brought up the First Report of the Select Committee on Crown Lands, reporting the Ebenezer (Van Rhynsdorp) Exchange of Land Bill without amendments.

I move—

Agreed to.

read the Report [Joint Committee No. 1—’25].

I move—

1. (1) a Bill which having been introduced during the 1925 session is proceeded with during the 1926 session; and
2. (2) amendments of laws in which Netherlands is used.

In moving the adoption of the report it is not I think necessary to say much or to go into detail. The report was put into members’ hands some time since, and the report of the Select Committee in connection with the matter was unanimous. The question upon which the Select Committee had to decide was whether there was a desire to introduce Afrikaans, and how far it could be introduced in the future as a language for our Bills, Acts and official documents. In considering the question the committee were of opinion that it depended in the first instance upon the question whether Afrikaans was suited to those objects, and if the language had acquired sufficient permanence of form, and if the committee came to the conclusion that the question was to be answered in the affirmative then it had to consider how far it could be carried out, and whether such a resolution could be carried out. If it should appear that Afrikaans was appropriate and had obtained sufficient permanence of form, and if it appeared further that the inauguration of Afrikaans as an official language of Parliament could be effected, then the further question had to be considered how far it would be necessary to amend in whole or in part section 157 of the Act of Union, and if it was not necessary to alter it in how far an authoritative and legal interpretation should be given to it by a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament. The committee took evidence, and on the first point, viz., the suitability of Afrikaans, and upon the question of the attainment of sufficient permanence of form very authoritative and definite evidence was given. Men such as Dr. Viljoen, Superintendent-General of Education for the Cape Province, a man who took his doctor’s degree in this very department, and who is a linguist of repute, gave evidence. Moreover, evidence was given by individuals such as Dr. Bosman and Dr. Pienaar. The former lecturer in Afrikaans at the Cape Town University, and the latter Professor of modern languages at the University of Stellenbosch, i.e., the most authoritative experts upon this subject. They gave evidence, and as I already said they were very decided on the point that the Afrikaans language was suited for these purposes, and that it moreover has acquired a sufficient permanence of form to be introduced by Parliament as an official language. In connection with this it has also become clear from the evidence given before us that there should be an authoritative dictionary to which officials who have to use the Afrikaans language can refer. The preparation of this dictionary will cost money, and as the book will be of scientific value the circulation will probably not be great. It will have to compete in the trade with dictionaries of less standing on the market, and for this reason it is impossible for such a dictionary to be prepared without special assistance and a Government grant. For this reason the committee thought that it should recommend to the House to ask the Government to consider making allowances from the Treasury available for the purpose, if a satisfactory scheme for the preparation of such an authoritative and scientific Afrikaans dictionary is submitted. With regard to the practicability the evidence of the Clerks of both Houses of Parliament and of other members of the staff was taken. It appears that certain difficulties exist in connection with the carrying out, but that they are not so great as to be insuperable, and the witnesses also pointed out that similar difficulties existed in the case of the Provincial Administration and otherwise, but that the difficulties had been overcome with comparative ease. For this reason the committee thought that it would be well if effect could be given to this report to make a beginning in the matter during the 1926 session of Parliament. With reference to the actual position the committee thought that it chiefly depends upon the question whether Afrikaans should be called a separate language or not. If Afrikaans is merely a form of the old Dutch language, if Netherlands and Afrikaans are both forms of the same language, then there would be no difficulty, and it would not be necessary to alter the constitution because Afrikaans, just as well as Netherlands, would be covered by section 137 of the South Africa Act. But if Afrikaans is a proper, independent, separate language then legal difficulties will arise, and then it is necessary to have a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament, either to so amend section 137 that Afrikaans should be included under that section, or at any rate to remove by a statutory provision all reasonable doubts that may arise about the intention of that section. The evidence given on this point before the committee was conflicting. Some authoritative witnesses, language experts, have made a statement amounting to this, that Afrikaans is nothing else but a form of the old Dutch language similarly to Netherlands. That the two are forms of one and the same language, and that if the circumstances are taken into consideration in which section 137 was drawn up at the time, they have not the least doubt that Afrikaans, just as well as Netherlands, is covered by the section. On the other hand there are philologists who have said that Afrikaans is a separate, proper language. They base their opinion on this, that although the vocabulary of Afrikaans coincides more with Netherlands than with any dialect spoken in Holland itself, Afrikaans nevertheless in its grammar differs just as much from Netherlands as, e.g., the German language or other languages which we regard as foreign languages. Further, some language experts take this view that if Afrikaans were a language spoken in one of the provinces of the Netherlands it would, be regarded as merely a dialect. Under these circumstances they are of opinion that although as a people we are related to the Netherlands people we still have our own national life and our own country 6,000 miles distant from the Netherlands, and that in these circumstances Afrikaans should be considered as a separate and independent language. They therefore do not regard it chiefly from a philological but from an etymological point of view. The committee were therefore convinced that it was not for them to take a decision in connection with this matter, but they took the view that there was at any rate sufficient doubt on the point whether Afrikaans as well as Netherlands was covered by section 137, and whether it would be necessary to introduce a Bill in accordance with section 152 of the South Africa Act, and to pass this in a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament. The draft Bill annexed to the report will merely quote the section. This does not alter section 137, but it gives an interpretation, an authoritative and legal interpretation, of the section under which Afrikaans together with Netherlands will be included under the term “Hollands” in section 137, and because in the past action has already been taken on the assumption that Afrikaans as well as Netherlands are covered by the term “Hollands,” inter alia by the Provincial Councils who in some instances have even passed Ordinances in Afrikaans, therefore the committee think it necessary that an interpretation of Afrikaans shall be given with retrospective force. This Bill is incorporated in the report, and if it is adopted in this House, as has already been done in another place, the intention is that a joint sitting will be called by the Government by proclamation according to rules laid down to submit the Bill to the joint Houses for disposal. Then the report as handed to members has overlooked a small matter which must be put right. The difficulty was not thought of that Bills can be adopted in this House or by both Houses of Parliament during this session, and that they may only reach a certain stage during this session, and that at the sitting of Parliament next year such Bill will have to pass further stages. The second exception has reference to Acts which may be amended in the future but which are in the Netherlands form. Then the words proposed to be inserted shall be in Netherlands, although the rest of the amendment will be in Afrikaans. I think it is only fair that it shall be done in this way, and I think it is the only reasonable method of going to work.

It is a pleasure to me to second the motion. When the matter came up last time for the consideration of the House, and when the Select Committee was appointed to consider the matter, I supported the appointment of the committee and pointed out that the committee would have certain difficulties in its enquiry. I then requested the committee to go properly into the matter so that the report which eventually would be made to the House could be generally accepted. The difficulties which I then pointed out were threefold. There was the constitutional difficulty, there was the philological difficulty, and there was the sentimental consideration. As far as the constitutional difficulty is concerned, I understood at the time from the Minister that he thought such a change could be brought about by a resolution of Parliament. I then pointed out that it was necessary when we made a serious change to take the difficult way, which would also be the soundest. In my opinion it was necessary to amend section 137 of the Act of Union. I felt very strongly that the language of our people should not be the cause of our subsequently bringing the legislative authority of the country into conflict with the judicial authority, and we thought in order to avoid this that it was necessary to go to work in proper constitutional fashion to amend section 137 of the constitution by introducing an amending Bill in Parliament in accordance with section 152 of the constitution, viz., by a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament. The committee has made full investigation and arrived at the decision that to avoid all doubt it would be necessary to act in the constitutional way, and the committee accordingly recommends that the interpretation of section 137 should be made by an amending Act. I think that in connection with a very delicate matter of this nature this is the proper way to follow. It gives the people the idea that we regard the amendment as serious and well founded and that we have taken the constitutional way. I hope that when the Bill comes up, before the joint session that the recommendations of the committee will be unanimously supported by the two Houses. I come to the second point. This was whether Afrikaans from a literary point of view had attained the permanency which would justify us as a Parliament of making it an official language. On this point the committee took important evidence, and it appeared in unquestionable manner that Afrikaans had reached this stage of its development and that we could safely adopt the language as an official Parliamentary language. If we do this, then we use Afrikaans for the most delicate portion of our Parliamentary business, and my opinion is that we will thereby impose a requirement upon Afrikaans of a high and delicate nature, and it is a great compliment for the technical use of Afrikaans that it can be applied to this with safety. The committee also considered the making of a standard dictionary as well as the problem of fixed rules of spelling. We came to the conclusion that there was a need for a standard dictionary, and the committee suggested that the Government should consider the payment of an allowance to the persons and body who undertake it. This is only fair. The work will take years and cost much money. I hope the Government will sympathetically consider the recommendation. We then also took definite evidence upon the point whether, seeing the rules of spelling were not entirely fixed, there might be any encroachment upon Afrikaans and if it would not happen that if we used Afrikaans as the language of our Acts and the standard dictionary was issued, another meaning might be given to words and expressions. Upon this the witnesses satisfied me that no other meaning would be given to words. It is clear that the philological view whether if we should not make a mistake in accepting Afrikaans as the official language of the Parliament in South Africa is unambiguous, that we shall make no mistake. After having heard the evidence, it is my duty to say that I am satisfied with reference to the stage of permanence and development of Afrikaans. Now I come to the last point, and that is the sentimental side of the matter. I must say that it weighed much with me, especially because I know that it weighed much with a considerable portion of our people. In this connection I only wish to repeat again what I have said when this matter was under discussion in the House last time. I said then that the sentimental side of the matter was quite natural to me, and my reason was that it was a result of the tradition for generations in our national life as a consequence of the use of the psalm and hymn book and the Bible by exchange of correspondence and especially by the ingrained habit of prayer to the Almighty. It became a part of our national life and was a matter of deep sentiment with a great portion of our people. If we further think of what the Bible, the hymn book and the psalms in the Dutch language have meant to our people in their personal, religious and national life in the past of joy and grief, and I think that I have every right of saying that the abolition of Dutch upon which we are engaged to day is a matter of sacred and deep sentiment with a large portion of our people. I am convinced that the acceptance of the report of the committee by the House will sooner or later have the result that we in our national life will say farewell to the Dutch language. We are therefore adopting a resolution of great importance. I think, moreover, that the committee acted wisely in giving no opinion on the question whether Afrikaans is a separate language or whether it is a form of Netherlands language. The committee does not condemn the use of Dutch in the future. Every member of the committee was imbued with the idea that the Dutch language is still necessary for the proper and solid building up of Afrikaans, and the committee even recommends in its report that Parliament should use Dutch in amending Acts. It is practically impossible to amend a Dutch Act in Afrikaans. We are in any case going to need Dutch now and then in our Parliamentary life. I think that the report in this respect shows a spirit of tolerance, and I hope that it will find an echo in South Africa in every phase of the peoples’ existence. I have seriously considered the matter and feel convinced that the adoption of Afrikaans as one of the official languages of the country is necessitated by the unity and the development of our people. I say unity of the people expressly because here and there is a spirit among our people that regards the differences of language as an additional reason for division amongst our people. Let us not increase the reasons for division, but reduce them as much as possible, and here we have a good opportunity of reducing them. The step that we are taking to-day demands sacrifice, but I think that our object is worthy of sacrifice. Let us also be imbued with this spirit, and after Parliament has set its official seal on Afrikaans let us develop the language as a noble language of a noble people. I second the motion.

I could not help feeling when I listened to the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) that the last fortress of the opposing party in connection with the campaign of Afrikaans had fallen. It is a delightful thing to me—it is one of the happiest moments of my life— that I can rise to speak about Afrikaans, without it being necessary to make a plea in its favour. The hon. member for Caledon and his colleagues on the Select Committee deserve credit for the sensible report they have made. It is a report which should meet with general approval. I am very glad that the committee has adopted what I recommended when the matter was last under discussion, namely, to consider the desirability of issuing a standard dictionary by the Government. There may be persons who will say that such work should actually be left to private individuals, but it is a matter that concerns the whole people. Who requires such a dictionary in the first instance? The public service. It is necessary for the draftsmen of the laws for members of the Legislative Assembly and Senators and their staff, for judges and magistrates, for all Government officials and for university professors and teachers who get Government aid. It is not farmers and shopkeepers who in the first place require such a dictionary. When the old Cape Government decided to appoint Dr. Thiel as official historian it was argued that such work should not be assisted by the state. The same argument was taken when the Cape Government decided to issue the “Old Cape Family Register.” The Government, however, regarded such work as of sufficient national importance to spend money on. Of still greater general and national importance is the language upon which all sections of the book have an interest. In Holland Netherlands is regarded by the Government as of sufficient importance to receive Government aid—although Hollanders are numerous and rich enough to themselves look after the language—at any rate so far as the preparation of a standard dictionary is concerned. The Dutch Government decided to provide themselves for a new dictionary by De Vries and Te Winkel. I hope that the Minister of the Interior will see to it that the estimates provide not merely for a few thousand pounds, but eight or ten thousand, because the most competent people who are available must be employed on the staff and they must give their undivided attention to it until the work is finished. We are now in the happy position of possessing a language enthusiast who would be eminently fitted for the execution of a standard dictionary in Afrikaans. I refer to Professor J. J. Smith, of Stellenbosch. The work should be entrusted to him without delay, with colleagues, of course.

I would not have intervened had not my friend opposite mentioned the name of Professor Smith. I hope the sentiments of Professor Smith, of Stellenbosch, at the Hague, Holland, to the effect that his ideal was “a Dutch South Africa with Afrikaans as the medium,” are not the sentiments of those who speak Afrikaans. The speech of the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. Krige) is one we all admire. This is a great day for South Africans who use Afrikaans, and I hope it is to be decided that Afrikaans is to be the medium and not High Dutch, as it is easier for people, who do not know Dutch, to acquire Afrikaans than Nederlands. On the whole, the proposed change is a good one for South Africa. I hope the warning issued by Dr. Viljoen (Superintendent-General of Education) will be taken to heart as he takes exception to some of the spelling we have to-day, and so do I. Whenever I take up “Die Burger” and see “vir” for “voor” a cold douche goes down my back. Dr. Viljoen in his evidence stated that he could not quite agree with the rules of spelling. I hope this will be borne in mind by those who will be responsible for compiling the standard “Afrikaans” dictionary.

I think that we can leave the decision about the spelling safely to the language experts. I think that hon. members who know little about the spelling can leave the regulation of the spelling entirely in the hands of born Afrikanders, and what the political opinions of Professor Smith have to do with his expert capacity I cannot understand. A man may have most extreme political views and still be very clever on questions of language. I quite agree with the hon. member for Piquetberg (Mr. de Waal) that Professor Smith possesses extraordinary ability on language matters. But I rise to say a few words about the support of the preparation of the dictionary. Is it intended to have a dictionary which explains Afrikaans in the Afrikaans language such as Webster for England, or a dictionary that is intended for our English-speaking fellow citizens to put them in the position of knowing exactly what our vocabulary are? It does not appear from the report whether an English-Afrikaans dictionary is meant or

No, on the lines of the Webster dictionary.

I am glad to hear from the hon. Minister that this is so, because that is the first requisite a dictionary which thoroughly explains our language word by word, and gives its derivation and meaning in every respect. But I come now to the other side of the matter. I think that the movement in favour of Afrikaans has reached its utmost height now that Parliament has agreed to introduce Afrikaans in all Acts and official documents. We must congratulate our English fellow citizens upon the step that we are taking to-day. Many of us, who know English thoroughly, have for years felt that our English fellow citizens, especially those in the public service had great difficulty in mastering and continuing to understand Netherlands which was pushed down their throats. We can today congratulate him. He now learns a language which he can talk every day to his fellow citizens. Many of our officials learnt Netherlands years ago. We learnt Latin at school actually a dead language, and the same thing applies in a great measure to Netherlands. The consequence is that anyone who has learnt Netherlands, but cannot use it in daily life, loses his knowledge of the language. Now our English fellow citizens will learn the language that is taught and in a few years, five or six, we shall be so far advanced that all officials will have mastered Afrikaans. Another point. When we, if Parliament decides that our Acts, etc., shall be in Afrikaans, must think about the other territory concerned in the matter, namely, South-West, It is concerned in the matter, but no German-Afrikaans dictionary of any sort exists to-day. What opportunity will the German citizen have of learning Afrikaans?

I do not think that the hon. member can now discuss the German language.

It is not a question of the German language. I am talking about a dictionary for citizens governed by our Government and who are closely concerned in this matter. When the question of a dictionary is considered, then we must consider the preparation of dictionaries for other languages in relation to Afrikaans. We know that the preparation of a dictionary solely in Afrikaans will be productive of very great difficulties. I think, therefore, that when considering this dictionary the question of other dictionaries should also be taken into account. I do not only speak of the German language, but it is an important matter. If we get dictionaries in the other languages, then Afrikaans will take the position in the world to which it is entitled.

The motion was agreed to.

I move—

*I will commence by remarking that I do not in saying what I have to say wish to throw any reflection or any blame upon what has been done in the past. Through unhappy circumstances the time has not in the past been given to the Bills that was necessary to put such legislation through the House. Gentlemen such as Mr. Buckle, who was for a long time chairman of the Miners’ Phthisis Board, think that there is a great necessity for consolidating the various Acts and that there are considerable anomalies in the existing law. The object of this Bill is to consolidate the laws made hitherto and to remove certain anomalies which exist, and then of course there are certain far-reaching new provisions, I acknowledge it, which will lay certain burdens on the industry to strengthen the funds of the Miners’ Phthisis Board. Now there was a commission in 1920, of which Mr. Justice de Villiers was chairman, and the whole basis of legislation I think must rest on principles which that commission lays down, and I do not doubt but that previous legislation even before the report was brought out took those principles into consideration. It is a matter of fair dealing and sound common sense. A fair attitude towards the miner and sound sense in the understanding of what is fair as between miner and employer. The commission says in its report of 1890—

In the first place two broad principles are laid down here, that the costs connected with the compensation of the unfortunate silicotics must be regarded as a portion of the working costs of each mine and that that compensation should be a first charge on the assets and funds of the industry, and that the assets and funds of every company should in the first place be a guarantee for the contributions to the fund. There were in the past no less than eight Acts in which the legislation was contained, and it is the intention of this Bill to repeal all the old Acts and to consolidate them in the said proposed Bill. There was in the Acts of the past an enormous difference—and, as I think, an unfair difference—between the respective grades of compensation, and in this Bill an attempt is made to remove this. Now there are two bases that one must consider in connection with this legislation. We cannot place any monetary value on the lives that are sacrificed in occupational diseases, and I think that it is radically wrong to approach such cases only from the standpoint of L.S.D. The citizen is worth much more to the State than the £2,000 which is paid to him or his dependents as compensation. But in practical life there must be that monetary provision, and it seems to me, if there must be such a monetary provision, then it must be the highest compensation that is possible. The second principle I have already mentioned, namely, that this should be a first charge on the industries or trade on the funds of the companies mentioned in the register. To-day the conditions for the admission of miners to underground works are very severe, they are more severe than the admission to the British Army. They are so severe that on the average 80 per cent, of the applicants are turned down, while in the British Army the rejections are only 60 per cent., which is also high, and the consequence is that people who are accepted and approved are physically the cream or the flower of our healthy people. The people who go underground have no bodily defect; they are the cream of our people. The mines have now been working for 40 years since 1886 and today we still have to do with thousands of physical wrecks. The mines, and of course the State also, must appreciate their duty to these unfortunate people. Twenty thousand lives have already been sacrificed because the deaths up to now amount to 20,000. Their monuments are the grave stones on the Witwatersrand. The Department of Defence has informed me that more people died per annum from miners’ phthisis than died in the two campaigns of South-West and German East. Five hundred lives on the average are sacrificed every year. If we therefore calculate from 1886 we reach the startling figure of 20,000. Of recent years a considerable improvement has taken place in the underground conditions with reference to the presence of dust. As the result of use of new appliances conditions have been much improved, and we have the highest hope for the future. Under section 14 provision is made for a permanent committee who will be appointed to go into the presence of dust underground and make recommendations in connection therewith. I understand that under the old laws such a provision existed, but during the past two years it has not been carried out. There are approximately half a dozen matters about which the Bill treats. I do not wish to repeat what I said last August on the second reading of the amending Bill. I only want to amplify it. We then made provision for the outstanding debts and the funds, and this is repeated in the Bill which we have before us to-day. The second matter dealt with here is the preference or the priority that the Miners’ Phthisis Board will have on the various mines standing on the list over bonds and hypothetics existing on the properties of the respective companies. Another great principle mentioned here is the levelling up in connection with secondary cases, that is miners who have miners’ phthisis in the second stage. This will mean an extra expenditure of £290,000. There are 805 cases that we must meet if that levelling up takes place. Then we have section 26 (4) with reference to primary cases. Miners who suffer from silicosis in the first stage. At the moment there are in South Africa 1,895 of such cases, and 515 are oversea, and the amount required to level them up will be £500,000. Thus the total of levelling up will run to an expenditure of about £800,000. Then there is still the big principle that will have to be thrashed out, and that is the recommendations of the Medical Bureau. I have the greatest respect for that bureau. The De Villiers’ commission came to the conclusion that they were the most highly qualified body perhaps in the world, and it would be futile to have an appeal board from their decision. Where shall we find such a body? On the other hand, I can give the House the assurance that there is general dissatisfaction with the decisions of the bureau, and it was so great that the Government found themselves obliged to come to the assistance of the people. I wish to speak only with the greatest confidence in and respect for the medical bureau, but they will themselves acknowledge that they are not infallible. They are in principle not against the proposal. Another great principle which is in the Bill is the abolition of the land settlements provision which appeared in the former laws and still subsists. I do not hesitate to say that it was an absolute failure. We simply cannot make a farmer out of a sick sufferer from miners’ phthisis; it is absolutely impossible. Another change is that if a silicotic, after he has been warned, again goes under ground and does not leave the mine within three months neither he nor his wife or dependents can get any compensation. The Bill provides that he himself shall get no compensation, but the Government have decided that it will not be fair to punish his wife and other dependents if the man does not leave the mine. Further provision is also made that the silicotics can let their money remain with the board and get interest thereon in certain circumstances. A further provision is to help a matter that should be assisted and that is that a person should not be able to draw an amount and also a pension. In certain circumstances the dependents can draw the compensation from the sufferer. We now come to the native. I do not want to make a positive statement in this connection, but as far as I was in a position to enquire I regret to say it seems that the native was not given a square deal in the past. When they leave the mines they are not properly examined. They go to their kraals and infect the other natives with tuberculosis. They and their dependents get no compensation. The Bill makes provision that the native shall no longer be merely superficially examined. They are examined simply by weighing them. One hundred and eighty thousand of them are working on the mines and it is, of course, a big job to examine them. In the past the procedure was to weigh the natives. If a man lost much weight he is examined more in detail. The Bill proposes that the natives shall not be weighed alone. They must also be examined with a stethoscope. It is said that it will cost at least £150,000 a year and the doctors think that when a doctor has examined anybody by a stethoscope he cannot immediately go on. The hon. member on the other side will probably tell us something about it. I want to approach the question with an open mind, but I will just say in passing that we will subsequently propose to refer this Bill to a select committee and many of the things which I have already dealt with will have to be enquired into by the committee. Another big subject about which in the past there has been much controversy is that of a miner who, after he has undergone a periodical examination, has within two years, say, after eighteen months, returned to look for work again, could be asked to undergo an examination as if he had never been in the mines. It appears that the medical board have for years placed a wrong interpretation upon the law and acted according to such wrong interpretation, and it is one of the provisions of the Bill to put the matter beyond doubt for ever and to make plain the provisions of the old law. The policy which was behind the old provisions was that people who had been working underground should be encouraged to occasionally take long holidays either by working at the surface or in farming, etc., and if such a man returns within three years—that was the meaning of the law—then he should be admitted to examination not as if he had never been on the mines, but to undergo a periodical examination which was less exacting than an initial examination. In the case of a man who had never been on the mine. We propose in this Bill to raise the matter beyond all doubt, then I wish to say that although the apparently large sum of £800,000 will be necessary to bring about a levelling up we do not make the scale of compensation which was fixed in the Act of 1919 higher in a single case. The amount remains as it is. The standard remains. We take the Act of 1919 as standard, and all we do is that we bring the sufferers under the former Acts on to the same level as the scale of 1919. To-day we have a reserve fund of one and a half million pounds sterling. The Miners’ Phthisis Board will deduct £285,000 from the one and a half million in consequence of the legislation last August, the Act of 1924 from the reserve and to put it into the outstanding debt fund then created. The reason was that this £285,000 was collected from mines which were on the point of closing down, and it thus had to be debited amongst the respective mines for the outstanding debt fund. I know, of course, that the Bill is very technical and very difficult to follow, and it is, of course, of the reasons why we have decided to ask for a select committee and to have the Bill dealt with there. So far as my speech in Afrikaans is concerned, I will just close by saying that the year 1924 was the best that the mining industry has ever had during its long existence, and I am also convinced of the fact that it will not remain the best year so far as the future is concerned.

During their existence gold mines have produced gold to the value of £850,000,000, they distributed in dividends £177,000,000, and have paid £7,100,000 as compensation to sufferers from miners’ phthisis—which is only 4 per cent of the dividends. There are now 7,000 miners, 1,500 widows and 500 orphans who are drawing compensation, and every month that total is increased by another 50. Every month the Miners’ Phthisis Board pays out £60,000.

I am sorry I cannot follow the example of the Minister of Mines and Industries and speak in Afrikaans, but I understand the language sufficiently to have been able to follow him. I was pleased he repeated his arguments in English, which has made my task easier. When I listened to the Minister of Mines, who has been responsible for so many Bills relating to the mining industry, I feel the greatest respect for his capacity and ability to state his case so very well indeed. When he spoke on the Diamond Control Bill I admired him, for he spoke with such ease. Now he speaks with great fluency and ease on one of the most complicated measures that has ever been proposed, and will probably be carried in this House. Possibly the Minister has not been able to give a lot of attention to all the clauses of the Bill which throw a great many financial burdens on the gold-mining industry, and many of these responsibilities will fall heavily on the richer mines. I am also astonished to find that in recent interviews with Ministers the mining industry was pressed to follow the advice of Mr. Justice de Villiers. We were told that such an eminent judge could not do anything but what was fair, and anybody who ignored his advice did so at considerable risk. The mining industry was impressed by the argument. We are meeting the de Villiers’ award to a considerable extent, so far as conciliation is concerned although we are doing something against our judgment. The. Government, however, found no difficulty in brushing aside the recommendation of so eminent a judge when it suited them in phthisis legislation. Before dealing with the various clauses in the Bill, and especially the clauses which refer to benefits, I appeal to the House to give my remarks unbiassed consideration and a patient hearing. I think this appeal is necessary, because I have listened in this House to attacks by members on blood-sucking knights, and I have heard a Minister say that if the gold-mining industry did give some money towards plague research, then it was the only kind thing the gold mining industry had ever done. Surely an ungenerous remark. I would like to say that I do not bow to anybody in my feeling of humanity or my desire to give relief to phthisis sufferers. I am sure that is the opinion of everyone in Johannesburg who controls or is responsible for the exploitation of any of the mines on the Witwatersrand. But I submit that we must look at this question from two points of view. We must be fair and generous and we must give high compensation to men who, unfortunately, contract this very terrible disease. On the other hand, we must consider the capacity of the industry to pay. I say that the burdens which are thrown upon the industry are in some cases extraordinary, and in other cases intolerable. It is always very easy to vote money in this House. I have seen £5,000,000 voted in a few seconds. It is easy to vote State money; it is still easier to vote private people’s money. We should consider whether this Bill really does create any injustice to the mines. In order to do that, I would like to go back for a few moments to the Act of 1919. This Act not only increased the benefits, but introduced other far-reaching provisions for old beneficiary miners and their dependents resident in South Africa. These financial provisions were of a retrospective nature and the liability was something like £4.000,000. This money has to be found chiefly by the richer mines. The system of collecting this money is based upon profits and upon the earnings of the underground workers employed in various mines. The effect of this really is that this money is collected from the richer mines, irrespective of whether they have created the disease or not. This method of collecting is clearly a very unfair method. For current cases it may have been the only method, and there I agree with the Minister that no other course was open but to make the richer mines chiefly responsible and particularly for retrospective cases is quite a different proposition. The 1920 commission actually did say that it was only justifiable to collect the compensation in the manner proposed on the principle that it should be a tax upon profits, and thus relieve the poorer mines. After the 1919 Act we had the 1924 Amending Act, and this Act threw greater responsibilities on the mining industry and again in the nature of levelling up and retrospective liability. To show how dangerous it is to estimate really what these additional burdens amount to. I need only mention to this House that the Minister of Mines described the additional charge thrown on the industry by one section of this Act as something like £60,000. The Government actuary has discovered that the liability is not £60,000, but £700,000. This only shows how dangerous it is to amend this legislation and how difficult it is to estimate beforehand what liabilities are imposed and new burdens are thrown on the mining industry. The new Act which we are considering to-day again introduces further sweeping levelling up and also new retrospective benefits. Benefits are given to dependents who do not live in South Africa and benefits are given to them in cases which were not liable to compensation under previous Acts, namely, where phthisis was a contributory cause of death. Where a man left the mines before the serious stage of the disease, for instance, and he subsequently died, and where the medical practitioner may think that phthisis was a contributory cause of his death. Always again levelling up and always again retrospective liabilities. I would like to say that this continual raising of these retrospective liabilities was absolutely condemned by the de Villiers’ Commission. The commission said—

If this House has passed measures which they thought were sufficient compensation in the olden days, it does not follow at all, however hard it may be on the people concerned, that the existing mines “to-day must be called upon to make up the mistakes of past Governments or past mistakes of this House. That is what is being done. I would like the House to consider the position of one of the newer mines. These newer mines, having benefitted, no doubt, by the experience of the older mines, have introduced all the latest appliances for ventilating and allaying dust in the mines, so as to prevent workmen from contracting the disease. The older mines could not afford this, but the newer mines undoubtedly do everything they can to prevent phthisis occurring in these mines. Therefore, it is very hard that they should be made responsible for every increase and levelling up and retrospective claim for which they are not responsible. The residential qualification has never been challenged in any Act, but now it is being challenged, and people not resident in South Africa receive benefits. Surely if this House thought they should get benefits, it should have been done under previous Acts, but it does not seem just to throw it on existing mines which were not responsible, because the House has changed its mind. Take the position of the poorer mines. The poorer mines are really in this position, that if they were called upon to pay up the liabilities which the Minister has mentioned, it would probably result in a good many of them having to close down, and as the liability of these poorer mines, in case they cannot meet their liabilities in the end, is thrown on to the richer mines, I think the richer mines would be justified in drawing the attention of the Phthisis Board to the fact that such and such mines will not be able to pay up their contribution in due course. In any case, where the board has any doubt about the money being forthcoming in the end, we ought to tell the board that they should call up that money. The effect of this would be that a good many mines would have to close down. In practice this procedure cannot be adopted, because of the unemployment which would result. I would like now to draw the attention of the House to the incidence of miners’ phthisis. The Minister has given the industry credit for doing something to prevent the disease and I appreciate his remarks very much. We have done a great deal and intend to do more to prevent the disease. I think our efforts have met with considerable success, and even if it cannot be said that the contraction of phthisis has been prevented, we can claim that we have succeeded in making the working life of a miner considerably longer. Since the severe examination was instituted in 1916, there have only been some three cases among those men who passed this test. I think the severe test is quite necessary, because I agree with the Minister in the great value which he placed on the life of every single person. Certainly there should be no relaxation in the strict examination of the men who have to work underground in Johannesburg. The decrease in the incidence of phthisis is due to this severe examination on admission and to the better conditions that exist underground. Hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent in creating these conditions and every endeavour is being made to make them permanent. I claim no credit on behalf of the mining industry for this, as it is nothing less than our bounden duty that the disease if possible shall be prevented. But I think the House and the country should give us credit for humane feelings and for having a genuine desire to prevent the disease. I say with great pride that our mines are better equipped to prevent phthisis than any other mines in the world, and we are continually receiving testimonials to this effect from engineers and others who visit our country. In connection with the newer mines, where I said cases of phthisis were not created, cases do sometimes occur, but this is simply due to the fact that the conditions on the newer mines being preferable, miners do drift to these newer mines from the older ones and having already the germ of the disease, they unfortunately, but naturally, develop the more serious stages of phthisis. In connection with the subject of old miners, I desire to draw the attention of the House to the provisions of section 45 of the new Bill. This is intended to allow some two or three thousand old miners to return to underground work, without having to pass the medical examination of fitness for underground work. These persons mostly gave up the occupation of mining some years ago, but now desire for various reasons to return to underground work. It is obvious that these men will soon contract miners’ phthisis and the mines will be severely, but unjustly, criticized for killing off their workmen. I trust the Minister and the members of this House will appreciate their responsibility in sending these men to their doom, if a provision of this nature is passed in this House. It is well-known that the total liability created by the 1919 Act was not understood or appreciated by the members of the House at that time, and when the industry submitted figures showing that the liabilities created by the Act ran into 14 millions, the statement was ridiculed and by none more than those members of the present Government Party who pose as authorities on phthisis legislation. However, the figures of the industry were later verified by the Government actuary. Now with the present Bill another plunge into the unknown is being taken by the Minister, and no doubt an attempt will, on this occasion, again be made to minimize the financial effect of the proposed grants. As an instance, and to illustrate how difficult it is to estimate fresh liabilities, I want to mention once more that when the 1924 amending Act was passed the Minister stated in the House that the maximum liability under certain provision was £60,000, whereas the actual liability was £700,000 in the estimate of the Government actuary. I know that only a few members of the House have any idea of the enormous liabilities carried by the scheduled mines Under Miner Phthisis legislation. I will furnish them with a few figures so that they grasp what these liabilities involve. Since the 1919 Act came into force, the industry has paid out in claims over £4,000,000 and, notwithstanding this, the outstanding liability under that Act and the amending Act of 1924 is no less than a sum of approximately £10,000,000 of which the present capitalized value is approximately £6,000,000. I might explain that what is meant by present capitalized value is that presuming that all the mines close to-day this £6,000,000 would be required to satisfy the present value of the existing claims, the Miners’ Phthisis Board has out of its quarterly levies of £200,000 paid current claims and has accumulated since 1st August, 1919 a sum of approximately £800,000, to which has to be added a sum of £650,000 being the balance of the contributions made under the Acts prior to 1919. Hon. members will thus see that notwithstanding the enormous levy of £800,000 per annum the board has only been able in a period of over five years to accumulate approximately £800,000 against the large outstanding liability of £6,000,000. Not satisfied with this staggering liability the present Bill imposes obligations which cannot be accurately estimated, but which as far as can be judged, will involve further liabilities of not less than 2½ to 3 million pounds. Of this sum about £800,000 will have to be budgetted for immediately, if the Bill becomes law, to meet claims of prior-law beneficiaries. It may well be asked where is the money to come from? As already pointed out, the mines are contributing £800,000 a year, and some of them cannot contribute any more as they are already hard put to make ends meet. A special levy is thus entirely out of the question and the only possible course open to the board would be to appropriate the required sum from the £1,460,000 in reserve, but such a course would be a breach of faith, because the board clearly laid it down as a policy to levy a sum in excess of the normal quarterly requirements for the purpose of accumulating a reserve fund against the large outstanding liability of the compensation fund. Am I, therefore, not justified in questioning whether the Minister has considered and realized the financial position he is creating by introducing these retrospective and levelling up clauses in the Bill which, as I have previously shown, were considered and turned down by the 1920 commission, and which will operate most unfairly and unjustly upon mines which have nothing to do with these claims. Now whether we are right in estimating the additional liability or the Minister is right, the difference between us is not so great. To our liability of £6,000,000 present value something like £2,000,000 is added, of which £800,000 is an immediate liability. Now comes the question how the money is to be found. The Minister says it is quite easy. You simply have to take the £800,000 from the reserve fund. As I have already stated, the mines are now contributing £800,000 a year, and they cannot afford to pay more. The Minister says £250,000 of the accumulated reserve fund of £1,400,000 has been found from money paid by mines which have closed down.

£285,000.

£285,000. The rest of the money was got by collecting each year from the mines more than was necessary. The law provided we should collect what was necessary to meet current expenses, but the Phthisis Board went beyond the law and collected deliberately more than was necessary, because they knew some of the mines were closing down. They kept on building up a reserve fund which was not justified under the law, in order to help us to meet these enormous charges. It is nothing else than an absolute breach of faith to take £800,000 of that reserve money, because the amount was levied for the purpose of accumulating a reserve fund against the large outstanding liability of the compensation fund. The liability of the fund after this new Bill has been passed will be £12,000,000, the present capitalized value being £8,000,000. Of this £800,000 will be in hand in the reserve fund and the rest has to be found by the mines. Surely it is a colossal sum. The burden is so great that it is very doubtful if some of the mines can pay their proportion. Also you will not be able to build up these reserves as you have been doing in the past. I say I have the greatest sympathy with the people who suffer from this disease, but I say the compensation under the existing law is very generous; indeed, it is the highest in the world for occupational diseases. The Minister referred to certain other clauses in the Bill, and particularly to the medical bureau. He said the bureau was composed of ten men to whom he paid the highest praise. They are highly trained men, men of integrity and impartiality, and they have gained a merited world-wide reputation as experts in the diagnosis of silicosis and tuberculosis. But the Minister said they might not be infallible, and there should be an appeal to a medical appeal board. The appeal is an appeal from the decision of highly-trained medical officers of world-wide reputation, from experts in silicosis and tuberculosis to three private medical practitioners, who may have little or perhaps no experience qualifying them to sit on an appeal board. It is almost as if you first go to a Supreme Court and get its decision and then appeal from that to a magistrate’s court. It is a retrograde step. This system has been in force before, and there have been cases where men said to be suffering from the disease were found subsequently after compensation had been paid not to be suffering at all from phthisis. As I say, it is a retrograde step. From the quotations given by the Minister we might feel that the medical bureau has thrown some doubt on their own capacity to decide. In this connection the quotation from the De Villiers’ Commission report should be read in full—

In spite of Mr. Justice de Villiers’ opinion that the medical bureau are fully qualified to deal with these cases, we are asked in this Bill to have our appeal to ordinary medical practitioners, and go back to something which existed long ago. I do not think anything can be said in favour of that. Then the Minister referred to the natives. I am as anxious as anyone that the natives should get the best possible treatment. But this stethoscopic examination is not a feasible thing. It would require the full time of 56 medical officers working continuously for eight hours a day to go through all those natives. The Minister remarked that it was beyond the physical endurance of any medical man to stethoscope continuously for more than two hours at a time. To carry out a provision of this nature would cost at least £150,000 per annum additional expense. And this stethoscopic examination is not recommended by the experts. That being so, why should this additional burden of £150,000 per annum be thrown on to the industry? In conclusion, to illustrate how very unfair this levelling-up and throwing a retrospective liability on to the mines is, I will give some ordinary examples. Let us assume for a moment that the legislation had been the reverse, that the earlier Acts had given excessive benefits, and the House had subsequently changed its mind, and now wanted legislation to reduce the benefits. Would the House has passed a law reducing these pensions which had once been granted? Of course not. And if they had reduced the benefits, should we have divided the money saved among the existing mines which had never provided the money? Of course not. Or would they have put this money into the Exchequer? That illustrates the retrospective argument. And again, suppose the Minister of Finance said, I am of opinion that during the last ten years the income tax should have been one shilling higher and therefore I am going to surcharge every person who has paid income tax during the last years an equivalent amount more, and, further, if anyone has died during that time the survivors must make up the amount I ought to get from the deceased persons. Suppose the Minister had said that. Would the country have been satisfied? Of course they would not. Well, that is the effect of retrospective compensation and levelling up. I very much regret that the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson) is not here. I would like to hear what he has to say on this point. He dealt with it in the 1920 Commission report, where he said that for the period 1911-’16 the law proceeded on those lines, and continued—

Well, if those words were true in 1920, I submit they are true to-day.

The subject matter of this Bill has been described as one of the tragedies of the industry of the Witwatersrand. This House has always taken a very favourable view of the position of these unfortunate people, as has been shown by the fact that the House has appointed no fewer than eight select committees to deal with it. I do not think there is any subject in regard to which this House has been so indulgent or has conducted so much examination. In view of the difficulty of arriving at a solution of this intricate problem, I think the House will not depart from its previous attitude at this stage. The hon. member who has just sat down has said there are probably reasons why this levelling-up process should not take place. I want to refer the House to some of these select committees, whose reports would occupy members a long time, even if they were inclined to follow the subject. The hon. member said this levelling-up process is a hardship on the mines. What has happened is that the last stages of our amending legislation have been considerably delayed. This measure is a bill which has been due for payment for a long time, and it is for the House to say that it is duly met. The House will remember that last year we pointed out to the Minister that a large number of these unfortunate people were still waiting for this amending legislation. While they were clamouring for this Bill, they were sinking into the slough of despond. I want to remind the hon. member, in dealing with this measure, that science has advanced practically nothing in improving the conditions in the mines. It may be remembered that in the earlier stages the Government mining engineer published a blue book in which he said that if men wore a respirator it was impossible for them to contract the disease. That idea was exploded, and we now know that fifty respirators would not prevent a man from contracting the disease, which is not caused by the heavy dust, but by the minute particles of silica. We have not advanced in the direction of solving this problem of prevention and decreasing the life-toll of phthisis. After the number of select committees that have dealt with this subject, I want to congratulate the Minister on the measure he has brought forward, which, I think, is a very equitable one, and will give a great deal of satisfaction to the people concerned. The hon. member has referred to the de Villiers report. This also makes some further recommendations; it urges that those who should bear the burden of legislation for this industrial disease are the persons who make profits out of the business. I do not think that will be denied. From its earliest inception in 1886, the gold mining industry has drawn something like £177.000,000, and paid out in compensation £7,100,000, roughly at the rate of about £355 for every one of the 20,000 men. These men, who have been compensated at the rate of £355, have each earned in dividends something like £8,800. So far as they personally are concerned, and for the state £40,000. In the past the maximum compensation allocated was £96 for the primary and £200 for the secondary stage. Successive emoluments have grown as our knowledge of the virulence of this disease has increased. The hon. member has stated that on account of the higher efficiency of the mines only three men have contracted silicosis since 1916. The hon. member knows that in the earlier stages on the Witwatersrand, when the methods of dealing with dust were less efficient, it took four or five years for the disease to manifest itself, whereas, according to Dr. Watkins-Pitchford, it now takes nine and a half years on the average for the disease to show itself, so that we may expect a rapid augmentation of these cases next year. There is one matter I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice. I am very pleased to see that the Bill includes in Section 14 extra powers taken by the Government for the prevention and investigation of the disease on lines well known. And the Minister told us that it was proposed to appoint a permanent committee to carry on that work. I would like to point out to the Minister that at the present time we have a number of bodies entrusted with the question; for instance, the Miners’ Phthisis Medical Bureau, the Miners Phthisis Board, the Sanitorium Board of the Chamber of Mines, the joint committee of the Chamber of Mines and the technical men of the Mines Department, and we have the Chamber of Mines dust-sampling officials and the G.M.E.’s dust-sampling officials. It does seem to me that our attempts lack coordination. If we had been able to carry out the object outlined in clause 14—investigations relative to silicosis—and had an efficient force to see that dust prevention was adequately enforced, the conditions would to-day be very much better on the Hand. However, the Chamber of Mines has done its best, but there has not been that success in reducing the number of cases of the disease that one would have expected. I would like to see clause 14 very largely extended, so as to prevent the disease rather than extend it with regard to compensation. Our legislation on this matter savours very much of closing the stable door after the horse has been stolen. We should see that dust laying is properly carried out, and people who create dust by their negligence should be most severely punished, whether they be managers or men. Instead of spending large sums in compensating the unfortunate victims of miners’ phthisis, the money would be very much better expended if the Government employed a large co-ordinated force to see that the regulations in regard to precautions were strictly enforced. The other great stumbling block in the Bill is the manner in which we divide the patients into different compartments. Medical science has been quarrelling over the causation of the disease, and is no more capable of dividing miners’ phthisis patients into three compartments than I am. We have a disease which is very difficult to diagnose, and yet we ask the doctors to divide the sufferers into the ante-primary, primary and secondary stages. According to the Act, compensation is progressive, so a man in the ante-primary stage progresses to the primary, and finally to the secondary stage, and the amount of the compensation increases with the different stages. We have this result that when a man first shows signs of silicosis he struggles on to get into the secondary stage so as to obtain more compensation, and then he struggles on to the final stage, when the grave is staring at him. Any method which encourages this most unfortunate state of affairs is wrong. It is the bounden duty of the State to see that a man, is classified at the very earliest possible stage, and that he should be taken up out of the mine without having an opportunity of endangering his own life. Medical science tells us that as soon as a man’s lungs are injured he progresses through the various stages, and that 99 per cent of the silicotic patients eventually contract miners’ phthisis. Medical men also say that they can detect whether a man has the early stages of the disease before he is permanently injured, and that if he is then taken out of the mine the disease will be arrested. I would like to see clause 22—scales of awards to miners—amended. In 1916 we established one stage of the disease, when a man was taken out of the mine and was not allowed to return. That precautionary step should be fostered, for the benefit of it would be this. As far as the mines are concerned there would be some finality in the amount of compensation they would have to pay, and you would not always have the unfortunate victims of the disease trying to progress from one stage to another in order to obtain more compensation. Members are constantly being pestered by these unfortunate men who think that they should be placed in a further stage than the doctors have scheduled them, and it is most demoralizing for the men to think that they are not being properly treated in a matter which affects their very lives. If we take the men out of the mine when they show the first signs of the disease, and give them the maximum amount of compensation, a great step in advance will have been made in miners’ phthisis legislation. It will be necessary for the Government to fix that compensation at as high a figure as the industry can afford to pay. I feel, as the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) does, that this everlasting patching up of miners’ phthisis legislation will eventually—if we are going on as we are at present—become a question whether the profits of the mines will not be counterbalanced by the amount which the mines will have to pay in compensation, and finally we may reach the position when there will be no more gold mining because all the profits will be swallowed up in compensation, unless we can eliminate the risk of men contracting the disease entirely of which, unfortunately, there seems to be very little hope. The operation of the Bill will terminate when the last man dies who was examined prior to 1916. Subsequent to 1916 we should have a simple one-stage measure under which the mines will know the full amount of their liabilities, so far as compensation is concerned. Let me say I do not agree with the Minister when he says a settlement is impossible as far as phthisis is concerned. If you take the present-day miner from the mine, I say that his natural bent is to go back on to the land with the money he has got from his compensation. It is an inducement for a man to save up in the mines. But you must take them out before the lungs are permanently injured. If you take him out when he has only three months to live it is impossible for him to become a farmer. Take him out in the first stage, when he has a chance of recovering and remaining a good citizen of South Africa. The State owes a duty to its citizens. You cannot measure in L. S. D. the value of one of these citizens to South Africa where especially the white population is essential. These lives are assets to the State, and we should persevere to save them and if possible to put them on a settlement. When the settlement scheme was initiated we did it on lines we knew nothing about. We tried to put it in the hands of a phthisis board, who were dreamers as far as land settlement were concerned. We should have put them under the tried land settlement department. That is where we went wrong and got off the track. That is no reason why we should damn at the present time the whole future by putting these unfortunate people underground. The hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) made a lot out of the position in the industry with regard to the poorer mines. It is curious how we vary our arguments in certain circumstances. You must not tax the high-grade mine to pay for the low-grade mine. Now the hon. member comes forward and says that you must treat the low-grade mines separately. I quite agree with the Minister so far as phthisis is concerned that you must treat the industry as a whole. It is difficult to deal with an individual miner and say that he contracted phthisis in a low-grade mine. For the actual date of the contraction of the disease you cannot put your finger on any particular time and say that was when he contracted the disease. When we get to the committee stage, I want to bring forward a proposal, and I want to ask the Minister if it is possible to have this proposal put in the Bill. It is to eliminate those compartments into which we ask the medical people to put the phthisis people and instead to introduce the one stage phthisis—

I may say this is a definition with the object in view, arrived at after consultation with Dr. Irving who is in charge of the department. We have tried to arrive at a definition which will achieve that purpose of taking a man out at one stage. I will propose this when the matter comes up in committee. The Minister has given a large number of figures which are enlightening. Quoting Justice de Villiers, he says: “Legislation for industrial disease; the question is not exactly one of loss sustained by workmen, but where he is not properly incapacitated, the wider one of how to retain him as a useful citizen of the State.” We should not allow the position to continue on the basis on which we have allowed it to grow up. A man often pressed by dire stress as far as his family is cencerned tries hard to progress and practically commits suicide.

Some years ago I had a very close acquaintance with the subject as I was a member of the select committee which sat in 1912, and I have naturally taken some interest in the matter and would like to make a few observations. A study of what has taken place since 1911 shows there has been an increasing volume of agitation for more compensation to be paid. It is idle to deny that a certain amount of it has been of a political nature. Some hon. members, some may be in the House now and some not, have undoubtedly done their best to earn credit for having tried to get something for the miners who have got phthisis. There is a tendency to agree with the policy of compensation for men who undoubtedly suffer. It is inevitable, when the whole burden of finding the money has to come from the pockets of a certain class of people, that there should not be so much interest taken by the public and the House as there would be if the money came from the Consolidation Fund. At the time of the 1912 Act, this was recognized. It was felt the State had incurred considerable responsibility through having failed to bring in legislation at an earlier stage and, because it was recognized that the matter was one of general interest, it was agreed by the then Government to make a contribution of £100,000 to the phthisis fund out of public money. That has gone. Succeeding Houses of Parliament have refused to continue that contribution. I am not sure that it would not have been a good policy if it had been continued. At the present time the State makes certain contributions in this respect. Its responsibility for the administration of the fund and of the bureau, as I see from the estimates, will amount to £50,000 this year. Then also the state takes part in the expenditure involved to a limited extent, because the payments that have to be made by the mines undoubtedly reduce the profits made by the mines, in some of which the Government is directly interested and in some of which the Government is indirectly interested. To that extent the Government is losing revenue the higher this compensation gets. I do not think that is a point that is realized at all, and I believe it would be in the general interest and it would tend to make hon. members in this House and the public generally take a much more active and intelligent interest in the whole question, which in its turn might bring about some benefit in encouraging devices for the prevention of dust and so forth, than the present system does That may be for the future. What we have got to reckon with is the position to-day. Anybody reading some of the reports, the De Villiers Commission report, for instance, and trying to read some of the Acts which have been passed since 1912, will have been struck with the gradual growth, not merely of the scales of compensation and the benefits awarded so the men concerned and their dependents, but with the growth of the whole language and business connected with the subject. I am sure there are few members of this House and few members of the public who would be able to pass an examination in the terms which are used in the clauses of this Bill. I think consideration of some of the phrases there employed will afford some occupation to the people who are to compile that dictionary which was referred to in the report considered earlier this afternoon. The fact remains that, from year to year the scale of compensation has grown and every provision for a fresh benefit has been made cumulative and retrospective. I do not think anybody can quarrel with the general principle which was laid down by the De Villiers Commission that the employer must be liable, because he is the person who gets the profit, but it does seem to me that it is part of that fundamental principle that the liability of the employer should be, as far as possible, proportionate to the amount of disease which is caused in the operations on his particular property. That, obviously, is a thing which will make him more careful. But that theory has not been followed, and so we find that in this legislation which exists today, irrespective of this particular Bill which we now have before us, some most extraordinary provisions. In the first place, the scale of compensation is undoubtedly unprecedented. I have seen what compensation is paid in somewhat similar circumstances in other countries and there is no question about it that the compensation payable under these Acts exceeds by a great deal any scale of compensation which is paid anywhere in the British Empire. I admit that the conditions elsewhere are not exactly the same. I am prepared to admit that, considering the mortality, it is probably reasonable that the scale of benefits should be greater than they are in what are usually called occupational diseases in other countries. But, of course, really the profits to which the Minister has alluded have very little bearing on the question. It is very arguable to say that, miners’ phthisis compensation depends upon the profits. What should be the test, I think, is what, having regard to the wages paid, having regard to the risks run, and having regard to the standard of living of the people employed, is reasonable compensation to pay in the event of a man being disabled and his wife and dependents being reduced to something like poverty Another extraordinary provision, as compared with what is done in other countries, is the fact that in respect of the mining industry of the Transvaal it appears that tuberculosis is now treated as an occupational disease. I do not think that happens anywhere else. It is obvious that tuberculosis occurs without any reference to mining; it is, unfortunately very prevalent in this country, and so far as I can see from reading some of the reports, the only justification for making it stand by itself as an occupational disease lies in the fact that if a man has any degree of silicosis on him, that makes him more likely to catch tuberculosis. That seems to me, as the commission points out, to constitute an extremely heavy burden, and it is exceedingly doubtful whether that burden should be placed on the industry. I do not wish to deal at length with the question of making this legislation retrospective. That has been very fully dealt with by the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer), but I think it is fair to lay stress on the report of the commission, which most definitely says it does not think it will do much good to level up the cases. The commission remarks—

That is a pronouncement of some importance, and it does not come from people connected with the mining industry, but from a commission presided over by a very able judge. The fact that this commission presided over by a judge should be discussed in some controversial spirit in this House strengthens the argument which I ventured to put forward a little while ago that the time has arrived when the practice of taking judges from the bench and putting them on commissions to deal with subjects which may be controversial should be dropped. The main thing which strikes me in connection with this clause which makes these benefits retrospective is that the short Act which we passed last session renders compensation payable for silicosis as a contributory or predisposing factor in case of death. The result of this must be that in the case of death, unless a man is shot through the head or killed suddenly in some violent manner, it is practically certain that if he has silicosis no medical authority will run the risk of saying that he is quite sure that the fact that the man had some sign of silicosis had nothing to do with expediting his death. When people die in future there will be a gruesome procession to a post-mortem examination, and in 99 cases out of 100 it will be decided that it is a case for compensation.

There will be no directors in that procession.

It remains to be seen. It appears that as these benefits have been given, the House has lost sight of the primary principle to which the hon. Minister referred just now, and in regard to which I am in agreement with him, that the employer should be liable for the compensation, and, if possible, liable in proportion to the disease which work on his property brings about. What has evidently happened has been that in 1919 especially considerably increased benefits have been granted. It appears, as far as I can make out, that at the time the 1919 Act was passed, everybody concerned, this House included, was in entire ignorance of the amount of the cost to the mining industry of the benefits awarded, and the result was that when some mines closed down there was a very large sum due from these mines which their estates could not pay, and so it became obviously necessary to look round for some source from which the money could be obtained, and the result has been that other mines have been made liable in spite of the fact that they may not have employed a man who comes and claims compensation now, and in spite of the fact that the newer mines have benefited by the experience of the past, and have spent large sums of money in the equipment of their properties and are better qualified to deal with the dust evil, and therefore have given rise to much less incidence of silicosis. I do not think that that is fair. It has come about because there was no other source from which to get the money. This House was not prepared to make up the deficiency out of public funds, and therefore the device was adopted of saying we are not going to worry about the particular employer, but to put a tax on the mining industry. Probably it was the only thing that could be done because the House was not prepared to shoulder the liability, and the individual mines could not possibly pay, but it has had this effect, that although the mining industry has been to enormous trouble, and has spent vast sums of money, to improve the conditions, the mines that have to find the money are diminishing and the amount they have to pay has every year been increased. If the mines had not taken the trouble to remove the causes of the men contracting the disease, then it might fairly be said that you should put more burden on the mines to arouse them to a sense of their responsibility, but that is not the case, I think the efforts of the mines have been praiseworthy, but the mines have been penalized and have had to pay more. This Bill confirms this increased burden on the industry and adds some new ones. In regard to the appeal from the medical board, it seems to me to be an absurdity to provide for an appeal from a board of experts to three people, who may know nothing about it. The very high scale of the compensation no doubt is an inducement to men to go on working on the mines, and now it appears that men who have left are to be given facilities for going back, and naturally if they do not have their application granted, they will be dissatisfied. They will say this medical board is a hard business concern. I think it would be better to follow the practice—I do not know whether it is followed now—of allowing the applicant’s doctor to see all the papers and documents. That seems to me to be a reasonable concession. I do not wish to deal fully with the question of the residential qualification, but it appears that dependents of men who have left the country years ago and taken up residence in other countries are to be allowed to come back and claim, even claim without coming back, and the result will follow that a man may have left the industry, been dealt with, got compensation, gone off to England, and after all that married and had children Then he dies, and notwithstanding the fact that he was married and got a family long afterwards, he will come back and compensation will be claimed not merely from the mine on which he worked, but probably from a mine which he never saw and which probably was not in existence when he contracted the disease. That does not seem to me to be a fair proposition. The result is, of course, that we have an enormous burden laid on the mines. The Minister has talked, as he naturally would, and as I would have done if I had had to introduce a Bill like this, in referring to the magnitude of the profits made by the mines and the smallness in comparison of the amount levied on them, but the burden is enormous, and one does not quite see how the fund, which I understand is standing at £1,400,000, is going to te built up when it is decreased by £800,000. It costs about 6s. a shift underground to pay the levy which is now demanded from the mines. It costs about £100 a year for each individual miner, and the capitalized value of that appears to be £700 per man, and considering the very small margin of profit on which many of the mines work, I do not see how that levy can be increased. If that is not increased, how is the fund to be built up? There is not much difference of opinion between the Minister and my hon. friend as to the total liability involved. I think it came to something like £7,000,000, and that amount was in respect of liabilities already incurred. It is perfectly obvious that as time goes on the amount of the liability is bound to increase, because if you cannot raise the monthly or quarterly contribution, it is difficult to see how you are to reduce the total capitalized liability.

You are reducing miners’ phthisis?

I hope so. It is perfectly obvious that the compensation to widows and dependents in ten years’ time will last for many years to come, and it seems to me that the majority of the mines will be worked out long before this liability can be met. If that is so, it seems to me that the provision the Minister has made will not be adequate. It seems to me that the State will have to step in and shoulder a very heavy liability. Hon. members may say, “Not in our time, O Lord,” but I submit that is not the proper way of meeting the matter, and I think some system should be devised under which the House and the public should be encouraged to take a keener interest in the whole matter. If the public had to shoulder a certain amount of the contribution, the result would be that greater interest would be taken in the matter a greater pressure might be put on the mines to improve their management, and there would be a disposition to see that the burdens placed on the mines were not too high. There is no getting away from the fact that the whole country is dependent to an enormous extent on the well-being of the mining industry. We saw that in 1922. Then a far greater proportion of the capital of these mines is held in this country to-day. When you have a large number of shareholders living in this country and depending for their incomes on these mines, it induces greater attention being paid to the wellbeing of these mines and to their liabilities. We cannot possibly subscribe to the doctrine that it does not matter what burdens you put on the mines, and if they cannot pay they must close down. That sort of thing is all right at election times. The Bill is going to Select Committee, and there are a great many points which will need to be considered to see whether it is just and necessary to add so enormously to the existing burdens of the mines. It would have been well if the Minister had confined himself to the recommendations of the de Villiers’ Commission, but he has gone a long way beyond that. I do not think the Minister should take it amiss if the committee exercise some judicious pruning and cut down the benefits which are recommended.

I am very glad to learn that the Minister intends to send this measure to a select committee. I address the House as a member of the commission of 1920, which sat under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice de Villiers. The commission went very fully into this question of miners’ phthisis and made certain recommendations and framed a draft Bill. I would like to say how struck I was with the excellent exposition of the common law set cut in that commission’s report by Mr. Justice de Villiers. It is a monument which will always stand to his zeal and ability. The late Government introduced a Bill in 1923 which was modelled on the lines of that commission’s report and draft Bill, and it contained very important concessions to the workers. At the time the 1923 Bill was introduced, certain members of the then Opposition advanced serious criticism against the Bill on the ground that it was not the commission’s Bill, and demanded that the commission’s Bill should be introduced in the House. I repeat that the 1923 Bill was, in fact, the commission’s Bill, and contained practically all the recommendations of the commission, except that the Bill was re-drafted and re-arranged. I defy anyone to say that the Bill did not constitute a perfectly fair and square deal to the workers.

Oh, oh !

In fact it was stated by the men representing the workers that subject to certain conditions it was a fair Bill.

Who said that?

The men who represented the workers. The Minister has introduced a Bill which was stated to be based on the commission’s Bill, but in fact it bears very little resemblance to that Bill. Although the criticism was advanced against the 1923 Bill that the benefit provisions were so complicated and involved that they would not be understood, I say that any member who has not expert knowledge of the subject cannot understand these provisions in the present Bill, except that they admittedly provide for sweeping retrospective and levelling-up benefits. I notice from a recent interview which the lion, member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) gave to the press on this Bill, he termed it a “levelling-up measure.” I do not know what the hon. member meant by this, but I have often heard the term was part of the Socialistic doctrine, and it looks as if the Minister is adopting the socialistic teachings of his friends on the left. Let me refer the House to the recommendations of the 1920 commission regarding those Socialistic provisions in the Bill. The 1920 commission carefully considered and decisively rejected the retrospective provisions contained in the present Bill. It stigmatized these retrospective provisions of previous Acts as a most unfortunate history, and expressed the opinion that to bring these cases under the 1919 Act would be unfair, as the mines which would have to pay never materially caused these cases and some were not even in existence when the miners out of whom the claims will arise, worked underground. It also pointed out that many of the mines which caused these cases are now exhausted and no longer in existence. In spite of this decision of the commission, we find these claims provided for in this Bill, and I am informed they will entail an initial and immediate outlay of not less than £800,000. It has taken years to build up this compensation fund and this edifice is going to be razed by this first charge. Where is the justice in a provision of this nature? Then we find that the residential qualifications which have been passed by this House in the earlier Miners’ Phthisis Acts and in the 1919 Act and also confirmed by the commission of 1920, are ruthlessly swept aside, and provision is made for persons overseas to obtain these retrospective and levelling-up benefits which will run into a mere few hundred thousand pounds. We find another extraordinary provision which is directly contrary to the unanimous recommendation of this commission. Section 11 provides for a medical board of appeal consisting of three private practitioners to sit in judgment on the Medical Bureau. The constitution of this proposed board is quite Gilbertian. The hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) has compared it to descending from the Supreme Court to the magistrate’s court, but to my mind it resembles referring the judgments of the Appellate Court to three advocates for final decision. We have had in this House an attack on the medical bureau, and as a member of the commission who had repeated opportunities of examining, the work there, I should like to pay a tribute to Dr. Watkins-Pitchford and his devoted assistants. Every member of the commission was struck with the admirable work done there, and I feel that if they ever lean to one side it is to the side of the sufferer. I recommend the reference on page 11 of the commission’s report to hon. members, and will just give this short extract—

Another provision, which is contained in section 45 of the Bill, merits most serious criticism. I may say that these are all matters which came under the purview of the commission to which I belonged. Section 45 permits of old miners, who admittedly are unfit medically to work underground, obtaining periodical certificates for underground work when they cannot pass the certificate of fitness. We have in this House heard criticisms on numerous occasions of the responsibility of the mines for causing miners’ phthisis and killing off their workmen. This Bill actually aggravates and encourages such men to go to their doom, because if these old miners who are medically unfit return to underground work they will be going to their death. Surely it is a function of the State, even more important than the provision of compensation, to preserve the health and lives of its citizens. The Minister, if he proceeds with a provision of this kind, must accept the full responsibility of sending these men to their doom. Moreover, the hon. member for Jeppes (Mr. Sampson) and his friends on the Labour benches will be calling for these men to be sent back to the exacting work in the mines, and they will shortly be execrating the mining companies for being the cause of these miners contracting the disease.

What else is he to do? Where is he going to earn a living?

The question of getting a living is entirely another question to sending a man to his death. There are numerous other provisions in the Bill which are totally at variance with the recommendations of the commission, but I do not propose to weary the House on technical details, since the Minister has promised to send the Bill to a Select Committee. I would, however, like to point out that when the commission sat in 1920 it had no idea of the enormous extent of the liability already imposed on the scheduled mines under the 1919 Act, as no actual evidence was taken on that point, and owing to the illness of the Government actuary this information was not available. When I heard that estimate I was astounded, and I think that every member of the commission, including the hon. member for Jeppe, was astounded at the magnitude of the figure. I am sure the House is indebted to the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) for his very lucid statement. I look upon the financial provisions of this Bill as very serious, seeing that they impose a large additional liability on the mines which are not in justice responsible for the payment of compensation. This compensation fund, which stands at £800,000, must be increased, and mines are falling out from year to year. I also look with alarm upon the effect of this measure upon mines which for some time past have been struggling to make ends meet. I am afraid this added burden will make them shut down, with the result that their workmen will be thrown on the labour market, and still further burdens will be thrown on the remaining mines.

When the House adjourned I was referring to the financial obligations which are being imposed on the companies. In the case of the poorer mine, the obligation would be of such a nature that it would practically mean that some of them would have to close down, with the result that a great number of men would be thrown out of employment, while the accumulated burden would be cast on the remaining mines. In an interview in the press with the hon. member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson), he suggests that the Bill should be put through before he leaves for the Geneva conference next month. No member has a greater admiration for the excellent work in connection with miners’ phthisis which the hon. member for Jeppe has performed than I have, but I do hope that the Minister will see that this Bill, which is of such a far-reaching nature in its provisions, should not be rushed through the House. In the course of the examination made by the commission in 1920-’21 they had the opportunity of looking into the question of what other countries had done throughout the world on this particular disease and the legislation which had been adopted. After examination of what had been done in Australia, Canada, the United States, Germany and England, it was found that no country had been so just and generous in its treatment of sufferers from this disease as the Union of South Africa.

There is one point we are all agreed upon in the discussion of this measure. That is that a consolidation Bill of some kind is very much needed, largely because of the complicated nature of the measures which have been passed through the House during the last few years. In dealing with thus subject legislation, of necessity, has been progressive, and that because at the beginning very little information was available on this subject. We had only the fact that men were dying from a disease contracted in the mines. The nature of the disease and all the incidents of the disease were largely unknown even to the medical faculty. So far as legislators were concerned, I think it may be stated this disease was practically an unknown quantity in any part of the world, therefore knowledge and experience of the disease and possibilities of preventing it, and methods of treating it, and all compensation matters have been growing upon us, and that is the reason, I take it, why legislation has been of a progressive kind, and why it has not been possible to deal with it conclusively even during the last year or two. It is true these measures are, to the average layman, very complicated and involved. Most members have emphasized that they would like to see a much more simplified form of legislation in connection with miners’ phthisis. This is going to be an exceedingly difficult thing to accomplish, and Very largely because of the reasons which I have mentioned. The first thing we have to do is to get the men out of the mines as early as possible, the earliest moment the disease can be detected, and we have to provide in the legislation for the progressive nature of the disease. Then it was found that justice had to be done, not only to the sufferers but to the dependents, past and present, of those who had contracted the disease. That accounts very largely for the complicated nature of the measure we have before us. Perhaps the only way to get simplicity would be on the lines suggested by the hon. member for Vredefort, but that would involve an alteration in the whole basis of the legislation with regard to miners’ phthisis. Reports presented by various commissions do not suggest—indeed, are very much against—any change of legislation from the basis of an industrial diseases Act to a pensions scheme which might involve bringing in all industries in which you have any tendency to occupational disease. It seems we shall have to proceed on the lines of having discovered a very serious occupational disease and to treat it on the lines we have here until we have a better method of dealing with the question of industrial disease in general. I regret my hon. friend the member for Jeppe (Mr. Sampson) is not here to-night to deal with the question from our point of view. I feel he would have deprecated a departure in so many ways from the suggested measure put forth by the De Villiers’ Commission. Matters have there been examined in detail. A good deal of evidence has been taken and has been very carefully weighed, and many of the decisions arrived at, I find, are left out of this Bill, and are totally ignored. On the other hand, sir, the hon. member for Maritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien) has emphasized just one point in the De Villiers Commission report, and that is as though the only departure from it was that this Bill includes the levelling up of certain prior law cases, cases not recommended by that commission. He gave the impression that he thought the hon. member for Jeppe was behind the details of the De Villiers report, but I suggest the hon. member for Jeppe has never abandoned the principle of levelling up the prior law cases, and the whole of the Labour party, and, I believe, the National party and some members of the South African party have from time to time stated and emphasized that in some way these prior law cases ought to receive consideration. Now, sir, there are many of these cases, and I want to say a word on their behalf to-night. I believe that there are over 7,000 of these men who are precluded from entering mining work, and it is generally mining work in this country, and they have not been trained for any other work. They have received sums ranging for £96 to £500 for a period of years of service in the past. I take it the largest amount received for a family man amounted to about one year’s income and it is impossible to describe the living conditions of hundreds if not thousands of these men to-day, scattered through the country, and some of them have gone overseas with their dependents around them, partially incapacitated and unequal to occupations involving hard work. These men have taken part in producing the wealth of South Africa and are to-day in a state of indescribable poverty. Apart from that, I believe they are getting worse: they are getting even more incapacitated, and, not having been trained for any other work and not being able, because of that incapacity to take on heavy work, what is to be the result? What are these men to do, and how are they to be provided for? I do not think anyone in South Africa would suggest that it is the state’s responsibility to provide for men who have been injured and incapacitated by an occupational disease in an industry which since its commencement has issued dividends equal to £177,000,000 in this country. I believe, and I think, that the country will be behind the suggestion, that in some way it is our duty to stand by these men. We talk about the burdens of the mining industry. What about the burdens of the family man in this country, the burden that is left upon the man whose mind is agitated and troubled and depressed, and whose life is not only being crushed out of him by the force of this terrible disease, but whose anxieties are so great that his life, in addition, is made a perfect misery? We can look calmly and complacently and consider the burdens of the mining industry, but we cannot look just for one moment at the humanitarian side and consider the burdens of those people who are to-day suffering terrible anxiety, as well as physical pain and trouble through this disease. I think that in this Bill we are doing the right thing, and I congratulate the Minister on taking this step, which, I know, is a big step, involving a great deal of money from the fund that has been accumulated, but I think in the long run it will be found that South Africans will congratulate the Minister and congratulate this House if it takes this step of relieving the burden of the men who have suffered for so many years. In regard to the mines mentioned by the hon. member for Maritzburg (South) (Mr. O’Brien), is it true, or is it not true, that very largely the groups which form the mining companies to-day are, in a measure, the same people who had the mines years ago? They have entered into new fields; they have drawn probably new capital here and there, and I may say that a good deal of the capital has come from the sufferers themselves, a good many of whom have been practically ruined in the past by the ups and downs of the share market in this country. But is it not true that these mining companies and magnates are very largely the people who had the mines in the early days of this industry? They have moved on, as I say, to new fields, but the moral responsibility is the same. Many of the men are suffering as a result of winning gold from the mines over which these people had control, and I think it is only right that we should see at the end that they do not suffer and go into their graves in the misery that they have experienced in the past. A word about the question raised in regard to the wrong interpretation of the famous Clause 45—Clause 44 (2), I believe, in the old Act. It is a very easy matter for the hon. member for Maritzburg (South) to say that these men should not go back to the mines. There are, I understand, 2,000 of them. Again I ask, what are these men to do? They have not reached a pensionable stage of the disease. They were put out of the mines by a wrong interpretation of a clause in the 1919 Act. They were not permitted to go back to work, because when they went up to take the fifth examination at the close of the two years, they were forced to take an initial examination. Is it to be expected that a man, although he has not reached a pensionable stage of the disease, after a number of years’ working in the mines, is equal to taking an initial examination which is higher in standard than that which passes a man into the British army? If eighty per cent, of the men are turned down, how can you expect that a man can pass that stringent examination after many years of working in these mines. We have encouraged the miners to come out from time to time for a period in order to improve their health. I understand that it was the suggestion of one of the commissions that these men should come out of the mines from time to time and spend a certain period in the open air. They have been doing it, going to work on farms, and endeavouring to improve their health, then going back to their mining, and in that way many of them, by preserving their health and getting out before they had serious incapacity, have become farmers out of what they have saved in this country. But if a man happened to meet with failure and he came back, he was made to take a stringent examination and he failed to pass, and we have put 2,000 of these men on to the streets, without any chance whatever of earning their living out of the employment to which they have been accustomed or without getting any compensation. It is not only wrong, but it constitutes a very serious position. Under the clause which in the 1923 Act was left to be legalized—that Act which, my hon. friend says, we destroyed— this position would have been legalized and these men would have been kept out permanently, and without hope of compensation. I venture to say it would have meant that in from 12 to 14 years you could have cleared the mines of the miners without paying a penny of compensation. You need only keep them out for a period, and see that they do not get work, and that could have been done under the legalization of the proposed 1923 Bill. That was a very serious position, and I am glad to see that the Minister has rectified it here, and that those men who are found to have reached the pensionable stage, or have complications of tuberculosis with silicosis, will receive compensation, and I understand that the rest will receive their red tickets and be able to go back to work, probably a good deal better in health through having been allowed a period in the open air, and in much improved condition for their work. In any case we should have had some thousands of men upon the streets and upon the State partially incapacitated and in danger of contracting tuberculosis, as a matter of fact, in such condition of lungs that it would be easy for them to contract tuberculosis and neither be able to get work nor compensation and therefore be thrown upon the State. The putting right of these particular clauses means a great deal to those 2,000 odd men. Some may be able to go back to work and the others will receive justice under this Act. I agree with the Minister when he states that we ought to compensate certain widows whose husbands failed to come out during their working life within the prescribed period. I think it is only right that the chances of those people should not be jeopardized by mistakes that were made by the miners. Then there is the question of the native and the Phthisis Act, which I think is of very great importance. This is one of the Bills which we have in which there is no colour bar. I should have liked my hon. friend who always tackles the Labour party on this colour bar question, the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), to have been here, but I am sorry he is not present. I should like him to remember that whatever part the Labour party has taken in helping to further improve miners’ phthisis legislation, they did not, at least, in this Bill put in that objectionable clause known as the colour bar. There is no colour bar in this miners’ phthisis matter.

You give the natives the same consideration?

Yes. If the clause that there should be an examination of natives is deleted, there will be a colour bar. How are you to tell that a native has miners’ phthisis? When I was living on the Eastern line in 1907, I used to see train loads of natives passing to their homes, and I remember being called to the trains by attendants to show me that they were being kept up by doses of spirits until they got over the border. There was no examination then. Do we want to return to that sort of thing? I would like to ask, if there is no examination of natives, how they are to be adequately compensated when they get this disease? Some provision should be made. I know it is going to cost money, but there are some 200,000 natives in these mines, taking part in the production of wealth in South Africa. Surely we shall do justice to these people in the framing of this Act and see that, when the native gets miners’ phthisis, he shall be warned that he has the disease, and told he has reached a certain stage of the disease; that he may know when he has to get out and shall receive his due meed of justice under this particular Act? That can only be done if the suggestion is carried out that some provision should be made for the examination of these natives. I should like to say that, personally, I appreciate very much the statement of the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer). I think, from his point of view, it was an eminently fair statement. I do not agree with a good many things he put forward. With his financial genius and capacity for talking in millions, he confuses the average humble man who is much more interested in half-crowns. But shall we say that he failed to tell this House that the sum total of the cost which he very carefully capitalized is not to be given in a year or two years? But I think, if I am not very much mistaken, my hon. friend will be calculating millions in another place before all this compensation is paid out. Many of those widows are young widows, and the compensation will be spread over a period of years. It is estimated, I believe, that they have some twenty or thirty years’ life before them. This money will neither be paid, nor asked for, nor spent, until many of us have ceased talking about miners’ phthisis in this House. It sounds a tremendous sum, but, spread over a number of years, it means that with the increasing mining in this country, and the development we all hope to see, the mines will be able to carry the compensation clauses here suggested, and be able to pay them. We hope that with the decrease in miners’ phthisis, owing to the establishment of the prevention committee, and the development of greater facilities for better mining in this country, that we shall see a decrease of this disease, and in the meantime it means that, over a period of years, our liabilities will be, although in millions, spread over the years that are before us. The fact remains that £177,000,000 of profit has been made in the mining industry—my hon. friend does not dispute that—and that £7,000,000 has been paid by the mines in miners’ phthisis compensation. We have paid £177,000,000 to investors of money and we have paid £7,000,000 to those who have invested human life. That is the difference. But not only that, a good many men who invested their life in these gold mines in the past have never had a penny of compensation, nor have their dependents. Passing on from that phase of the question, I want to ask the Minister to press for all he is worth the question of the establishment of this prevention committee. I should say that every miner ought to be pleased with the re-establishment of this committee, and I hope it will be manned in the very best way possible. I have a great deal of faith in the development of preventive measures against miners’ phthisis. I am given to understand that there was a time in the collieries of Wales when 90 per cent, of the colliers died before they were 35 years of age. That was because it was impossible for them to get sufficient oxygen. But with the changes that came about, and the improvement of conditions in the mine, we find to-day that among the healthiest people in Great Britain are those in the north and those in the Welsh collieries who work underground. Perhaps this Bill will bring about a similar change for the better, in the conditions in some of our mines. A good deal has been done in some of our mines. I give the Modderfontein credit for the improvements they have brought about there. We want to make the conditions in our mines such that we shall have done something toward eliminating the disease. We may not succeed altogether, but perhaps the Welsh people thought they would not succeed. I think with the best scientific investigation this country may succeed in eliminating the disease. I believe the Minister will receive the backing of the whole of the mining community and of every member of this House if he puts upon that board the best experts he can find. I hope we shall look upon this question without party prejudice. I know there is a widespread desire to eliminate this disease and also to see that there is fair compensation for the men who are incapacitated. Every man who has this disease carries his death certificate with him. Complications of tuberculosis and other things are always near at hand. I hope we shall look at it from the humanitarian point of view and we shall see that by spreading this amount over a number of years that no injustice is done to the mining interests of South Africa. At the same time we wish to see that justice is done to the men. None of us want to be unfair to the mining interests. We want to be just and fair to add, and we must remember that we can never pay for these lives in pounds, shillings and pence. I hope we shall look at the question not altogether with the fairness of the ledger but with the reason and earnestness of the humanitarian and see that justice is done to those who have helped to build up the wealth of South Africa.

When the subject of miners’ phthisis comes up I always feel a great responsibility on me personally as a medical man. I will not go into the humanitarian details that my friend has just gone into, but I will touch on a few facts which ought to be brought to notice. This afternoon the Minister stated that since 1916 when the medical bureau was instituted, there were only three cases of miners’ phthisis produced. The Minister must remember one thing. Miners’ phthisis is a disease which grows according to the length of occupation of the man. All those who have any knowledge of the medical aspects of miners’ phthisis will know that when a man has worked twelve months in a mine he is laying the foundation of this disease. The changes which take place in his lungs are very minute, but he is laying the foundation of the disease which will only tell on him after nine or ten years. When I was a member of the commission of 1910-11, we found it took eight years before the symptoms of phthisis were strongly produced. Now the eight years has been extended to about ten. So it is no criterion to say that since 1916 there were only three cases of phthisis. It is only eight years ago. These men will only be coming on in the next two years, and it is only after the next two years that we shall be able to judge whether conditions have so improved as to eliminate the disease. Something has been said about this Clause 45, about the two years’ period of examination. The Medical Bureau acted on a judgment which was given in a certain case of a man who had been away from the mines more than two years. On the evidence of the State mining engineer it was held that when a man had left the mines for two years he had given up the occupation of miner. But here is the hardship. We are always encouraging men to go away from the mines to do outside work and recuperate. Where the mistake was made in the interpretation of this clause was that a man was called upon to undergo an initial examination. He had to pass an examination equivalent to that to a man who had never worked in a mine. It was absolutely impossible for that man’s lungs to be in a similar state to those of a man who had never worked in a mine. I think the Minister did a very wise thing in re-establishing this fact that when a man has been away two years that exanimation must be departed from. I have always held that the man who does not show signs of the disease after he has been away for two years should be allowed to go back. I am glad a change is to be made in this clause. Another question is that of “levelling-up.” I am glad the hon. Minister has taken his courage in both hands in regard to this levelling up process. It has always been a sore point with me that under the earlier laws one man should get £100 and another man for the same disease should get £300, and it has always been a source of hardship to these people. Two years ago the number of men required to be levelled-up was given to me as 2,001, but I hear now that it is more than that. This is a matter of absolute justice and equity, and whether it costs £600,000 or £800,000, I am very glad it is being done. Something has been said about the examination of natives, and it has been stated that if you have to examine each native with a stethoscope it will cost an additional £150,000. The procedure followed on the Rand up to now is that the natives are regularly weighed, and when a man does not show any decrease in weight you can cut him out, because as soon as there is anything wrong with him he shows a decrease in weight. Those which show a decrease are put in the hospital and properly examined. In this way, while I agree that it would be a physical impossibility to examine 180,000 natives monthly, it is also unnecessary. I know that when I was on a medical commission years ago I found that to examine twenty or thirty men closely involved a physical and mental strain, and so it has proved with the members of the Medical Bureau, Another point arises in connection with widows whose husbands have died of miners’ phthisis as a complication. There are many, but not very many, cases where a man has contracted pneumonia or chest disease, and where miners’ phthisis has been a contributory cause of his death. These cases are referred back to the Medical Bureau, and the question put to them is “what stage would this man have been in if he had not died?” I say such a man has paid the highest penalty, and therefore I am glad that this clause has been brought in; so that when the Bureau says that miners’ phthisis was a contributory cause the miner’s widow and children will be treated as though the man died in the secondary stage. There are some two hundred or three hundred of these cases, and I hope to learn from the Minister that their treatment under this Bill will be retrospective. I think the Board should have the discretionary power of giving benefits to wives and children where miners’ phthisis has been a contributory cause of the breadwinner’s death. By a contributory cause I mean that he must have contracted some chest complaint. Another question concerns the rule that a man must leave the mine within three months, otherwise his wife and children are not entitled to compensation. There are probably twenty or thirty cases of this kind. There is one case of a man named Trichardt which I have discussed with the Board. This man did not leave the mine within three months, but a few months later he appeared before the Medical Bureau and was told he had contracted tuberculosis. I say that if a man is told to-day that he has miners’ phthisis only and goes back in six months and is told he has miners’ phthisis and tuberculosis, there was probably a wrong diagnosis in the first instance. Personally, I have had fourteen years of experience, and I know that when the Medical Bureau makes a mistake it must not be set down as due to carelessness. About 1920 I made an attack on the Bureau as being incompetent, and they were so to my mind, but they have had eight or nine years’ experience, and I venture to say that four of the eight men on that board have a more intimate knowledge of the disease than any other men you can get in the world. I am perfectly satisfied in my mind that these men are working conscientiously and to the best of their knowledge, but it is only human to err. I want to come next to the point of the Appeal Board. I have always advocated the establishment of an Appeal Board, but it is difficult to decide how it should be constituted. In the ordinary way one appeals from a lower to a higher court, but in this case one must appeal from the highest authority to the lowest; in other words from men who are experts to men who are not experts.

It does not follow that they will not be experts.

With all due respects to the profession to which I have the honour to belong I say there are not five medical men outside the Bureau on the whole of the Rand who are experts in the disease, while the Bureau would probably limit the number to three. The practice of the bureau has been in the last year or two for two men to examine a patient. If a patient appeals from their decision three out of the eight members of the board who have not examined him may do so, and their verdict is final. The difficulty I have always had is that the bureau sits as a board and discusses all the cases, and it is almost impossible to disconnect yourself from the previous sitting of the board when you are sitting as an appeal board. To expect anything else is asking too much of human nature, and therefore when a miner appeals he appeals, say, from Pontius Pilate to Pontius Pilate. The appeal board should consist of three or six men, say, one member representing the bureau, another expert who is a private medical practitioner, with perhaps, an impartial chairman, also an expert in miners’ phthisis. That might help, but this question could be discussed more fully in the Select Committee. The next question I wish to touch upon is the different stages of miners’ phthisis. It is partially due to me that this ante-primary stage was instituted. But what I had in my mind in advocating it has not been carried out by the medical bureau. You have a man who has been working eight or nine years on the mines; he is losing weight, is sallow, and is short of wind. If you examine him with a stethoscope you cannot find any signs of phthisis in him, but you feel that for him to continue mining is to commit suicide. I suggested that such stages should be called ante-primary. But the stage that the bureau classes as ante-primary is too far advanced, and men should leave the mine before reaching the stage which the bureau describes as ante-primary. If a man dies in the ante-primary stage and you examine his lungs, you cannot see anything amiss with them, but my reply to that is that if you could see anything in a man’s lungs with your eyes he must be pretty far advanced with the disease. That opinion is confirmed by Dr. Andrew Watt, who is one of the greatest authorities on the subject outside the medical bureau. It would, therefore, be advisable to revert to the old definition of 1912. I maintain that a man either has the disease or he has not, and we should aim at getting at the early stages when the medical bureau could diagnose the disease and say whether a man is physically disabled or not, and if he is then he should be compensated. That should be the only stage, as far as miners’ phthisis is concerned. For convenience sake it is, perhaps, necessary to recognize a secondary stage. Since the new bureau has been established, in one in a thousand cases you may come across a man with pure secondary miners’ phthisis without any tuberculosis, and to safeguard him it may be as well to have a secondary stage of pure miners’ phthisis. I have a definition which I will submit to the Select Committee, which I think will help to solve the question, for a lot of misunderstanding has arisen through these various stages. A miner called Ross, who is now dead, was examined, say, in February, and he was found practically free, the plates being clear and showing that the man had no miners’ phthisis. Six months later he contracted tuberculosis, and the sleeping signs of fibrosis woke up, and if you saw the second plate that was taken, you would not believe that they had been taken from the same man. He was put in the secondary stage, but he died. Now, if that man had not died, or if men who are living, who had the ante-primary stage given them to-day and in six months had tuberculosis, they say at once, “I have been done down if they put me now in the secondary stage.” They say, “how can I be ante-primary in January and secondary and pensionable in June.” They say, “you have done me out of my primary pension.” That idea prevails among the miners in Witwatersrand. It is a fallacy. A man can go from the ante-primary stage to the secondary stage in a period of six months. That is more the reason why we should now make it final. The Party I belong to have been struggling and fighting to get finality of this disease and now we are in a majority in this House, I hope we shall arrive at finality. If you ask the old stagers in the Witwatersrand they will tell you they want to get out as soon as we have discovered the disease. Even if you get a man out in the early stages he does not recover, and he is more liable to tuberculosis, of the bacilli attacking him sooner than it would a man with a healthy lung, but if he gets the open air life he can still be a useful citizen of the State. It is incumbent upon us to give them a chance and get them from the mines as early as we can. There is only one stage. Either a man has the disease or he has not. When he is so far advanced that the Medical Bureau can certify the disease, he should be put out—he should get a pension. Somebody said something about the mortality of natives and how they died in their kraals. There may be a low mortality in Johannesburg, but I doubt whether the same mortality exists when they get back to their kraal. They work in the mines six months and then go back to the kraal, and live there a year or two, and that helps the native to ward off the disease. If you allow him to go away for two years to his kraal and come back to the mine why should you prohibit the white man if he goes away for two years. Why should he again pass the initial examination before he can go back into the mine. I hope the clause will be extended for four years, so that if a man leaves an industry like the mine for four years you can then presume he has given up the occupation as a miner. In these periodical examinations a man may go away for two years to say, Rhodesia, and if he comes back in those two years he is classed as a miner. I think these are the most important points I want to deal with so far as the disease itself is concerned. Now, as far as the examinations of the medical bureau are concerned. It is said that the flower of our country are offering themselves as martyrs to this disease. Knowing the class of man who is engaged in the mines, I would welcome the day when our country is so far developed that it will not be necessary for the flower of the country to sacrifice their lives under the ground. Instead of ten to one, I would like to see the ratio 1,000 to one. The white man’s place is not 3,000 feet underground, but up to now economic conditions have been such that there were only two industries in the country in which a man could make a livelihood, the railways and the mines, and there was no other way of earning a living. I shall welcome the day, even if it is five years or ten years hence when the country’s industries on the surface and agricultural industry are so far developed that it is not necessary for the flower of our country-men to go 4,000 or 5,000 down and sacrifice themselves. I am glad to hear the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee. I want to ask the Minister that if this question of stages can be amended in the Select Committee, that it should be, and I would vote for the second reading. If this question of stages, for which we have been fighting for years on the Witwatersrand, cannot be amended, then my conscience will not allow me to vote for it.

It requires a little courage to rise and speak on the subject of miners’ phthisis after speeches by such authorities on the subject. But the speech that has just been made, the able speech of the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) fortifies me in my intention of also bringing a few points in connection with miners’ phthisis and in connection with the mines in my district to the notice of the Minister. I have myself come into touch with miners who suffer from this terrible disease and let me add also with persons who subsequently died from it, people who have got to the first, second and third stage of the disease, and it goes without saying that one comes under the influence of this terrible complaint. This horrible disease must make an impression on anyone who comes into touch with sufferers therefrom. Naturally I have also come into touch with people who suffer from tuberculosis, but I was always under the impression that miners’ phthisis was worse than tuberculosis. The sufferer from tuberculosis still always has the hope of curing the disease by change of scene by going to another climate and or ultimately becoming well again, while all hope seems to be taken away from the sufferer from miners’ phthisis. I have never yet met a silicotic who had any hope of recovery. I have often talked with sufferers and have often admired with what confidence, almost religious confidence, these people waited for the death which might come any day. With surprise I have sometimes heard that they themselves knew how long they still could live. They could say that they could still live so and so many years, and that then the wife would be without a husband and the children without a father. Everyone must be greatly impressed by such a disease, and no one surely would disapprove that provision should be made in the miners’ phthisis law and that more and more should be done to alleviate the lot of these people. We are even indebted to society and to the mining industry that more and more is done to improve the circumstances of the sufferers, but this Bill makes provision not only for persons who have reached such a stage in the disease that all that can be done is to alleviate the Circumstances of the sufferer and to make provision for their families who might otherwise be left in difficulties, but as has correctly been mentioned by the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) care should be taken that people who are affected by silicosis can go out of their work timeously, in order to live a great number of years in other places and still to earn their living. For this provision is also made in the Bill. I have here a letter written I think by the at one time chairman of the Miners’ Phthisis Board, Mr. Macfie, addressed to the owners of mines in our district, and also in Barberton. The letter is actually an appeal to give as much work as possible in the outside mines to the miners who are in the very first stage of the disease. In my district they call the mines outside the Rand area, outside mines. This was done and in a number of the mines in my district, in the company’s mine in the mines of smaller owners, I could easily mention a list of 25 found work for these people. Some of the miners in the first stage have already been years there at work. They are, of course, trained workers. They understand their work, the mines are not so deep as those at the Rand and there is much work above the ground. The men find thus a means of existence and the small mine owners are on the whole quite satisfied with the output because the men understand their job. Besides this, a good deed is done to these people who thereby get a livelihood. I remember how in 1923 great unrest prevailed amongst the miners in my district when the Bill of 1923 was introduced in Parliament I was a member of the Select Committee last year, and in the law of 1923, chapter 4 caused great unrest—and nothing else could be expected among the outside mines, because the mines were thereby divided into two classes (a) and (b). The mines under (a) were scheduled, they stood on the list and under (b) there were also mines which could be put on the list, but which were not regarded as scheduled mines. The danger existed that in a comparatively simple manner the mines could also be put on the schedule and then persons would be prohibited from working there. I am glad to see from the Bill introduced by the Minister that he did not consider it necessary to again include chapter 4 therein. I know that this will be a great relief for all the mines and mine workers in my district, because not only mine owners, the capitalists, the managers of the mines were afraid about chapter 4, but I have here quite a number of telegrams at least 15 or 20 from persons who call themselves “beneficiaries,” who already draw benefits under the Miners’ Phthisis Law and who still beg and pray that such a section should not be put into the law. Thus it will be quite a relief that such article does not appear in the new Bill. But still I am compelled to ask a question and that is that there is still a chance for one of the mines in my district to be classified under the scheduled mines. As far as I can see the opportunity exists in two manners. The first way is naturally under section 2 of the Bill, but there is nothing to say against it. This provides that at the request of the owner of the mine or the lessor or director and most important of all, at the request of at least one-third of the mine-workers in the mine, application can be made to the Minister of Mines and Industries to put the mine on the schedule. Well, if the danger of silicosis is so great that as many as one-third of the workers can be found to ask for the inclusion of a mine in the schedule, then I agree entirely that in such a case the mine should be put on the schedule. To that there can be no objection. Neither owners nor workers will object to section 2, but there is another section under which it will also be possible to put such a mine on the schedule and that is section 75 of the Bill where the Sheba mine is mentioned. The 1919 Act also made provision for the Sheba mine. There were a few cases of miners’ phthisis established there and in the law of 1919 provision was made for these people. It was such that compensation should be paid from the treasury out of the revenue to such miners at the Sheba mine. In the new Bill now under discussion the provision is also made that the Sheba mine silicoties can also be compensated from the fund, but only if the mine does not make sufficient money to cover the costs. In sections 4, 5 and 6 it is provided in which ways the Sheba mine must find the money to pay miners suffering from silicosis but it is section 75 sub-section seven which gives the cause for unrest. It says—

Thus it practically gives the Minister the right of without anything further, without further enquiry or without the application of one third of the votes of the mine workers or application by the manager of the mine under section 75 to put one or other mine on the schedule and the mines will be subject to the regulations of the miner’ phthisis law, there lies the danger for the mines in our district,

I would like to point out to the hon. member that the matter can be better dealt with in committee at the second reading only the general principle is discussed.

I think surely that I have the right to generally indicate certain points that I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister.

I don’t wish to stop the hon. member but at a second reading the principle is dealt with and in committee there is an opportunity of going into details and discussing particular instances.

I thank you for your correction and will return to the matter in committee.

I appreciate the point and will deal with it.

I will be satisfied if the Minister will go into it. I have nothing further to say.

Yes.

I should like to ask the Minister a few questions in regard to the Bill On the general principle of the present Bill, I do not think we can improve on the eloquent speech made by my hon. friend the member for Roodepoort (Rev. Mr. Mullineux). There is one very pleasant aspect of this debate, and that is the high tone adopted by all sides of the House I should like to ask the Minister whether, when the Bill goes to the Select Committee, he will take into serious consideration the question of altering the basis of the awards. To-day they are made on the earnings of the men employed in the industry. We must realize that there has been a tendency to reduce wages within the last few years on the Rand and every time the wages come down it means that the compensation for miners phthisis is decreased proportionately. Another thing to consider is that during the last periods a man works underground his physical capacity is being impaired and that is the worst possible time on which to base the compensation according to his earnings. This method of basing compensation on earnings is causing serious dissatisfaction among the men. Another aspect is that the men who have earned the least amount of money during the period of their working lives are the men who received the smallest amount of compensation, when they have not been able to lay aside anything for the time when they would not be able to earn any money. This crops up in various clauses, that is the question of basing the compensation on the amount of money earned by a man prior to the period when he is compensated. Then I should be glad if the Minister would be prepared to consider deleting the principle of penalizing the dependents or the individuals who may go oversea. I feel that if I were to buy a pension by paying so much per annum into a South African insurance company, or were to earn a pension by working in the public service, I should consider that I had paid for my pension in service, and surely we should not lay down the hard doctrine that you must live in South Africa or forfeit what you have paid dearly for. These men have bought this compensation with their lives. They may have relatives overseas, and it is natural when people are in an ill state of health, or when the husband is gone, that the wife should wish to go where she has been born and brought up, and where perhaps her little pension will go further from the point of view of purchasing power. Another point is that I should like the Minister to consider giving to the Mine Workers’ Union the right to nominate a representative on the Phthisis Board with powers of recall of that representative if he does not play the game so far as the men are concerned. I should also like the Minister, if possible, to reply to the following points which are being raised by the mine workers on the Witwatersrand, and on which the men have built high hopes. I should like him just to tell us exactly what he thinks of the case put forward by the Mine Workers’ Union. A very large number of the men on the Rand are behind this particular scheme, and it would be of particular advantage if the Minister would tell us what he thinks of the basis of the compensation. The mine workers are putting forward this scheme; that if a man works below for seven years he should at his own option be able to cease work with compensation of £750, applicable to every worker in the industry, no matter what his particular position may be. They say that after ten years’ service they would like to see every man compulsorily retired from the mines in South Africa. They consider that if a man continues to work after the ten years he should not receive any additional compensation. Their argument in favour of this idea is that it has been estimated that the average life of the miner is 8½ years, and they claim that if a man works below for seven years, it is not too much to ask, after that period of service, that he should be entitled to £750. Their idea is that after the seven years every man shall be presumed to be in the ante-primary stage. If he develops the secondary stage he would come under this Bill. If he was found suffering from the disease prior to seven years he should be compensated at the rate of £100 a year. The men also say that if the principle of basing compensations on earnings is to be continued the minimum earnings should be presumed to be £30 a month. The argument put forward in favour of compensating men after a period of seven years or compulsorily retiring them after 10 years is the same argument as that put forward as the sole object of this legislation, that is to try to eliminate the disease. I was very pleased in discussing this matter with a prominent member of the Chamber of Mines recently to hear him say that he thought the whole of the workers on the Witwatersrand should be compelled to take a holiday away from the mines each year to try and eliminate the disease. My experience during the past few months, after discussing the matter with representatives of the Chamber of Mines has convinced me that they are anxious to look at the matter from the humanitarian point of view. They wish to eliminate the disease, and they feel that everything should be done to do that. That, too, is the idea of the miners. It is the cream of South Africa you take into the mines. A man has to be perfect physically before he is passed by the Board, but if a man works below for six or seven years, even if he has not phthisis he has not the same chest as he had when he went down. He could not, after six or seven years pass the initial examination, although the Board would say he had not contracted phthisis. That is a strong point the men make for basing their claim on the period of service. I have a petition sent me by miners in my constituency asking for a clause of seven years optional and ten years limit, based on service. I felt it my duty, on behalf of my constituents, to put forward their point of view. I hope the Minister will understand that there are a large number of men looking at this question from this point of view who will be interested to hear his reply.

I only want to touch on two or three points. The first is that made by the hon. member for Kimberley (Sir Ernest Oppenheimer) as to the heavy burden likely to be imposed on the mines by this Bill. I will say this: throughout his speech the hon. member, although he felt constrained to put arguments against imposing further burdens on the mines, realized, I think, and was anxious that everything possible should be done to eliminate the disease and compensate those suffering from it. It was obvious, I think, that if he had his own way he would be the very first to agree that everything possible should be done, and no money should be spared to try and get rid of this evil. He disagreed with the figures given by the Minister. He pointed out that although the Minister had quoted £177,000,000 as the total dividends paid by the mines he was wrong in taking the figure of £7,100,000 as compensation and comparing the two, because, he said, compensation had only been paid since 1912, and if it was to be a fair comparison we should only take the amount of dividends since 1912. The fallacy in that is that although compensation has only been paid since 1912, as far back as 1902 a Commission reported as to the large number of men killed off by phthisis, and recommended that compensation should be paid. There was a further Commission in 1907. If the recommendations of those Commissions were not carried into effect it was the fault of the mining industry. The hon. member also overlooked the fact that although the dividend paid by the mines came to £177,000,000 the wealth extracted from the mines amounts to over £800,000,000. Therefore when you talk about £7,000,000 as compensation you must compare it with the £800,000,000 worth of gold extracted, and not with the £177,000,000 of dividends. And, further, the £7,100,000 is more than the amount actually paid in compensation by the industry itself. In the early years a proportion of the compensation was paid by the men themselves on a contributory basis, and in addition there was a contribution by the State. Then there is another thing which should be taken seriously into consideration, and that is the fact that that dividend is paid on a nominal figure. If the schedules of the State Mining Engineer are taken into consideration it will be seen that the actual amount invested in opening up and developing the whole mining industry comes to less than £80,000,000. And when you take that into consideration you will see that the amount paid by them is infinitesimal. There is another fact which must not be forgotten, and that is that the money paid by the mines in compensation is actually included in the working costs and not deducted from their profits. Then there is the question of levelling up. An injustice had been done to the men suffering from miners’ phthisis who were compensated when the rate of compensation was very low; but, leaving that out, there is the further point that a large number of these men and their dependents whom we want to be levelled up have directly contributed to the compensation fund or indirectly through the State. The hon. member made two suggestions. He took the case of the Minister of Finance discovering that the amount of income tax was not as much as it should have been and he asks whether it would be a fair proposition to make a retrospective demand. That would perhaps be an unfair proposition, but it is a very unfair analogy, because the income tax is levied for the administration of the country but this levy for miners’ phthisis is a first charge on the industry as compensation for health and lives sacrificed, and that is the theory accepted by the industry itself. If as a result of the energies of the Chamber of Mines the position was created whereby the men were receiving less compensation then they were entitled to, it is the Government who are at fault and the legislature and also the Chamber of Mines which induced the legislature to reduce the amount of compensation payable and it is right that the difference between what the men were paid under the old law and what is considered reasonable compensation now should be made up to them. Another criticism that has been levelled, and which I submit is worthy of note, was in reference to Clause 45 in the new Bill. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that these two thousand men who are affected have been placed in this position as the result of the wrong interpretation placed by the Government Mining Engineer on the word “miner” under the 1919 Act. The definition of the word was laid down as meaning a man who has worked or is working as a miner, and section 44 of the Act lays it down that so long as an individual presented himself every six months for examination he was entitled either to a certificate entitling him to go back to the mine or to a certificate entitling him to compensation. What happened as the result of the wrong interpretation was that when men came to the Bureau they were faced with the position that because they had not been working in a mine for two years their ticket was taken away and they were subjected to an initial examination. The effect of that was that on the one hand the men were prevented from going back, on the other hand they were prevented from obtaining compensation. So you have about 2,000 men in this position through the action of the Government Mining Engineer. I wish to give credit where credit is due, by saying that the hon. member of Bezuidenhout (Mr. Blackwell) acted as counsel pro deo on behalf of the men, and it was largely due to his agreeing to act pro deo that it was possible to get the decision of the Government Mining Engineer reversed by the law advisers of the department. I think the Minister is to be congratulated on having inserted this Clause 45, which is going to restore justice to these men. And that brings me to another point, which has not been touched upon, hut which is of very considerable importance. I have already pointed out in regard to this misinterpretation of the law that but for the fact that the men were able to get counsel to act pro deo they might not have been able to obtain this wrong interpretation reversed. I think the Minister is to be congratulated on having inserted Clause 13, under which it will now be possible for the bureau, the board, or the miner to state a case before the court, and if the latter is not successful he will not be mulcted in costs. If an injustice is done, and in case of a difference between the Board and the men, the Board will submit a case and try to secure justice for the miners; that will be regarded by the latter as a very great boon indeed. The question of preventive measures is of the utmost importance, and I am particularly glad that the Minister proposes to have a committee to investigate these matters; I believe the committee, even if it should be unable to find a solution of the evil, will at any rate discover some means of alleviating it. There is a certain matter in the Bill which does not go quite far enough. Under the scale laid down in the old Bill, the contributions would be on the amount earned by the men—I think 35 per cent.—while 45 per cent, was the silicosis rate. Under the new Bill the contribution based on the men’s earnings is reduced to 30 per cent., but that is not altogether satisfactory, as wages have a tendency to come down, and in that event the contribution would be so much less. We have often heard about “human nature being what it is,” and if that principle is applied to those controlling the mining industry, there is just the bare possibility of their being influenced by the fact that the contribution is based on the earnings of the men, and thus they might be indirectly influenced to keep the wages down, because naturally the less they pay in wages the less they will have to contribute to the compensation fund. From that point of view the Minister would have been well advised to have followed the Bill as laid down by the De Villiers Commission, under which, after a given date, the contributions would have been based entirely on the amount of silicosis produced in the mines. That would have been a great incentive to the industry to try to get rid of the causes of the disease. That miners’ phthisis is brought about by the presence of dust in the mines and the method of working, is now generally accepted, and it is, therefore, desirable that the onus should be placed on the mines in regard to preventive measures, and also calling upon them to pay on the basis of the silicosis engendered in their mines. I admit, however, that the mines are doing a great deal at present to remove the causes of the evil. Another principle which should be kept constantly in view is that, so far as the men are concerned, they should be encouraged to leave the mines at the earliest possible moment, instead of being forced by poverty to keep on working until they receive a higher amount of compensation. If steps are taken to make an award at the earliest possible date and at the highest figure, the men would be encouraged to leave the mines at the earliest date. In spite of the men being examined and in spite of all the improvements made by the mine owners, it is admitted that the position is, if anything, worse to-day than it was a few years ago. That being the case I am sure the House will agree that however much the burden might be on the mines everything possible should be done, and the mines themselves will agree it is up to them to do all they can to try and save thousands of people who are suffering and to compensate them.

I think that we of the Witwatersrand are very thankful to the Minister. It cannot be denied that this is one of the most important questions that the House can discuss. The Minister has already made it clear how serious it is and that there are approximately 7,000 people suffering from silicosis, and such people have their death certificate in their pockets. I am also glad that the Bill is being received so favourably. There is naturally difference of opinion. There is also a difference of interest, and I accept it, but yet we must not forget that although the miners’ phthisis law was passed in 1911, it was in 1902 that the first investigation took place. Miners’ phthisis already existed before the second War of Independence. The mines have already been working 39 years, and no one can calculate how many people have already died from this cause. The Minister estimates approximately 20,000. I think that the number is far greater. It has been said here that the people who go into our mines are the flower of the land. Only 20 out of every 100 applicants are admitted, only the fittest are accepted. It has been calculated that every year 500 people die from miners’ phthisis. If we add the number of accidents, then we will find it is a little more, about 700. It is a matter of vital importance. The law was passed in 1911, but it has been amended six or seven times. What is to be regretted is that in 1919 the law was so amended that a portion of the miners obtained up to £700, and it was provided that a man who was in the last stage could get a pension. His dependents would also get compensation, but there were people who were affected between 1911 and 1917 and about 2,000 of them are excluded. They receive from £90 to £300. Thus from £4 to £8 per month. After a few years, the money was exhausted and then it was stopped. The misery in which these people are is indescribable. The man is too weak to work and his family cannot be provided for by him, so that his wife and children are starving. This has been going on for five or six years and more, and I am very glad that the Minister has now included those people under the Bill to treat them in the same way as the other people. I have read the Bill through and there are a few points on which we differ. The first is that I am in favour where a doctor states that a man has miners’ phthisis that he should leave the mine, such a man has still a chance of living a long time. I know of cases where people have lived 13 years and they could still do useful work. It is absolutely certain that there is no further loophole when a person has once become affected by the disease. I know of another case where a person went out of the mine in 1911 with the certificate of a doctor that he was sound, but he died last year from miners’ phthisis, and the medical bureau found that he was in the second stage. When a person is in the second stage, death is the end, but what happens now? I am glad that the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) has so well explained how the medical bureau do their work. I have always said that it is a very difficult matter. The doctors have built up a pack of theories which they cannot apply in practice. They have put a man out of the mines who according to them was in the first stage and three months thereafter he was dead. He was in the last stage, no one can understand this. But the people have lately been kept by the medical bureau in the mines until three months before their death. The lives of these people are very valuable, and I am glad that there is going to be an appeal board. But the hon. member for Vrededorp (Dr. Visser) has acknowledged that there are only three doctors on the Witwatersrand who thoroughly understand the disease. I do not think there is one. I have already said that they have only got theories and that they cannot see what is going on inside the man. They must go according to the outside signs, and the development of the disease is different in different people. I have noticed this during the last twenty years on the Rand. It is no good Parliament making a good and proper law if no change is made in the medical bureau. They have made great mistakes. The hon. member for Vrededorp has said that they have made mistakes and I can state that they have made many mistakes at the cost of human lives. I am in favour of there being one stage for miners’ phthisis. When a person is affected he should leave the mines and he should be compensated. The man is then still strong and he can still live ten or fourteen years and do something else useful. If he remains in the mines then he is soon gone and his wife and children lose their bread-winner. I hope that the Select Committee will find a solution of this difficulty. I am convinced that a great injustice is done to these people by the existing law. This injustice is taken away again by the Bill we have before us. It will cost £800,000 but the lives of the people cannot be compensated by money. The gold of the mine can never pay for the valuable lives. We have, unfortunately, at the moment more people than there is work for but I hope our country will so develop that all our white people will be able to come out of the mines. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Waterston) has mentioned a point advanced by the miners, namely, a pension fund for the mine workers so that they after seven years or so can get compensation and leave the mines. It is a good thing to ward off miners’ phthisis and it will help very much in reducing miners’ phthisis amongst the people. It has been said that miners’ phthisis is becoming less at the moment but I don’t believe a word of it. At the moment about 7,000 people are suffering from it. In the beginning we had to do with surface mines which were very shallow. Then we got the deep mines that is mines which work to the second level. Now we are at the third level and air has to be pumped in. There is a tremendous draught through the stopes and the fine dust is breathed in. This cannot be prevented. The only solution is to give people suffering from miners’ phthisis a pension to put them in a position to leave the mines. If we do this before the man has it then we can save him. There is still a class who also suffer from sickness, namely, those who work with quick silver. They are also affected and he Minister has promised to enquire into the matter. The people have asked me to bring the matter under the Minister’s attention again. I am very glad that the Bill has been introduced and I think the whole of the people should be grateful to the Minister.

I hope the Minister will be prepared to accept an amendment as to the definition of the word “miner” in this Bill. The definition, as it stands, among other things lays it down that a man must work underground for more than 100 hours a month. There are large numbers of men of the artizan class engaged from time to time in repair work in the mines who do not spend 100 hours a month underground, but the nature of their work is such that it makes them all the more liable to contract miners’ phthisis. The very disturbance they create in doing their work gives rise to the disease. I hope the Minister will agree to extend the definition to artizans and others who go underground notwithstanding that they have not a hundred hours underground. We have had a considerable number of cases of mechanics and others who have been refused compensation because they have not been a hundred hours underground and yet it was admitted by the medical men that they were suffering from phthisis as a result of their work underground in the mines.

I only wish to refer to the provision in the Bill that there should be an appeal in the medical bureau that there should be three private doctors. I do not think that it is a good provision. It is easy to understand that where we have a body like the medical bureau with the experience and the knowledge of the members of that bureau, that there are not three private doctors in Johannesburg whom we can appoint on the appeal board. The bad result of this will be twofold. The three doctors will in no circumstances be able to express an opinion on a case of miners’ phthisis as the medical bureau will be able to. The medical bureau has the experience and all the apparatus so that the members can make all the necessary investigation and if we are going to give a right of appeal to three private doctors, then their decision will not have the weight that the judgment of the bureau have, but we put the medical bureau in this instance in a bad position. With what measure of care will the people of the bureau do their work and make their investigation if they know that after they have given a judgment there will be an appeal to three persons who are inferior to them in knowledge. It will doubtless lead to it that the bureau will feel that it is useless making careful enquiry in cases and there are many cases, thousands of cases which are annually investigated. But with what confidence will they do their work if they know that as a last resort their finding will be referred to a body of less account than themselves. It has already been said here “the judgment of the judge is referred to the magistrate.” And in the second place with what confidence can they go and do their work if the head of the Ministerial Department with distrust or, let me say, without sufficient trust, can refer the matter to another body and thereby indicate that he does not sufficiently trust them. This puts I he medical board in a wrong position. Then there will not be the full confidence that I think there ought to be. If the appointment of the bureau is not a good one or the method of the bureau is not a good one, let us make the necessary change in the personnel or in the manner of investigation, but to allow an appeal in the finding of the bureau to another body is wrong. The three persons must give a decision upon which an expert body has come to after long study. I think if anything is put right with regard to the bureau then it should be done inside the bureau.

I will not be long. I only wish to mention a few points of importance. In the first place I want to say that we all appreciate the Bill which has been introduced. The matter of miners’ phthisis is of great importance of life and death for the important industry and for the people employed in it. Therefore I am glad that it is considered that the time has come to regulate the matter by legislation. It is our duty as a Government to see that precautionary measures are taken. Such measures will be better than curing the disease afterwards as the medical experts tell us the sickness is discovered before the person is actually affected and if this is so, I think the Government should consider the taking of action in the direction of the people being discharged from the mines before the sickness breaks out in earnest, and that they should be given proper compensation for the time that they have worked. Such compensation that they can make a living in one or other manner. I hope the Select Committee which will be appointed will succeed in this direction. I hope further that the legislation will have retrospective force upon the widows of the miners who have died of miners’ phthisis. We have many cases which are hopeless and I think it is only the duty of the Government to make provision for these people. There are many ways by which these people can be helped, when they are taken out of the mines. It can also be done for miners who want to go back to the mines when they were in the country to have themselves examined, and if found to be fitted to return to work in the mines they can be permitted. Means can be provided of getting them ground near the big markets so that they can make a living there, and this will also be of benefit to the State. Many of them understand something of farming, and if they can be got to go to the country it will be a great asset to the land.

I understood with regret the Minister to say that he did not intend putting any more the silicotics on settlements because it was a failure. My experience is the exact opposite. I have solicotics in my constituency and I can assure the Minister that many of these people came there in a miserable condition, They were very sick and could do hardly any work. After they had been for a year or so on the farm, however, their state of health greatly improved and it would be a pity if the result of this Bill should be that these people can no longer go to the country. It would be better that the silicotic should get a sum of money so that he could buy a piece of ground or the Miners’ Phthisis Board could do this for him so that he could go and live in a healthy portion of the country. This does him a lot of good. I cannot agree with the Minister that he is willing to pay out the people who went oversea. This is not fair. The people remain here and then they went away as fast as they could overseas. It is unfair that they must still get the money. Another point which was emphasised by the hon. member for Roodepoort (Rev. Mr. Mullineux) was that people who have work in the mines and had gone out of it for a time should again be employed without an examination such as a person undergoes who is employed for the first time. I do not agree with him. It might be that the people in the meantime are affected by one of these diseases and it is only fair that the person shall again be examined by the medical bureau. A man might possibly get sick in the mines and then we shall hear that the mines made him sick. It is very unfair and I think that the person should be examined if he wants to go into the mines. The large majority of the mine workers are not people who work very hard. Some of them have themselves told me how things go there and it is sometimes their own fault if they get the disease. Many of them go and sit at places and lie down also at places where they should not go. They do not take proper measures for their own health. The Minister should punish them if they contravene the regulations. If this is done there will be less chance of them catching the disease.

It is the habit in this House that those who know the least about a subject talk the most about it. If, for instance, agricultural matters are on the tapis the hon. members of the cross benches make the longest speeches but to-night I only see four in their places. There is at the moment not even a quorum in the House.

As a quorum is now present the hon. member can proceed.

I am sorry for the delay but the whole night the interest has been very dull. It is a very difficult matter. I quite agree that the silicotic should have compensation not from the public but from the mines. I would like the Minister later to accept an amendment in his Bill that persons who wilfully neglect their health in the mines as I know is done, for instance, when persons wet with perspiration come out of the mines after they have worked all day—

It is not now the time to discuss amendments. That is for the committee stage.

No, but I think that I can nevertheless bring the things to the notice of the Minister. Perhaps he will then prepare an amendment to meet my request. I know of mine-workers who after they have worked hard the whole day come out of the mines into the cold air outside and instead of using the opportunity which is given them of taking a bath and changing their clothes, they do nothing. The first result is that the lungs become affected and later they are so much the more subject to silicosis. I want the hon. Minister to make provision that these men shall be very heavily fined. Then again, there are other men who go on night shift and then lie and sleep. There are naturally many cases where inspectors do not find this out. I speak of special cases where men ruin their health.

I do not propose going into the various points raised at any length now. My feeling is, and I think it is the feeling of the House, that the second reading of the Bill should now be passed and the Bill referred to a Select Committee. I will go into all the matters raised in the Select Committee, and also into the suggestion of my hon. friend opposite that there should be some prescription of the number of baths that a miner should take after emerging from the mine.

I move—

seconded.

Agreed to.