the creation of the Nationalist Party or of the cartoonist at the Burger. It is a word that was used against the Chamber of Mines as long ago as 1900. I may even quote what General Smuts said in that regard at the time. In those days there may perhaps have been reason for an attack on the mine owners, but the reason vanished subsequently, and it is my plea to-night that we should please bury Hoggenheimer. You will remember how he was buried at one stage, but then the hon. members on the opposite side went during the twenties and entered into an alliance with the Labour Party, and Mr. Tielman Roos, their Transvaal leader, convened a meeting with the communists, and then they rediscovered Hoggenheimer, and now the hon. member for Krugersdorp comes along with the same story. I do not accept for one moment that the hon. member for Krugersdorp is a friend of the mine worker. I say that he and members such as the hon. member for Welkom and the hon. member for Innesdal and other members on the opposite side are exploiting the mine worker for their own benefit, for their own political objects. They are exploited, not by this side of the House, but by their own people. [Interjections.]

My plea is that as far as the gold mines and the mine workers are concerned, all of us can in fact join in adopting a South African attitude. We agree on three important issues. Firstly, we wish gold to remain the international currency; secondly, we wish production costs to remain low and the marginal mines to be assisted; thirdly, we wish to see the cost of living kept low, and fourthly, if these things cannot be done, we are all in favour of having the gold price increased. Let us rather adopt a non-political attitude with regard to the mining industry.

Now I ask, in connection with these four points, how much has this Government not sinned? As a result merely of this Budget we have had, how much have production costs and transport costs not risen, which holds out death to many mines in South Africa; and how much has the cost of living not risen, which brings misery to the ordinary mine worker? They strike the mine worker through their policy and their Budget, and then they say the Chamber of Mines is to blame; the Chamber of Mines should put these things right. In the old days they could still have said that, but if they speak of Hoggenheimer again to-day, then there are large gold-mining companies that are dominated by members of the Nationalist Party. [Interjections.] I think that is why the hon. the Minister of Mines is acting somewhat defensively in respect of mines that are exposed to unfair attacks.

The gold mines are also blamed for not having established a pension fund. Does not the hon. member for Krugersdorp, who said that, know that since 1947 there has been a pension fund for the ordinary mine worker? There are two funds, the Mine Officials’ Pension Fund and the Mine Employees’ Pension Fund, and the latter is for the ordinary mine worker. The mine worker contributes 6 per cent and the mines contribute per cent, and this fund is growing steadily. [Time limit.]

It is most extraordinary that whenever the hon. member for Orange Grove sets up, there is always a dust storm in this House, and it is a mere dust storm, with nothing inside. There is no rain in it. The hon. member has made a tremendous hullabaloo about the speech of the hon. member for Brakpan, in which he supposedly asked the Minister to remove the points of friction in the 1962 Act, and spoke of great dissatisfaction among the miners as a result of certain problems in the 1962 Act. etc. But surely the hon. member is wide of the mark if he thinks that we, as members representing the mine workers, are not aware of the problems in that Act. On the contrary, I have before me the Hansard of the third reading of the Bill in 1962. In Col. 6820 I myself put a question to the Minister in charge of the Bill.

I said I wanted to make a request to the Minister. [Interjections.] Sir, on a point of order, I cannot proceed while the hon. members are all shouting.

Order!

I said I wanted to make one request to the Minister, namely that after this legislation had been in operation for a year, and we were able to judge how many people were being certified on the new basis in comparison with the number of people certified according to the old basis, the Minister should reconsider the whole question if the comparison was not a favourable one. That was my request in 1962. It is of no use for the hon. member to pretend that it is something new. And here I have the Minister’s reply—

That is exactly what has been done. The Act has been watched. There are problems, and it is our duty to bring the points of friction to the attention of the Minister, and we do that when the opportunity presents itself. The Minister is aware of that and he has removed many of those points of friction, and he will continue to remove those points of friction. This Government is not afraid of amending legislation that presents problems. [Interjections.]

But, of course, the dust storm of the hon. member for Orange Grove was a deliberate attempt to try to save the two other hon. members in his party who stepped into quicksand up to their knees, and to divert the storm that must necessarily break over them. I want to begin with the hon. member for Hillbrow. Unfortunately he is a back-bencher, but I nevertheless want to tell him that his entire speech in respect of migrant labour and the problems of migrant labour made it quite clear to me that the hon. member shows an inclination towards advocating that we should replace migrant labour by permanent residence here, and that the people should come here with their families and obtain permanent residence in South Africa. He did not go as far as that; on the contrary, he was cautious enough, when we asked him what he suggested, to say that he would leave it to a later occasion. Perhaps he has to consult his caucus before he can speak.

The hon. member for Rosettenville is the main speaker on mining affairs on the other side, and I want to ask him to tell us what the United Party’s policy is in respect of migrant labour for the mines. Is he in favour of retaining the present compound system, or does he support the views of the hon. member for Hillbrow, that it should be done on a family basis, in terms of which the families should live here, and thus blacken South Africa? I should like to have an unequivocal reply from the hon. member for Rosettenville. I also want to ask a second question, with reference to the hon. member for Karoo. The hon. member for Karoo is here as a member of the United Party, and not as an independent, like the other Coloured representatives. I therefore assume that the policy advocated by him is the policy of the United Party. He said that the Minister should relinquish the idea that mining is the prerogative of the White and of the White only. He asked why all mine workers have to be White and why mining is not thrown open to the Bantu and the Coloured as well. Once again, I want to ask the hon. member for Rosettenville, as the main speaker on that side, to get up and tell the world, so that the country and the mineworkers may know, that they are amenable to the idea and that it is their policy that mining should not be reserved for the White, but that they want to draw the non-Whites into the mines and force the Whites out and replace them by non-Whites. I want a definite reply, because that is the implication of what the hon. member for Karoo said. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Durban (Point) is worried, of course, because he knows that the hon. member will not be able to answer. [Interjection.] With all these interruptions you will have to allow me injury time, Sir. I want to bring a few points to the attention of the Minister. The first one relates to the problems of the mineworker, and there are problems, and nobody is trying to hide that. But there are two specific matters that I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The first is the question of pneumoconiosis compensation. I want to begin by saying that there is one group of mineworkers who are certainly being prejudiced in this respect.

In terms of the 1962 Act, Section 94 (1), it is provided that the total amount of any pension awarded under that Act to any person in respect of either pneumoconiosis or tuberculosis, shall not exceed the amount of such person’s monthly earnings. And the definition of monthly earnings is quite clear. It is the average earnings, or one-sixth of the remuneration earned by him, in respect of the preceding 156 shifts. This has the result that there are certain miners who worked in the mines in former years and then left it, and who are now entitled to a pension which is much higher than their monthly earnings in those years. Now the problem is that in terms of this provision in the Act, the pension of those people is fixed at the amount of the maximum salary they received. I know the accepted principle is that a person cannot be compensated for more than he earned. But surely the concept of wages is very relative, and the value of money is relative.

In 1936 R60 was surely worth a great deal more than R60 to-day. According to my information there are only 133 mineworkers suffering this injustice at the moment. I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot review the whole position and relax this restriction on these people to enable them to share in the concessions that have been made to the miners from time to time under this good Government. They are restricted to the maximum wages they earned when they left the mines many years ago. I feel that this is a reasonable request.

My second request relates to certifications. I have the report of the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Commissioner in front of me, and in it we notice the phenomenon that as soon as a new Act comes into operation there is a sudden increase in the certifications, and within a year or two the number reverts to normal or to a smaller number. Thus we had an increase of 556 first certifications in 1956, which decreased progressively to 283, 191 and 225. [Time limit.]

Dr. E. L. FISHER: Since the hon. member for Welkom came into the debate it has taken a political turn. I would like the House to know that we on this side are as much concerned with the welfare of the miner as they are on that side. Not only that, but I think it is gross impertinence of the young hon. member for Welkom to come here to-day and tell us that we are insincere when we plead for the welfare of the mineworker.

I want to ask the hon. member whether he is satisfied with the salaries paid by the Chamber of Mines.

I want hon. members to know that we on this side will always carry out our duty, and that the right to fight for the mineworkers is not their prerogative only. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Randfontein has posed two questions. He alleges that the hon. member for Karoo said that it was his intention to replace White miners by Coloureds or Bantu, and I say to the hon. member for Randfontein that he has deliberately twisted the words of the hon. member.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Dr. E. L. FISHER: I withdraw those remarks, but I say it is grossly unfair of the hon. member for Randfontein to say such things if he was not sure of what the hon. member for Karoo said. The hon. member said he wants me to answer, as the chief speaker on this side of the House, and to say what the position is.

What did he say?

The hon. member for Karoo never said it nor did he intend to say it and I hope that the hon. member for Randfontein will take my word for it. If he would like to know what I said then I am prepared to show him my Hansard.

He would not understand it anyway.

I said, “We have to consider not only our output of gold but we have to bear in mind the necessity of keeping the White miner, in whatever field of mining he is employed, happy and secure in his job.”

The hon. member for Randfontein has also asked what our policy is in regard to migrant labour. The hon. member for Randfontein is apparently one who knows something about mining matters and migrant labour but he has asked me how I feel about it.

We want to know the policy of your party.

I will tell the hon. member what my views are. Sir, Bantu labour on the mines is very peculiar in itself; it is the one type of labour which is not consistent. The hon. member knows quite well that the Bantu who come to work on the mines are in the main young, unmarried workers. The hon. member knows quite well that they come here on contract for a certain period. If he does not know that he ought to know it. He knows quite well what the circumstances are when they come to work on the mines. The hon. member has had an opportunity of seeing migrant labourers coming in and being examined; he has seen the type of migrant worker who comes to work on the mines.

Come to the point.

My point is that in these circumstances, where the mines rely on contractual labour, it is almost impossible even to consider the question of having a stable Bantu labour force constantly working on the mines and having their families with them. It is impracticable and the hon. member knows it. He knows that we now cannot consider any other type of labour on the mines. Sir. earlier on in this debate I mentioned the difficulties of recruiting our own Native labour here. The Bantu in our own country do not want to come and work on the mines. It is because of that that the Witwatersrand Recruiting Association has had to go out of South Africa and into other African territories to recruit labour for the mines. The hon. member now comes along at this stage of the debate and picks out a point in an attempt to gain political advantage for his party. Sir. I leave it at that.

Very conveniently.

Order! hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity to make his speech.

Sir, when I concluded my speech last night I was dealing with accident rates on the mines and I regretted that I was unable to finish because there are one or two important points that I wanted to bring home to the hon. the Minister. Sir, I have here a report from the Inspector of Mines at Heidelberg. I should like the hon. the Minister to listen to this—

I quote that, Sir, to show the contrast between the position at the four mines in the Evander field and the position at St. Helena. I quote from page 115—

If well-planned, properly motivated and practised by every employee at every level at all times, this system has proved to give fantastic results …

I would urge the hon. the Minister to see that this system is introduced in those areas where the accident rate is high, especially in the Evander area. It is quite distressing to find, in looking at the statistics, how many accidents are taking place in the various areas. The total number of accidents due to falls of ground, rock bursts or other falls, comes to 6,092, in which 326 people lost their lives.

It is an organizational problem.

It is a very important organizational problem. With the risk that the mineworker normally has to take, I feel that it is up to the management to introduce every type of safety measure to prevent accidents of a serious nature. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman. safety on the mines is one of the matters to which this Government has always given a great deal of attention, and that is why the Department has not only expanded its inspectorate but also the office of the Government Mining Engineer which must be of assistance to it. A tremendous amount of research has been done as far as rock-bursts, mining construction methods, etc., are concerned. It is no wonder that the accident and the death rate have been reduced considerably as a result of the application of these methods and the strict supervision which is being maintained. While it was 1.27 per 1,000 in 1963, it decreased in 1964 to 1.23 per 1,000, the lowest which it has ever been. I think we can be grateful that the position has been improved to such an extent. Of course we are sorry that accidents cannot be eliminated entirely, but where one is dealing with an industry such as this one to which such a great deal of danger is attached and in which such large numbers of people are employed it is quite impossible to eliminate accidents entirely; nowhere in the world has this been done. There is still room for improvement. The hon. member for Rosettenville pointed out that the accident rate at Evander is high. We shall give our attention to that matter and have an investigation made in order to determine whether an improvement cannot be effected.

Reference was also made here to the diamond industry. The hon. member for North Rand and other hon. members referred to the importance of the diamond industry in our country. We admit that it is an important industry. It has always been an important industry. The diamond industry was practically the first mining industry to be begun in this country in the 1880’s, and the result was that whereas our economy had at first been based on agriculture a change gradually took place until the diamond industry and after that the gold-mining industry and other minerals played an important role in our economy. The diamond industry has made an important contribution to the economic development of our country.

It has been correctly pointed out that percentage-wise South Africa’s contribution to the world production of diamonds has decreased. That is correct. In 1966 our contribution to the world production was almost 19 per cent, but in 1965 it had decreased to 15 per cent. South West Africa is a much larger producer than the Republic, and even the production of South West Africa decreased from 25 per cent to 23 per cent. It is clear therefore that the diamond production of the rest of the world is increasing while our production on a percentage basis is decreasing. However, that is not to say that our production, expressed in carats, has decreased. On the contrary, the opposite is true; our own production may have increased, but our production in relation to the rest of the world has in fact decreased. Against that background the question has been asked whether our diamond cutting industry getting the full quota it deserves. I want to point out that the impression is being created outside that South Africa is such a great producer and that so many of our cuttable stones are leaving the country. I should like to remove that impression, because it is incorrect. Where our own production is a little more than 4,000,000 carats, we must in the first place take into consideration the fact that 80 per cent of the production of the Republic of South Africa of 4,300,000 carats are industrial diamonds which cannot be cut here. I am excluding South West Africa, because South West Africa does not fall under the Republic as far as diamonds are concerned. That means that a little more than 800,000 carats are left which can be cut. When we analyse the position further we find that our cutters do not cut stones which are under .9 carats, or less than one carat. There are a few of them who cut diamonds of .75 carats, but I am talking now about our ordinary cutters and not about the special cutters of small stones. Of our total production only 10 per cent are larger stones. Ninety per cent of our production comprises the smaller stones of less than one carat. I have already mentioned the industrial diamonds here. As far as Jagersfontein diamonds are concerned I just want to point out that those diamonds are not available for our cutters because Jagersfontein has a right to the 10 per cent tax levied on diamonds because Jagersfontein is a mine which is on a point of closing down. It was therefore decided not to levy the tax on those diamonds and to allow the full amount for which they were sold to accrue to Jagersfontein. As far as the production of the Premier Mine is concerned, which yields practically 85 per cent industrial diamonds, I want to tell hon. members that those diamonds are being exported. When we therefore make an analysis of the stones which are available for our local cutters then it is clear that slightly more than 400,000 carats of cuttable stones are available, and more and more of them have been allocated to our cutters. In 1964 318,000 carats were made available: in 1965 365,000 carats were made available. In other words there was an increase, and it is expected that 474,000 carats will be made available to cutters this year. Hon. members will see therefore that an increasingly larger amount of cuttable stones is being made available to our cutters. Of these cuttable stones, a larger quantity are coming from overseas because we do not have so many gem stones. This year 25,000 carats from London will be made available to the cutters; next year it will be 50,000 and the year after that 100,000, in order in this way to increase the quota of our cutters. Our own production is also being intensified now. One of the hon. members asked me whether the 1960 legislation has led to increased diamond production. Yes, as a matter of fact, it did. Mining leases are given to successful prospectors. Mining leases have been given to the Finch Mine prospectors; the Finch Mine is a reasonably large one and it is expected that its production will be in the region of 100,000 carats per year and even more. All the cuttable diamonds from the Finch Mine are also being made available to our cutters. With the exception of the cuttable gem stones, the diamonds from Jagersfontein, the diamonds from Premier Mine, and stones which are of such a size that our cutters cannot cut them, all cuttable stones are being made available to our cutters here in South Africa and are not being exported. As a result of the fact that the Finch Mine diamonds have been included and that the diamonds from the other mines have also been included, and also as a result of the increased production of the De Beers Group, it has been decided to grant more diamond cutting licences. In consultation with the producer’s associations 12 quotas have also been allocated to new cutters. Small quotas of 250 carats per month have been allocated to them. They maintain that they cannot come out on that, but it is a matter which we will still have to investigate and discuss further with them. As far as our normal diamond cutting industry is concerned, therefore, there are not many more stones which are available for our cutters out of our South African production. As far as production in South West Africa is concerned, it is a matter which is controlled by South West Africa. It is not a matter over which we in the Republic have any jurisdiction.

Reference was also made here to the small cutting works. Two licences have been granted to small cutting works. They are undertakings which practically cut the stones with automatic machines; they are interested in small stones of one fifth of a carat and less. A quantity of stones has been made available to them, practically on an experimental basis. Ninety per cent of our production is stones under .9 carat which our ordinary professional cutters cannot cut but which can in fact be cut, and we are investigating the matter. There is a possibility, provided the trade unions give their permission, that those cutting works may perhaps in a measure be able to make use of Coloured labour. We are faced with the problem that the trade unions are opposed to that, but the Department of Labour is busy ironing out that problem. If the hon. member for Karoo wants more details as far as the problem of the employment of Coloureds at small cutting works is concerned, then my colleague, the Minister of Labour, whose Post will come u" for discussion later, may perhaps be able to give him more information in that regard. But we are prepared to build up a small cutting industry here. As far as diamonds are concerned, I just want to point out that the trade unions have continually resisted the employment of more craftsmen. However, we have pointed out to them that there have to be more cutting works in the country and they have now agreed to employing more apprentices. Where there were only 171 craftsmen in 1965, they have now agreed to increase the number and there are at the moment 430 craftsmen.

As far as the question of wages in the diamond cutting industry is concerned, I want to point out that the wages in South Africa are much higher than in any other part of the world, and the result is that it is uneconomic to have small stones cut by this expensive labour.

I just want to add that Dr. Ross has been chairman of the Diamond Board for the past 16 years. During that time he has made a very great contribution to the development of the diamond industry. He made, particularly as far as marketing is concerned, a study of the matter and made a great contribution to it. Dr. Ross has now intimated that he will not be available for re-appointment and I therefore want to avail myself of this opportunity to thank him for the services which he has, over this long period of time, rendered to the diamond industry of South Africa. As a result of his resignation a vacancy has arisen and it has been decided to appoint Dr. Willem Petrus De Kok as the Government representative and as the new chairman of the Diamond Board. Dr. De Kok is well-known. He is at the moment still the chief consultant of Gold-fields South Africa Ltd. He leaves their employ at the end of this year and he will then be chairman of the Diamond Board for a period of three years. Dr. De Kok is well-known in mining circles. He spent many years in South West Africa and he was chairman of the Diamond Board of South West Africa. He was for a long time in Namaqualand and during the past few years he was associated with Gold-fields South Africa Ltd. I think we are fortunate that a man like Dr. De Kok was prepared to accept this post.

I would like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the cutters in South Africa are prepared to pay the extra 10 per cent if the diamonds from the Jagersfontein mine were made available to them?

That was the agreement which was entered into at that time, or let me put it this way rather: The hon. member knows what is going on, but I want to explain the position for the sake of the hon. members who perhaps do not know what it is. A tax of 10 per cent is payable on our gem stones which are exported. In order to encourage our diamond cutting industry in South Africa it was stipulated that when a cutter purchases the stones in South Africa he obtains those stones minus 10 per cent. That means that we do not get that revenue, but that the cutter in South Africa gets those stones 10 per cent cheaper than the price which would have been obtained for them abroad. In order to encourage our cutters they have therefore in fact paid 10 per cent less for the stones. As far as Jagersfontein is concerned, it was decided, because it was a marginal mine which was not making much profit and because attempts had been made to lengthen the life of the mine, that they could export their diamonds but that instead of that 10 per cent going to the State, it would go to Jagersfontein. The question which is now being put to me is whether the cutters would not be prepared to take them if those stones were made available to them. Production a* Jagersfontein is small; it is in the region of 9,000 carats per year. Jagersfontein does not have a large production as far as gem stones are concerned therefore, and it is of course the gem stones in which the cutters are interested. It is perhaps possible that the cutters will take those stones but it has nevertheless appeared, even in the case of stones which are made available from London and the price of which would be the same as the stones from the Jagersfontein Mine, that all the cutters do not take their share of those stones. It has therefore not been decided yet that the cutters will take these 9,000 carats, but if they are interested in that then it is a matter which we will discuss with the diamond producer’s association in question.

The hon. member for Etosha referred here to marginal mines and asked when a mine is regarded as being a marginal mine. I pointed out that there are approximately 22 marginal mines. For the most part they are mines which have for some time already been running at a loss and which will, according to calculations, close down within the next five years. When loans are made to them they are subject to the supervision of the Government Mining Engineer and their working costs are very carefully examined. This is merely an attempt to keep those mines on the go a little longer. I do not think it is necessary that I give the full details in regard to the question of supervision to hon. members. Mortgages are even taken out in order to safeguard the State’s share. The whole idea is to keep these mines on the go in case the price of gold is raised, because once a mine has been closed-down it is uneconomic to re-open it.

The hon. member also referred to the shortage of geologists. The shortage of geologists is really a fundamental problem. In a country such as South Africa where we have so many minerals, geologists are of fundamental importance. There is a shortage of geologists and there is a great demand for them. The result is that high salaries are being offered to good, experienced geologists by the private sector and it has also been our experience that Geological Survey is steadily losing numbers of their geologists. Geologists are of importance to us in our search for oil. It was a new field which had to be covered. We sent a considerable number of geologists abroad to gain experience and now that they have gained considerable experience we find that the private sector is taking an interest in those specially-trained people. One solution of course is to increase their remunerations, but as far as the Public Service is concerned, the position is that when the wages of one sector, particularly in a skilled field, are increased, demands are made by other experts for their salaries to be increased as well. Provision has in fact been made for higher salaries for medical men and architects, but this group has unfortunately not been included in that revision. We have already brought the seriousness of the shortage of geologists to the attention of the Public Service Commission and we hope that the situation in that regard will be relieved.

Reference was also made here by the hon. member for Karoo to the question of diamond interests in Namaqualand. The hon. member spoke about that last year too. His complaint last year was that the State had not allocated sufficient land to Coloureds. I then quoted here from the decision which had been taken by the Cabinet and I pointed out that the commission which had been appointed to investigate the matter, had made certain recommendations as far as State-owned land was concerned. I then added that all the Coloured areas had been allocated to the Coloured People’s Development Corporation, but in spite of that the hon. member alleged to-night that the concession had been granted to the consortium of Naskor and Sealand. That is not correct. All the Coloured areas have in the first place been allocated to the Coloured People’s Development Corporation and technical managers have been appointed to operate the mines on their behalf, or groups have been appointed to do so on their behalf. The hon. member wanted to know what the production was of the bodies working there and he wanted to know what became of their concessions. The production as far as the various areas is concerned is as follows: As far as Bethal is concerned the production was 35 carats; the production of Brazil was 171; the production of Strykloof was 1,600; and the production of Spektakel was 96. That is what was allocated to the White diggers. Then there was Komaggas with a production of 2,900 and Bontekoe with 107. Those are the figures for the diamonds which were found in those different areas. Then there are certain areas where the concessionaries had not yet commenced operations. In general the concessions were granted to certain consortiums. Some of them have not yet begun operations.

Why not?

The companies must first be formed; others are apparently not adequately equipped in the technical sphere. We have now given notice to them that if they do not begin operations within a certain period of time we are going to cancel their concessions, because those concessions were granted to them so that they could do prospecting work in those areas and if they do not do so we are going to cancel those concessions.

The hon. member also asked why grants had not been made to De Beers; why certain concessions had not been granted to De Beers. I think that was his question; he did not quite complete his sentence. The hon. member was very concerned about the De Beers group there. But I can tell him that over the years De Beers have acquired many new rights there, many more than some of these other groups. De Beers have 108 farms along the Namaqualand coast between the mouth of the Olifant River and Port Nolloth. They have purchased all the bordering farms and as a result of the policy which was announced by a former Minister of Mines it was stipulated that the rights in respect of the coastal belts should be granted to those bordering farms. As a result of that prospecting rights were in reality granted to De Beers in that area. They were allocated 108 farms there, which comprise plus minus 408,000 morgen, together with the Kleinzee Annex and this coastal belt, which makes a total of plus minus 420,000 morgen. That is the area which has recently been allocated to De Beers. With this information available to him I do not think the hon. member ought to make the statement that De Beers have been neglected as far as Namaqualand is concerned, and that in spite of the fact that they have spent a lot of money there. On the contrary, this policy which was decided upon earlier had the result that as far as the Namaqualand coast was concerned, they obtained control over practically the entire coastal belt, with the exception of a few parts. At the moment there is in fact an application from one of the Coloured digger groups in which they say that they cannot exploit their area. They were selected to exploit that area and the Coloured People’s Corporation could make funds available to them. Apparently they are not yet on a very firm footing with the Coloured People’s Corporation. When the application was recently submitted to me in which the Coloured People’s Corporation requested that they should be allowed to transfer their rights to De Beers for a certain percentage interest, I referred the application to the Minister of Coloured Affairs for his comment, and I am still waiting for that.

The other matter I want to refer to is a matter which was mentioned by quite a few hon. members, i.e. the hon. members for Brakpan, Geduld, Virginia, Welkom, Boksburg, Rustenburg and Randfontein, and a few hon. members of the Opposition also referred here to the miner and to whether he was receiving his fair share in terms of the pneumoconiosis legislation. Reference was made to the statement made by the former Minister of Mines when this Act was passed in 1962. At that time he had said that he was prepared to revise that Act at a later date. It has consequently been asked whether it is not time that we had another look at that Act. Several years have elapsed since that Act was applied. There are several problems which have most probably arisen as a result of the practical experience of the miner. If these aspects are brought to our attention and investigated—at this stage I do not want to say that this should necessarily be done by a commission—and there are aspects which can be rectified, then I can only say that I am quite prepared to have a look and see whether these aspects can be rectified.

The hon. member for Brakpan also asked whether another visit could not be paid to the Medical Bureau. Such a visit was paid previously and I think hon. members found it interesting. In view of the fact that there are so many new members I am willing to arrange another visit to the Medical Bureau and to invite members on both sides of the House to accompany me there so that they can acquaint themselves with what is being done there. Another aspect which is also important is that the present Medical Bureau is being very poorly accommodated in its present building where it has been for many years already. The building is too small I think we are all glad to know that a start has now been made with the excavations and that building operations have commenced on a new and efficient building for the Medical Bureau.

Reference was also made here to the 133 cases of people who had made contributions and who were not at present entitled to the full pension as laid down in the 1965 legislation because their salaries were lower than the present pension. I must say that, if one takes into consideration the increase in the cost of living, the change in the value of money, then one really has sympathy with these cases because they are in fact at present receiving less than they would have received if they had been accorded the same treatment. I have asked the Department to institute an investigation and to see whether something cannot be done for them. Unfortunately, we have not yet received a final reply, but I can only say that we are sympathetically disposed towards them, and if it is possible to help them without it causing major complications for the other persons concerned, we shall try to help them.

Reference was also made here to the certification of 20 per cent. The hon. member for Geduld asked how it was possible to say in a certain case that a person is 19 or 21 per cent disabled? He wanted to know where the borderline was. This has already caused confusion, and we have previously given an explanation in regard to the matter. In brief, I want to state the position as follows. In terms of the powers bestowed by the Act, standards for post-mortem certification have been promulgated, and where pneumoconiosis occurs to such an extent that it would have been radiologically perceptible during the life time, or where any slight pneumoconiosis is found even by means of a microscope or chemical analysis, together with any signs of chronic bronchitis and emphysema, then it is classified as a more than 20 per cent impediment of cardio-respiratory functions. On the other hand, where minimal pneumoconiosis is found without any chronic bronchitis or emphysema it is classified a less than 20 per cent disability. Such a fine distinction of between 19 and 21 per cent is therefore out of the question. It is not only possible, but also unnecessary. All that it is necessary to know, is whether it is less than 20 per cent.

Questions were also asked here in regard to medical men. I think that as far as the revision court as well as the appeal court are concerned, the certification committee as well as the revision authority, there has been a considerable improvement as far as co-operation is concerned. It was made clear, particularly after the previous request, that there should always be co-operation between the house doctor and the certification committees. It is now the case therefore that when a miner begins working and receives his card, he must indicate who his house doctor is. There is then the necessary contact between the house doctor and those committees in question. He can at any time bring something to their attention. What also happens now, is that if something in regard to a patient comes to the attention of these certification committees or the revision committee and they need the house doctor, then it is not that doctor who phones the house doctor, it is Dr. Sluis-Cremer or Dr. Hydenrich who phones that doctor and notifies him of that. I do not think it is sufficiently well-known that any miner is at liberty, when he appears before these certification committees or before the revision authority, to bring his own house doctor along. I think it ought to be made known that that can be done. Dr. Sluis-Cremer himself has had quite a few interviews with the Medical Association as well as with the panel doctors, and they are prepared to do everything in their power to create that confidence which is necessary between the house doctor and these doctors.

Reference was also made here to mine-workers in general. Hon. members on both sides of the House said that representations had been made to them. The hon. member for Orange Grove said that that side of the House were the people who had always in the past made representations and that they laid claim to having made representations here on behalf of the miner. I can well understand that he has been pushed into the fray at such a late stage here because it is the hon. member who is really the one who has to rectify the matter when it has to a certain extent been bungled. Now suddenly it is the people on that side who have all these years been looking after the interests of the miners.

1922.

No, we do not have to go back to 1922. We can begin much later than that. Let us just have a look at 1948 when this party came into power. There were two grades then. Do you know what pension a pneumoconiosis sufferer received then? If he was in the third grade—the most serious grade —his pension was R38. Do you know how much that pension is now? It is now R114. At that time it was R38 and now it is R114! Those are the people who have been looking after the miners all these years. [Interjections.]

Order!

What was the position as far as widows were concerned? In 1948 they received a pension of R13, but now they are receiving R36. [Interjections.] In 1948 a child received R6.50, but now it is receiving R18. That is the improvement which brought this party into power!

What is the value of the rand now?

This Government has made a very large contribution, millions of rand, to make it possible to pay these higher pensions. When one looks at the record of what was done for the pneumoconiosis sufferer under this Government and what was done in the time of that Government, then one can clearly see whom it is who has all these years been making a major contribution to improve the position of the miner.

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer this evening to a report that has appeared in the local Press concerning a proclamation in the Government Gazette in terms of the Statistics Act, which I maintain is relevant to Vote 48 which appears on page 288 of the Estimates. I raise this issue, although the hon. members of this House have not yet had access to the Government Gazette cerned. The Gazette was published in Pretoria on Friday, and I would like to say that I think it is a reflection either on the Minister’s department, or whoever is responsible, that four days after its publication in Pretoria, where everybody else has had access to it, hon. members in this House are not able to see this Government Gazette until to-morrow morning. The Press report I have here comes from Johannesburg, and is headed, “Compulsory Quiz on C.O.L.-families will be told to tell all”. The report goes on as follows—

That Proclamation appeared in the name of this hon. Minister. [Interjections.] It goes on to say that—

[Interjections.]

Order! I think the hon. member for Wynberg is quite capable of making her own speech.

“… and return the paper to the Director of Statistics in Pretoria.”

This must be done by the 7th December. I want to make the point that this proclamation, if the Press account is correct—and I shall deal with some of the details in a minute— covers a most fantastic field, and it represents, I think, a very serious intrusion into the rights and the privacy of the ordinary citizens of this country. I should like the Minister to tell us to-night precisely what the reason for this proclamation is and what the need is for the survey which he wants to undertake.

What is the Minister’s object in perstering the ordinary South African civilian with questions of this kind? Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to tell us what the object of this survey is. One wonders whether it is intended to be a kind of general inquisition, or what the motive behind it is. One of the expressions used in the proclamations is that the head of the family shall produce this information. Well, who is the head of the family? Who is going to decide?

I should like to ask the Minister whether his officers, in terms of the Statistics Act, are going to intrude into private homes, if some of the people who are sent these questionnaires—and presumably they will be sent by post—either fail to return them in time or do not understand what they are about and just fill in any sort of information, the first thing that comes into their heads.

In 1965 Section 2 (1) of the Original Act was so amended as to provide amongst other things that statistics might be obtained in connection with “social matters and activities, of whatever nature … family and household surveys, including surveys of family and household Budgets, and any other matter prescribed by the Minister by notice in the Gazette’’. So there is a sense in which the Minister has power of a kind to conduct this type of survey. But the other relevant 1965 amendment to the original Act of 1957 dealt only with the obstruction of any officer carrying out a survey in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act. If one looks at subsection (1) of section 7 of the original Act, one find that this gives the Minister the right to send his officers in to make this type of investigation on premises where people are employed and nowhere else. They are entitled to enter onto land or into industrial concerns, factories, and places of that kind. The specific clause reads—

There is nothing in this Act, or any amendment to it, which gives the Minister the right of entry to private homes and ask people the sort of question which apparently was gazetted in this questionnaire last Friday. I suggest that the Minister is acting beyond his powers in making this proclamation at this stage.

Section 2 (1) of the original Act was very materially amended in 1965 in order to give the Minister the right to obtain statistics covering primary production, farming, forestry, mining operations, sea products, quarrying, secondary production, and a whole lot of other things, including construction, civil engineering, demolition of buildings, soil erosion and goodness knows what else. But there are a mass of sources, official and semi-official, to which the Minister and his Department have access and from which they can obtain a great deal of this information. They are the producers, professional sources, trade sources, industry and commerce, and the distributive trade etc. All these are available to the Government for figures in connection with cost of living and matters of that kind.

Our friends in the Nationalist Party are so fond of telling us how they deplore anything that smacks of socialism or a welfare state. To me this questionnaire is nothing short of the most socialistic activity we have ever seen in this country … [Interjections.] If it is a social survey of a benevolent kind which the Minister wants to have carried out, surely the correct way to do it would be to refer this matter to the social science departments of one, two, three or even four of our universities for this purpose. The universities would have the right to carry out these surveys without statutory obligation and the unpleasantness which goes with a State inquiry and is obviously attached to some degree to any State inquiry. I would say that this is not under any circumstances a matter for interference by a Government Department. When I say that it is not a matter to be interfered with by the Government, let me remind the Minister of some of the questions which this questionnaire asks. The Minister wants to know how much the average family spends on food. He wants to know how much they spend on alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks. What has that got to do with the Government? It has nothing whatever to do with the Government. He wants to know how much the average family spends on cigarettes. That is our private business and has nothing to do with the Government. How can it possibly improve the position of the Ministry of Planning? They want to know about washing and cleaning materials, reading matter and stationery, recreation, amusement and sport. Is that for the benefit of the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation? They also want to know how much the average family pays in income tax. I am not a lawyer, Sir, but I would be very surprised if this did not go counter to some section in the income tax laws which prevents anybody except the receiver of revenue having access to information given to him as to how much any family pays in income tax.

But this is the funniest of the whole lot. The Minister in this questionnaire wants to know how much people spend on cut flowers. I cannot think of anything less appropriate to discuss in this House than flowers, cut or otherwise. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member has raised a question of the utmost importance and of interest to the general public and the country generally, and I hope she will be allowed to continue her speech.

Mr. Chairman, another thing that the questionnaire asks, concerns the erection of gravestones. Well, really, Sir! To whom is that relevant? Except to oneself when one dies? The thing is ridiculous. They ask you how much you spend on meals away from home, on staff employed, their race and their pay, the composition of the family and how many lodgers you have in the house. They want to know how much you spend on repairs to furniture, as though one spends one’s time going about breaking one’s furniture. They want to know how much the average family subscribes to medical aid societies and things of that kind.

Now, Sir, there is a very serious aspect to this matter. Under Section 12 (1) of the Act the Minister has the right by regulation—and he has used it in this proclamation—to impose the maximum fine, if people do not produce the information on the date determined—the maximum fine being R50—and if after that, they fail to produce the information, they can be fined R2 a day until such time as they produce it. The Minister must know perfectly well that a lot of people concerned with a survey of this kind—and the way it is worded makes it a total analysis of the cost structure of their domestic budget—are going to find it a very real headache to work this out. I want to ask the Minister why, in the case of a survey of this kind—which I think is a gross interference in one’s private affairs—he has to invoke Section 12 (1) of this Act.

I want to point out that Section 12 (1) of the original Act, a section which has not been amended, stipulates that the regulations may provide for the imposition of a fine if the information is not produced. It is permissive and not mandatory. The Minister does not have to levy this fine. I think it is absolutely disgraceful that in a survey of this kind, in which the private affairs of people are going to be investigated, poor and simple people can be fined for not producing the information. In fact, the fine can be as high as R50 plus in addition R2 per day during the time they do not produce the information. What is the Minister going to do when people do not produce the information? What will he do if this circular, like most of us do with circulars of this kind, is chucked into the wastepaper basket? As a matter of fact, this is just about where this circular deserves to go. But supposing a number of people refuse to give the information? Is the Minister then, in terms of his regulations, going to take them to court on a criminal charge and have this fine imposed or a period of imprisonment of up to three months? It is the ordinary working class South Africans who are concerned and who do not want to be bothered with this type of thing. If you have university people going around with it, it will be quite a different matter.

Finally, I should like to point out that we have quite sufficient interference in every aspect of our lives in South Africa already without having this type of thing imposed upon us. I must say quite sincerely that when I saw this report this morning I had a shock. I do not know how many other hon. members there are who have seen the report. It is a gross intrusion into our private affairs, into everybody’s affairs, irrespective of the income group into which they fall. In any event, I do not believe that the Minister has the right or the power to enter private properties and to demand this type of information. Therefore, how successful does the hon. the Minister think his questionnaire is going to be? Will he please tell us what the purpose of it is and can he give us an explanation as to why he intends fining ordinary citizens in case they refuse to tell him how many cigarettes they smoke or how many beers they may have in the evenings?

It is clear that the hon. member for Wynberg does not have the faintest idea what statistics are. What she has suggested here means that we may just as well abolish the statistics section of the Department and ask the universities to undertake the work. That is what the arguments meant which she advanced here, namely that the universities can do it better. But, Mr. Chairman, statistics are playing an important part to-day, not only in the activities of the State, but also in the private sector. The private sector continually insists on the necessary statistics being collected. Commerce, for example, wants to use statistics to ascertain the pattern of consumption because it wants to manufacture the articles needed by the consumer. It is necessary that commerce should know what quantities have to be manufactured. They also want to know how the pattern of consumption of the various income groups differs according to differences in income. How is that going to be done? That can be done only be means of collecting statistics.

It may be done by means of a private market survey.

May I point out to the hon. member that these people approach the Department for information in the first place? Commerce does not have any statistics and they are obliged, therefore, to get their particulars from the Department. The survey which is going to be undertaken in this regard and about which the hon. member for Wynberg had something to say is a survey of the expenses of White families. These surveys will be undertaken on a basis of random tests and will be confined to our larger cites. The survey will also be confined only to families living in houses or in flats. Families belonging to all income groups will, as far as possible, be included in this random test. One of the most important reasons why this survey is made is to obtain detailed particulars of expenditure on commodities and services, particulars which may be used in revising the basis of weighting the consumer price index. This index is one of the most important pointers that will be compiled by the bureau. This index is used mainly to determine from time to time whether it has become necessary to adjust wages as a result of any change in consumption. The index is also used for adjusting cost of living allowances in terms of certain wage agreements. It is, therefore, in the interests of the worker as far as the adjustment of wages in terms of agreements is concerned. Furthermore, the index serves to ascertain whether there has been any change in the purchasing value of the rand as well as to indicate inflationary trends. Such a survey will also provide information which may be used for investigations in connection with the standard of living, housing, food consumption as well as other economic and social investigations, such as market research.

It is, therefore, clear that as far as this census is concerned, its basic aim is to provide in this important need. The hon. member has asked what the clause means in terms of which penalties are laid down. Such a provision is included in the majority of these proclamations. Nevertheless, I know of no prosecutions that were instituted in terms of such a provision during the period of more than two years I have been dealing with statistics. Such a provision is contained in the Act all the same. Last year hon. members opposite granted authority for this kind of survey themselves. But now they are opposing it. Now that steps are taken in terms of the authority granted in 1965 they are making a fuss about it. Last year, however, they approved it without any objection whatsoever.

The hon. member also asked whether the information obtained will be regarded as confidential. The fact is that all statistics are confidential.

The Act states that much of it may be published.

Certain information may, in fact, be published although there is also other information that may not be published, unless permission has been obtained beforehand from the person concerned. For example, that is the position as far as taxes are concerned. Basically statistics are playing a very important part to-day and urgent requests have been made that our statistics should be modernized and expanded. The statistics we are concerned with here are extremely important as far as the spending of families are concerned. For that reason we shall proceed with the survey in spite of the attempts of the hon. member to belittle it. We are going to undertake this survey because the public sector has urged that these statistics should be made available. Besides, it will be in the interests of the people themselves because there are bodies who want to use these statistics in the interests of the various groups in our country. For that reason we will proceed with the survey.

Mr. Chairman, the explanation of the hon. the Minister is the clearest indication we can have of the extent to which this Nationalist Party Government has become socialistically orientated. [Interjections.] This Government has got to the stage where it does not give a tuppeny damn for the private … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I do, Mr. Chairman. I want to say that this Government has got to the stage where it does not care at all for the privacy of individuals in this country. This is a shocking state of affairs, Mr. Chairman, and one which we here shall not tolerate. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I am very interested to see the nervousness on the other side. However, I am not surprised to see this nervousness because I do not believe that one single hon. member on the Government side of the House will be able to …

Order! The hon. member should address the Chair and not turn his back on it.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I am being extremely provoked by hon. members on the Government side to the left of me. As a matter of fact, I am a little disturbed to see the attitude being adopted by hon. members on the Government side. They seem to regard this as a great joke.

You are the big joke.

I wonder whether they will continue to regard this as a joke when their constituents come to them and ask them what right they have to come into their homes or to send inspectors into their homes to ask them this sort of personal questions in terms of these regulations.

The hon. the Minister tried to justify these regulations by saying that statistics are required in the modern world. Mr. Chairman, that is perfectly correct but that does not justify interfering into the personal lives of citizens. This sort of thing is to be found only in socialistic and totalitarian states and not in a democratic state such as we have here.

Wait until your wives get at you.

The hon. the Minister in dealing with the question of the fine which can be imposed … [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I wonder why hon. members are so nervous about all this. Perhaps when this debate is over they might go to the hon. the Minister and point out to him that he himself may have a little embarrassment when the questioners come to him. It is essential to obtain statistics but that surely does not justify imposing a fine on persons who do not wish to provide the information required. Surely statistics should be voluntarily provided by citizens wishing to give such information for the purpose of assisting the State. The imposition of the fine on those who fail to answer questionnaires as well as on those who delay supplying that information is a provision which is entirely new in regard to the provision of statistics in this country. Furthermore, it is a provision which the hon. the Minister has failed to justify in his reply to the hon. member for Wynberg, who, I must say, has put up a case which the hon. the Minister has totally failed to answer. He has tried to bluster his way through but has failed to answer her charge, in fact two important charges. I want to repeat these two charges to the hon. the Minister and also to other hon. members on the other side who seem to regard this matter as a huge joke. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon. member for Turffontein does not remain quiet I shall have to send him out of the House.

These charges are the following. In the first place, how does the Minister justify this intrusion into the personal homes of South African citizens? To this we should like a clear answer. In the second place, how does the Minister justify the imposition of fines for failure to provide statistical information, a provision which is entirely new in the field of statistical information in South Africa? I will now sit down, Mr. Chairman, and I expect a clear answer to these two charges, either from the hon. the Minister or from these loud-mouthed hon. members on the Government side.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 32—“Agricultural Technical Services (Administration and National Services), R12,218,000”, and Loan Vote G.— “Agricultural Technical Services, R1,200,000”.

We start on this Vote at this very late hour to-night. In the course of the debate to-day we have heard a great deal about the importance of mining, and how much Bantu labour is employed by the mines. But as far as agriculture is concerned, I want to say that it means just as much, if not more, to our country as mining. Agriculture has a longer life than the mines can ever expect to have, and in addition, it provides labourers with as much opportunity for employment as the mines, while it does so on a more permanent basis as far as their family life is concerned. This is something which should be of great importance as far as South Africa is concerned.

In the few minutes still left to me, I should like to say something about the sheep and wool industry as such. One of the most alarming signs in our agriculture in this connection is that we have to face the unfortunate fact in this country that our wool production shows no increase on what it was during the years 1932 and 1933, whereas in other countries in the southern hemisphere, especially Australia, sheep and stock-breeding and wool production have virtually been doubled during the past few years.

Progress reported.