I move—

I cannot allow this opportunity to pass without again expressing my dissatisfaction at the difficulties which are being placed in the way of the farmer. The Minister is rather astute; he has made certain concessions and he wants us to think that he is really helping the farmer by making those concessions, but he knows perfectly well that they are of very little significance. We have the admission now that so far as motor transportation is concerned different conditions should apply to the farmer than those applying to the people living in the towns. The Minister admits that as the farmer has to transport his products to the towns and as, on the other hand, he has to get whatever he needs from the town to his farm, he should be exempted because his position is different to that of the man living in the town who is able to get all his requirements in the town and have same delivered to him. The Minister has now come along with certain amendments and the farmer is now to be allowed to carry his labour between the nearest station and his farm. I do not know whether the Minister knows how many dorps there are which have no stations, and I do not know whether the Minister realises what that means to the farmer. In the Western Province we have the position that the farmers are compelled, at the time when they have to get their crops in, to get labour from the dorps where coloured people live. Now they have to go to the Board on bended knees, they have to come to Cape Town, they have to get permission to transport their labour, and then they have to pay for that permission. The concessions granted to the farmers amount to no more than what other people get, namely, that they are allowed to convey their own goods. The Minister will tell us that he requires these provisions in order to keep control over matters, but the original Act was passed in order to protect the Railways against competition which they regarded as unfair, and the same argument is used in regard to this Bill. In addition, however, we have the argument that farming products carried by train are carried at a rate which does not pay the Railways. In other words, that the Railways are making nothing out of that class of traffic. If that is so then I want to ask the Minister to reconsider this whole question. He will in any case have to come along later on with legislation to put these matters right, and I think he will also have to come along with a comprehensive Bill. Will he not be prepared in the meantime to consider the question of entirely exempting farming products, the transport of which is in any case unpayable so far as the Railways are concerned? If he does so he will lose nothing. Let me give an instance of the difficulties he has to contend with. One has a farmer who has a small shop where he sells some vegetables and fruit. He goes to the Board and gets exemption to collect fruit and vegetables in his district and to sell same in his shop. But there are times of the year when in the district in respect of which he has been granted exemption there are no vegetables and no fruit. He then goes to the Cape to buy vegetables. I have personally gone with such a man. He tells me that he cannot put these vegetables on a train because if he does so they will have lost their freshness when they arrive. He told me that he was even prepared to pay the Railway rates—which are very small— in respect of those vegetables and fruit, so long as he could get permission to carry those goods by his own lorry, so that he could have them in his shop within a few hours. Why should all these difficulties be put in his way? I want to ask the Minister, seeing that the original law was passed with the object of protecting the Railways on account of the country having invested its money in the Railways, what right has he to extend his powers and also give protection to private railways? The Minister will say that they are also railways, and that they serve the public, but that was so in the beginning as well, and it never was the intention to extend protection to those large companies owning railway lines. Those rich companies have now to be protected against competition from the poor lorry drivers. This poor man who owns a lorry has to pay fees; he has all kinds of expenses but the rich company is protected against his competition. Why should those large capitalistic concerns have this sort of protection given to them? I am not satisfied with this Bill. I think I should be ashamed to tell the people from a public platform how few concessions are granted to the farmers because they are exceptionally small. They mean nothing and the Minister is quite astute enough to know that they mean nothing. He naturally argues: “Give the baby its way, and it will stop crying”, but in the meantime the farmers are left to go under. I do not want to compare the lorry drivers with the large bus companies. Those lorry drivers are poor and have to work hard for a living, but they are needed for the development of the farming industry, and particularly in the wheat and wine districts they are absolutely indispensable. It is quite impossible for the farmer to keep sufficient draft stock to take his products to the markets or to the various parts where he can dispose of them, and he is compelled to buy a lorry or to hire a lorry to convey his goods. The farmer who has his own lorry is better off than the poor man who has to hire a lorry because he has not got the means to buy one. The poor man who has not got a lorry of his own has to pay all those fees. The Minister is imposing a tax on the poorest section of the farming population. I could go on all afternoon talking about the unfair burdens which are being imposed on the poor people but I do not want to detain the House any longer. I only want to ask the Minister to make some arrangement during the recess in order to remove some of the difficulties experienced by the farmers to-day. If it does not pay the Railways to carry those goods, why then should the Minister not exempt farming products from the provisions of this Bill?

I just want to make one or two general observations in connection with this Bill which I was not in a position to make on the second reading. These observations have become the more necessary by some of the discussion which has taken place on some clauses of the Bill. It seems to me that the time has now arrived when a great deal more comprehensive survey of South African transport problems will have to be undertaken by the Minister. Whether that is best undertaken by the Minister of Railways and Harbours, or whether the time is not long overdue that we should have had a Ministry of Transport, is not part of my argument at the moment, but it does seem to me that some of the difficulties which have arisen and which were made clear during the Committee stage, point very definitely to the fact that something more stringent will have to be done in connection with our South African transportation, and I want to suggest to the Minister that introducing at this stage an amending Bill which does not include a clause to allow municipalities to undertake private transport undertakings and give the municipalities powers of monopolies where such undertakings have been started, means that the Minister has failed in his duty. South Africa, we are told on every hand, is developing very rapidly industrially. Whether that development will continue after the war is something which none of us know, but it is to be assumed that the war will, if anything, give an impetus to this industrial development and that at the close of the war South Africa will find itself the greatest industrial country on the Continent of Africa. The development of the country industrially means a greater conglomeration of population. We will find as we are doing when we are building up new industries, when we are expanding our industries in various ways, that the population tends to congregate into ever larger towns and cities. That has been our experience in the last ten years, or so, and we find to-day on the Witwatersrand that the industrial or urban areas are growing very rapidly at the expense of the country districts, and that the growth industrially of urban areas with the conglomeration of vast numbers of people into larger and larger cities comes inevitably very much more acute transport problems and these transport problems are at the moment crying out for some kind of solution. It was not, of course, to be expected of a Government of this description which is probably the most powerful capitalistic Government which South Africa has ever had.

Hear, hear.

Yes, the Minister of Commerce and Industries who is in the best position to know says “hear, hear”.

And you are supporting it, you are a “yes-yes” man.

I am supporting it for another reason, just as the hon. member supports the National Socialist’s principles of the hon. member for Gezina (Mr. Pirow) for another reason, but it was not to be expected perhaps that a very powerful capitalistic Government would of their own free will consider the introduction of provisions in this amending Bill as I suggested, but I want to put it to this Government, whether they are powerful and capitalistically inclined or not, that the growing transport problems in the Union are shortly going to force upon them the necessity of introducing such provisions. We see in the provisions of the Bill an attempt to hold the balance somewhat evenly between municipally owned transport and nationally owned transport on the one side, and privately owned transport on the other. We see provisions introduced to try and hold this balance evenly, and at the same time to try and provide for the necessary and sane development of South African transportation, but we see in the Bill clauses which have failed to do their job, and I gather that the general effect of even this amending Bill is going to be that a great many of these problems will not be adequately solved. Let me quote one specific instance which is in the process of occurring in Cape Town itself. We have a position where the Cape Town transportation system is run by a large and very efficient private company. It runs the transportation of Cape Town up to modern standards. They have been running for some time and they have been running an ordinary service from Cape Town to Bellville. On a part of that route another private and competing company have also been running a service. On part of the route. With the development of the trolley buses the Cape Town company have over a number of years eliminated the tram cars. They are now in the process of eliminating motor buses because it is found that ordinary trolley bus services are a cheaper mode of transport than motor buses; it is a much more comfortable method of transport, it is a faster method, and it is a cheaper method. In other words, the general experience in South Africa and throughout the world has been that the trolley bus or trackless tram is at the moment for the majority of routes in a large town the most up-to-date and cheapest and most comfortable form of transport. The Cape Town Tramway Company feel that in their own interests and in the interest of the people concerned, the people who are likely to use the trolley buses, a trolley bus route from Cape Town to Bellville is more or less demanded. Now, what do we find? We find that there is a great doubt whether the Transportation Board will grant the Cape Town company that route. They are more than likely to refuse this particular trolley bus route, on the ground that a trolley bus route granted to the Cape Town company would eliminate the other motor bus route which is being run over a certain portion of the Cape Town-Bellville run. Now, that will be done, I understand, because this House has refused to accept in this amending Bill a situation wherein the Transportation Board could give permission to run buses on a certain route under certain conditions, and the position seems to be that because the Board are not allowed to lay down conditions under which the trolley buses could run, that they will riot grant the trolley bus at all. Now I want to touch on what might be the conditions laid down, because if we study that we will see where the development of South African transport is likely to be retarded. It is admitted that trolley buses are a better mode of transport than petrol driven omnibuses. That is admitted by all transportation experts. Being a better mode of transport it follows that if a route was given for instance to the Cape Town Tramway Company, because of the better form of transportation being used, they would in most instances be likely to eliminate the other existing private omnibus company. It is apparently the duty of the Transportation Board to see that the Cape Town company does not eliminate its competitor on this particular route. So if they were given power to impose conditions they would naturally impose conditions which would make it impossible for the Cape Town company to eliminate its competitors, which would mean that the conditions so imposed would be conditions which would nullify the superiority of the trolley bus over the ordinary omnibus. I think this is very important. The Minister shakes his head, but he, as a business man, must know that what I say is correct, that if the Transportation Board is endeavouring in this particular instance to save a private company from ruin, they can only do so by imposing conditions which make the running of trolley buses level with the running of omnibuses—in other words, which would make it possible for both these forms of transportation to be maintained on that route. They could only do that by nullifying the advantages which the trolley buses have over the omnibuses. If the trolley bus is superior from every point of view, being run more economically, being more comfortable and speedier, it must inevitably eliminate the competition of the omnibus.

Q.E.D.

I do not know what Q.E.D. is—I know what C.O.D. is, it is the name of a very famous Cape fish. It seems quite obvious that the only conditions which can be imposed are conditions which will nullify the transport advantages which the trolley bus has compared with the ordinary omnibus, and surely there is nothing to be gained by Governmental or Board control of transport which instead of assisting the Union to progress, instead of using their official position to see that the very best forms of modern transport are utilised, instead of that, wish to take unto themselves powers which are going to retard these modern forms of transport. There is a solution. I would be the last to advocate that any individual who had sunk his capital over a period of years, who by hard work had built up and established a business …. I would be the last to advocate any course which was going to deprive him of the asset he has built up. In that respect I am a great deal more favourably disposed than the exponents of private enterprise themselves. Because I am sure the Minister of Commerce and Industries would be in favour of a Bill which said that when a new multiple store had started that the other multiple stores in the same street should go to a Board and allow the Board to impose conditions and prices but not on the new multiple store. I have always understood that the essence of the competitive system was that if you could not run your business in a manner which showed you a profit, it was just too bad. However we have a new approach now which says that we must legislate in such a way as to preserve assets which have been built up even in the course of time the assets so built up become obsolete. Here it is said that only one company shall be allowed to run trolley buses at a time. It is perfectly possible that only one company will be able to do so because they will have to use public streets and have overhead wires and all the rest of it. If we had in existence as part of our transportation legislation a clause whereby it could be possible for, say, the Cape Town Tramway Company in view of the fact that they are the only company able to run trolley buses—if it were possible for them to expropriate the other omnibus route, if provision were made whereby arbitration was set up and a reasonable price arrived at, and the smaller company were expropriated, the difficulty so far as the Cape Town-Bellville run is concerned could be overcome. I am not harping on that in an attempt to criticise the Board, I am mentioning it because it is a classic instance which we can understand, but if we come to the general position in most towns where the municipalities to a large extent run and control the transport, we find that we are rapidly getting into a position of chaos, and I want to say as far as my own town, Durban, is concerned, that if we do not get this power of expropriating privately owned transport in Durban, we shall have the greatest chaos in five years’ time. It is hindering the development of the town, it is making it impossible to control the traffic, it contributes to a large extent to the fact that Durban possesses the highest death rate roll from motor car accidents in the Union, and it is the considered opinion of almost all the officials and of responsible public men in Durban who have studied the matter, that if we cannot get some system whereby we can take over at fair prices, the privately owned transport in Durban, which is completely Indian, we are going to have a mess in a few years’ time. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) touched on this question of Indian transport. I am not touching on this because the owners happen to be Indians—it does not matter whether they are Indian, European or native. I am looking at it as a traffic problem. It is not a question of the poor Indians because many of these companies are owned by very rich men. They have made large profits and they continue to do so, and many of the restrictions which the municipality might impose so far as Durban is concerned are very necessary—it is not a question of imposing restrictions in order that the Council may benefit, because the Durban Municipality does not run that kind of transport at all—practically speaking it is nearly all in the hands of the Indians. If any application is turned down, it is not turned down for the benefit of Europeans. If there is a squabble among them it is a squabble among the Indians themselves. Now the future of Durban, and I understand that more or less the same problem is arising in Johannesburg, and I believe it is also arising in most other towns as the population increases—at the moment it is a question of magnitude for some of the smaller towns along the Rand even. Private enterprise comes in and starts with a ramshackle bus, and works its concern up to three or four buses, and when you want to buy them out prices immediately jump up. Extortionate figures are asked for the so-called goodwill, and it is quite impossible for the Durban Municipality, for instance, to attempt to buy out the existing private bus owner without legislation being on the Statute Book. It is also entireley useless if we only get legislation to enable us to expropriate; side by side with such legislation we must have similar provisions which give us a complete monopoly. I know that that is heresy to many hon. members here, but South Africa is a country where a large percentage of our transport is publicly owned. We have a system here under which we own our own railway service. Our railways are State railways, and no one would suggest that South Africa would be better served by railways in the hands of private enterprise. No one would suggest that our railways should be handed back to private enterprise. So we have the chief transportation service of the country in the hands of the State itself. In other words, we have admitted in the realm of transportation, not only the justice but the right and economy of public ownership of transport. In so far as the railways are concerned, we know what the position is. But so far as transport in the towns is concerned most towns run their own transport systems, most towns in the Union have municipally owned transport. There are two exceptions, Cape Town and Port Elizabeth. Apart from that most municipalities of any size run their own transport side by side with privately owned transport. For some years it has become a popular thing for private companies to run transport undertakings. People with an eye to business have gone in for that sort of thing. We have got past the stage when it was only the small man who ran a bus or two. We are getting to the stage in some parts of the country where the possibility of running privately owned transport is attracting capital in a big way. There is a scarcity of investment for capital to-day; it is possible to-day to borrow £1,000,000 at 1 per cent. on call. That is the state we have got to. And if that is the position there is an opening for big finance—big finance is looking for openings so far as transport is concerned. I do not want to labour the point; I felt it was my duty to bring before the House, probably for the first time, the demand for legislation of this description. I put these suggestions forward not in any sense of antipathy to ordinary vested interests, not because I am particularly concerned to wipe private enterprise out stage by stage, but more because I am concerned with the transportation problems of the Union, and because I know that these problems are giving the municipalities furiously to think, and because I know further that if the solution is long delayed the Minister may find himself up against a series of chaotic conditions in transportation matters in the various towns which will necessitate rushed legislation, and which will detrimentally affect his own public Railways and Harbours. It is in line with the trend of modern development The greatest city in the world, London, found that private enterprise could not possibly develop transport in a proper way, and it was left to one of the Labour Min isters, Mr. Morrison, to take steps which put the transport system of London in order. He could go the length of expropriating them and of running them municipally, but he had to impose conditions on the various companies, he had to co-ordinate them under various conditions in order to see that the public of London were given a satisfactory transport system, and when the Minister and the Government are going to allow the growth of these private omnibus routes they are asking for a situation similar to that which arose in London. But it does seem to me that in a young country we are entitled to benefit by the experience and mistakes of older countries. We have these experiences before us, and I venture to say that in almost every instance where transport is concerned the Minister will find that situations such as I am picturing have arisen, where no expropriation powers were given to the people concerned, and I would suggest to the Minister in his thought on transport to consider this aspect of the matter. I trust this small amending Bill is not the Minister’s last word on the question of transport for another five or six years. I trust that after having introduced this Bill and having brought the Transport Board up to date, and having joined issue on a number of important questions which will have to be solved, I trust the Minister will during the recess give his attention to the suggestions I have made. I think I would be correct in saying that most of the municipalities in the Union, particularly those of any size, would be in agreement with these powers of expropriation. Most of them are in a position that they could use them to a certain extent, and most of them will agree that if powers of appropriation are given these powers must be given in such a way as to enable them to create for the public up-to-date transportation systems, through which and only by which satisfactory transportation services can be given to the people of South Africa.

I am also very much disappointed that in spite of the fact that we on this side of the House have been trying to convince the hon. the Minister of the fact that this Bill is definitely in conflict with the interests of the farmers, and of the farming industry, he has none the less failed to show the slightest consideration, failed to take the slightest notice of the representations made by this side of the House. We have tried to show that it was urgently necessary that consideration should be given to the farmer and to the farming industry, particularly in view of the domestic requirements and the farming requirements of the farmer. This Bill seriously interferes with the interests of the farmer on the platteland, especially when the farmer has to cover large distances and has to contend with insurmountable difficulties. True, he has been granted a certain amount of exemption, but the concessions given by the Minister are not sufficient, and do not solve all the difficulties which the farmer has to contend with. We have tremendous difficulties in connection with the transportation of our servants on the farms.

What about my amendment?

I am afraid that the hon. member who has just interrupted me has not understood what the Minister accepted. We have tried to point out the facts to the Minister and to draw the Minister’s attention to the great disadvantages which the platteland has to put up with, to the great struggle the farmer has to keep his head above water. This side of the House has pleaded for concessions, and the only thing the Minister has granted us is the amendment of the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Geldenhuys), which, in actual fact, is just a drop in the ocean, which will not solve the farmers’ difficulties. We in the outside districts have our marketing problems to contend with. The prices of our products are dropping, and the prices of farming requirements are going up, yet no concessions are made to the farmer. Well, let the Minister test this Bill, but he will see that it is not going to prove a success. The platteland will approach him again, and it will agitate tremendously in days to come against this Bill which is being piloted through the House. We have been pleading with the Minister to meet us, and we have put forward this fact, that if he meets the farmers he will not clash with the main object, and the concessions he will make to the farmers will not in any way detrimentally affect or weaken the position of the Railways. In the very first place, we have been pleading for exemption in regard to the sale of our farming products, in regard to the production of the farms, and we have further been pleading to be allowed to transport our own labour. I want to ask the Minister in the recess to give the most careful consideration to this aspect of the position and to study it carefully, and to come to the aid of the platteland in a more satisfactory manner, if possible during this year, or otherwise next year. The second point I want to raise is in regard to the lorry owners. The lorry owners on the platteland in particular are poor people; they are people who buy their lorries on credit, and they have to give credit for the work they are doing; they do not always get paid in cash. They buy their lorries on credit and they work on credit, and as against that wages have gone up tremendously, and they have to pay their labour more because the cost of living has gone up. In addition to that, we have the fact that the cost of repairs has gone up, spare parts which they require are more expensive, the tax on tyres has gone up, and the price of petrol has gone up. This Bill will kill the lorry owners, and it will be impossible for them to carry on under the provisions of this measure. The Provincial Administrations are raising their taxes, and they are also placing a heavier burden on the lorry owners. On a six-ton lorry the new tax is £13 per year, and on a nine-ton lorry it is £85. In addition to that we have the restrictions imposed by the Railways. Every door is carefully locked. The lorry owners are deprived of their work. It is becoming impossible for them to make a living. Surely when every facility is being curtailed, the very least that should be done is that the licensing fees for lorries should be reduced. The result of this Bill will be completely to destroy all lorry transportation. Possibly the towns may be able to get on without the lorries, but the platteland is dependent on lorry motor transportation. This Bill is making it practically impossible. I should be pleased if the Minister will take note of this point, and if during the recess he will study the conditions of lorry owners on the platteland, and that he may later on come along with an effective concession and assist us to keep this indispensable means of transportation alive, so that the farmer may carry on his farming activities.

I do not propose to delay the House more than a moment. The various speakers have suggested that during the recess I should give my mind to various transportation problems. If the difficulty I have experienced in getting this Bill through the House is any guide, I have more than a suspicion that the last thing I shall want to think about during the recess is anything whatever to do with transportation. However, I shall keep the representations that have been made in mind, whenever matters come before me which affect the rights of transport riders and owners. I only want to put the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) right on one point. He emphasised the point that without control trolley buses can put other buses off the road. That is not the correct position at all, the position is entirely the opposite way about. If we have trolley buses running on roads which cannot be controlled by the Central Transportation Board, it is quite obvious that the central board cannot, or will not control other traffic running in competition with them. It would be manifestly unfair to allow one set of buses to run without control, and to control the other set in respect of fares and other things. While it is true that trolley buses constitute a much better form of conveyance, they are more comfortable, and given equal terms, will always attract the customers. The trolley bus will always get the traffic, but it will not get such traffic if the other bus can cut fares. If the cutting of fares starts, the people who feel the cutting most are the people whose capital is the highest. You cannot start a trolley bus service without spending a great deal of capital, you have to put overhead wires, poles, you have to have sub-stations and various other things. Apart from that, the trolley bus itself is a more expensive conveyance than the ordinary bus, and therefore nobody is going to put these buses on the road at all unless they can be reasonably assured of a reasonable return on the high capital expenditure, and if they are always to be subjected to the threat of buses not under control, the result will be that we shall never get the motor trolley bus service established. That was why I was keen on getting this control, to encourage the trolley bus services. As the law stands now, there is a tendency to hold back that very excellent development.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move the motion standing in my name—

Let me say that, having obtained the sanction of the House to this instruction to the Committee, my intention is to move the following amendment so soon as we reach the Committee stage in this Bill—

1. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Chapter X of the Precious and Base Metals Act 1908 of Transvaal, and in the Principal Act, the right to carry on the business of a general dealer or of a keeper of a kaffir eating house for non-Europeans on private land in the Province of the Transvaal proclaimed a public diggings after the commencement of this Act, shall vest in the owner of such land, subject to the provisions of Section 97 of the first-mentioned Act.
   1. (a) In respect of such the land provisions of Sections four to and including fourteen of the Orange Free State Metals Act, 1936 (Act No. 13 of 1936) shall mutatis mutandis apply, and the right to trade as aforesaid shall be dealt with in accordance with such provisions.

The initial difficulty with which any hon. member is faced in dealing with this law, is the terrible state in which the law has become involved. Not only is this a very intricate subject, but various governments in the last 30 years have tinkered with the question and there is a series of amendments which run into many pages. Out of curiosity I went into the library this morning to find out how many laws deal with precious metals in South Africa. I started counting them but I very soon gave it up, because I found many pages of typescript setting forth the various laws involved. That was the first difficulty. My second difficulty will be not to convince the hon. Minister, but to convince the House. I am in a very happy position in so far as the Minister is concerned in regard to this, because the hon. gentleman and I are entirely ad idem on this point. The object of the amendment is as follows: Landowners in the Transvaal have for long felt that they had not been getting quite a fair deal from the State. From the very early days it was always conceded, and indeed it was a matter of law, that all precious metals and minerals vested in the State, irrespective of whether the land was privately owned or was State land. There was never any question about trading rights, trading rights and surface rights generally, excepting rights necessary and incidental to mining, vested in the owner of the land. By a series of laws and enactments we have now arrived at a stage where the unfortunate owner of proclaimed land finds that he is no longer the owner of trading rights. There is no specific enactment divesting the owner of proclaimed land of trading rights, but there are various enactments restricting trading on proclaimed land. There is no Act definitely expropriating trading rights of private individuals on proclaimed land. None the less, as I say, these unfortunate private owners find themselves unable to exercise rights of ownership in respect of these very valuable trading rights. It is a matter of common knowledge that in some cases, at any rate, the trading rights bring in more money than the mineral rights. The mine on the property may be a gold mine, as far as the prospectus is concerned, but the trading rights are indeed a gold mine as far as the proprietors are concerned. The State not only collects vast sums of money in respect of these trading rights, but that money does not go to the owner of the land but into the State coffers, and it has been felt that that state of affairs is unjust. I think I can say that, because the House no later than 1936, in applying the Gold Law of the Transvaal to the Orange Free State, particularly stipulated that that part of the law dealing with trading rights should not be applicable in the Free State. Owners of private proclaimed land are not debarred from exercising trading rights on the land in the Free State. If they themselves fail to exercise these trading rights, then the State is entitled to sell them, but the proceeds go into the pocket of the owner. That everybody agreed at the time, is a fair state of affairs. There is a great deal more to be said on the merits of this particular motion, but I do not intend going any further into it because the principle has been affirmed by the House, and that very recently. I now want to turn my attention to the Minister. As I said, the hon. Minister and I are ad idem in this respect. I say that because in 1936 the hon. gentleman sat here, and he then appeared as the champion of these oppressed Transvaal landowners. He is not only a lawyer of eminence, but a soldier of renown, and he was also the leader then, as he is now, of a political party. He represents now a far bigger party than he did then as leader of the comparatively small but vociferous Dominion Party. Now this motion I copied almost verbatim from the motion moved by the hon. Minister in 1936. I copied it out of Hansard, and I would like to read what the hon. Minister then said in case his memory has become dimmed with the passage of these four years. The Minister started by setting forth the history of the case as I have now done, and then he continues—

And continuing, the hon. member said—

Then he went on. He had a difficulty with the hon. Minister (Mr. Duncan), who said that the difficulty was a technical one, and that for technical reasons it would be impossible to frame an amendment to meet the case. The present Minister of Mines then was very much in my position, and I hope he has not forgotten what it feels like to be in opposition. Continuing, he said—

That is what I have done, I have consulted the parliamentary draughtsman and he has drawn for me the identical amendment which was drawn for the Minister, and I think I have every right to expect that when you ask in a few moments a seconder to second this amendment, that the hon. Minister will rise in his place and second this motion. I am going to appeal to Dr. Jekyll to intercede with Mr. Hyde on my behalf. There is one more point the Minister made, and that was putting off the evil day, as Mr. Duncan wanted to do, to the next session. He stressed the fact that more Transvaal landowners might be prejudiced. That was what the present Minister said. I say the same here, and I ask the Minister not to get up in reply to me and say that next session he will introduce legislation to this effect. Those very words were used by Mr. Duncan. He admitted the principle, he admitted the necessity for the amendment, but he said that this was not the place to do it, and that next session he would introduce an amendment. I suggest to the Minister that these ministerial “next-sessions” never come. You might just as well promise me to do it at some indefinite date, because we know that circumstances beyond his control no doubt will prevent him from doing it.

How much money is at stake?

It runs into thousands and thousands of pounds. Vast sums are at stake. The principle was not disputed by Mr. Duncan, he admitted the justice of the claims, but argued that for technical reasons such an amendment could not be introduced at this stage.

I second. I hope the Minister of Mines will accept this amendment. As the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth) said it is almost word for word the same amendment as the Minister himself proposed a few years ago; on that occasion the Minister very strongly urged the adoption of that amendment. He stated at the time that he had received a petition from more than 100 land owners in which a request was made for the Free State law to be applied to the Transvaal. The then Minister of Mines pointed to the position of trading rights in the Transvaal. He said that they were unsound and that they were causing considerable difficulties, and when he introduced the Free State Gold Law he diverted from the Transvaal system under which the trading rights were awarded to the highest bidder, and in the Free State he followed the system of the owner retaining the trading rights. Provision was, however, made that if an owner did not make use of those trading rights the State could step in and could establish eating houses and shops. The Minister pointed out that in the Transvaal excessively high prices had been paid for trading rights. The individual obtaining those rights regarded them in the light of a monopoly with the result that if the Department concluded that if an additional shop was required on certain mining ground such a shop could not be established because the individual possessing the trading rights said that it would interfere with his rights. He had paid an excessive price for his rights and he was disposed so to arrange his trading activities that he could make as much as possible out of them. He made his prices high and sold inferior articles and did everything possible to make the largest possible profits out of those rights, and it was for that reason that the then Minister of Mines, and the present Minister as well, felt that the Transvaal system should be changed, and consequently that system was not applied to the Free State, but the trading rights were left to the owners, and the present Minister wanted to extend the Free State system to the Transvaal. I am surprised that the Minister himself did not put in this amendment.

I think I had better reply to this at once, but before doing so I should like to express my deep sense of gratitude to the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth) not only for the way in which he has introduced this motion, but also for the care which he has taken to furnish me with a series of amendments based upon the motion he is now moving, and upon other cognate matters. It shows that the hon. member has paid great attention to the draft of this Bill, at any rate in the last few hours. Whether he has paid as much attention to this subject during the past few years is another question, to which I will come later, but I am indebted at the start, let me say, for his having furnished me with the draft of his motion, and with other amendments which he intends to base upon that. But I want to thank him still more for the very high compliment which he has paid me; I think it is the highest compliment I have ever had paid to me, because he is asking this House to support his motion on the ground that I once supported the same motion and the same principle. If only the hon. member had paid attention to the other arguments which I have used from time to time on the other measures which I have introduced, and had allowed my persuasiveness to have that weight with him, which evidently it has with him, how different would have been the career of the hon. member. So far from sitting on that side of the House, I can see him occupying a prominent and responsible position on these benches opposite to you; but no, the hon. member has reserved for this particular measure that tribute to my perspicacity and to my high purpose.

Because on this occasion you were right.

Well, let me be grateful for what I have got. I am thankful to him for that tribute. Now I suppose from the hon. member’s method and manner, if not from the substance of his remarks, he expects me to be rather embarrassed by the motion which he quoted me as having moved and by the fact that he was moving a similar motion at present—and he anticipated that I would not support his motion. He is perfectly correct in anticipating that I shall not support his motion. But he is not correct in assuming that I have any feeling of embarrassment. Let me say that I am quite unrepentant of what I said then. I know perfectly well what I said then, and I know perfectly well why I said it, and I also know how it was received then. When I moved this motion in the terms in which I did, and used the words which are recorded in Hansard—I knew exactly what I was doing. The only thing I am sorry for now is that my persuasiveness did not carry the House with me at the time, because I would not have been put in the position in which I am now in having to move a Bill to get the country out of a complex position which may well be described as a mess. Had they adopted the motion and the course of action which I advocated at that time some half a dozen years ago.

It is never too late to mend.

The hon. member seems to think that because I thought that dose of medicine was good for the country six years ago, it is good for the country now. Do not things happen in six years?

There has been no change here.

The hon. member doubtless knows what it is like to be made to swallow a black draught, but is the hon. member, because he has been made to swallow a black draught on a particular occasion, of opinion that when anyone else comes along now to offer him a black draught he is forced to swallow it again?

It is not what you swallowed, it is what you said.

What was good for the country six years ago, what may have been not only feasible but very desirable legislation six years ago, may not be so now under a different state of affairs and a different set of facts. And let me remind the hon. member of one thing. At that time when this motion which I moved was before the House, we had just been sitting in Select Committee on this general question of mine trading.

And the Select Committee recommended this motion.

Yes, I know; I was following up the Select Committee in moving that. We were considering the amendment of the Trading Law on mining property with regard to South Africa as a whole—we were adopting holus bolus, for a great part of the country—that new mining country which we all hope is going to develop, and which I think will develop in the near future—the Free State—our minds were concentrated upon it, and we were adopting a method, this new principle of giving the owners the trading rights. I moved then that that area should be extended, and there were good reasons why that area should be extended at that time. It was not so long since the country had gone off the gold standard, and having gone off the gold standard, the price of gold was rising rapidly, and with the rapid rise in the price of gold lots of low-grade propositions and doubtful propositions were becoming highly attractive, and it was known that there was going to be proclamation under the Gold Law, and large tracts of country in the Transvaal were going to be proclaimed, and it was quite feasible then to have included all that country, all those tracts of country, which are only divided by a stream of water from the Free State, and to have made that responsive to the new principle of giving trading rights to owners. Since that time these areas have been proclaimed. The trading rights have been dealt with not under the law I advocated, but under the existing Gold Law, and under the terms of the Mine Trading Act. For all these years Parliament has not moved in the direction of the advocates or of those who were suggesting that trading rights on mining land belonged to the owner. But those people have been silenced. And the hon. member for Zoutpansberg has just got this spurt, and his spurt just happens to coincide with the time that I was introducing this Bill. Has he in the past ever supported me?

I accepted the Minister’s promise that he would introduce a Bill next year.

And all these members opposite, far from their supporting me at that time when the motion which I was introducing was germane to the subject, and the opportunity was appropriate—they voted against me, and now they come forward for the purpose of saying “You have got to adopt this new principle and apply it because of your vote of that time.”

What would the Minister think of the men behind him—did they support him?

A more telling example of the influence of politics cannot be given than the attitude of members who then voted against me, and who are now trying to drag this principle in. Let me remind this House what this Bill is about. It is not a Bill for the purpose of dealing with or extending trading or mining land. It is nothing of the sort. If it was, there would be a great deal to be said for the introduction of the principle which the hon. member speaks for. Whether it would be feasible or not, I am not going to say at the present moment—but that is not the case. I am not introducing a Bill of that kind—this Bill has nothing to do with the general alteration of trading rights on mining lands, but it is designed just to meet one set of difficulties into which the country has got. These difficulties may I, without reflection on the country, its laws or anything, call a mess, because it is really a mess. The mess we have got into has been accumulating for the last six years, and more than one of my predecessors have acknowledged that because of the need for legislative action the mess was allowed to continue—they acknowledged that legislative treatment was needed, but for one reason or another they were unable to proceed. It has fallen to my lot now to have to introduce legislation which is going to meet this difficulty. What is the difficulty? So far from it affecting the whole of the trading rights of the country, it is dealing with a small group of traders who have no rights under the law at present, and who are trading illegally at present, and who would be prosecuted for illegal trading if I, as Minister of Mines, had not intervened with the authorities, and persuaded them to issue a licence without the sanction of the law under the promise that I would introduce some remedial legislation at a later date, following undertakings given by my predecessors. It is only to deal with that that I am introducing this measure, and it would be something quite contrary to Parliamentary procedure and practice, to the sense of what is right and proper, and advantageous in the public interest, if in a Bill of this kind advantage were taken of moving an instruction to completely overwhelm the subject matter of this Bill by introducing a matter which is extraneous to it, and outside of its scope as drawn.

If it were extraneous it would not have been possible for me to have moved it.

My hon. friend is putting into my mouth an interpretation which no one in the House thought of.

A perfectly reasonable interpretation.

That is the hon. member’s view.

Everyone will see that.

What I am saying is not that this is contrary to the rule which does not allow anything extraneous to the principle of a Bill to be tabled, or considered, but I am saying that this is a matter which would overwhelm the Bill, overwhelm the substance, and go beyond the substance of that which I am seeking to introduce for the purpose of putting right a wrong and putting right a mess which is existing at the present time. Now I want to appeal to the House to concentrate merely on this matter, to let this deal with a particular matter which it is designed to deal with, and do not try for any purpose, whether for fun or politics or anything else —do not try and wreck this Bill or overwhelm this Bill or stifle it by forcing the introduction of a matter which would overwhelm it and withdraw from the attention of the House the real trouble we are dealing with.

Are you in favour of the principle of granting the Transvaal land owners these rights?

I have already told this House that I have nothing to repent of the action which I took at the time, but I have also drawn sharp attention to the fact that the lapse of six years does not admit of a single expedient of a motion which might have beep appropriate then. The difficulty with which we are faced at present is that there have been a number of people who have been trading on what is called a reservation of an owner under Section 23 of the Gold Law. That is when before any land is proclaimed the owner is allowed to set aside his lands for farming, his buildings, etc., and on that land in years gone by a certain number of people under arrangement with the owner have been allowed to trade, and after proclamation of that land took place they continued to trade. They continued, in my opinion, without the authority of the law, and without the authority of the Mine Trading Act. I say that that definitely was the position from the legal point of view. And as they have been going on for these last six or seven years trading in that way they have put forward a case of very great hardship if they are turned off, and I have undertaken as my predecessors did, to see what remedial measures could be introduced. The measure I am putting forward goes a long way. I will not say that it covers every case which the traders want to be covered, but it goes a long way towards meeting that, and may I remind the hon. member for Zoutpansberg and the House, that in adopting this principle which is the principle of this Bill I am going as close to the principle of giving enlarged owners’ rights as it is possible to do. I am proposing in terms of this Bill that it should be made by Parliament compulsory on the Mining Commissioner under the conditions set out here to allow a trader who has been trading under conditions precedent to allow him to continue trading on a trading site. That is going very far indeed. No law has gone that length. I am introducing a principle which I think should go very far indeed to satisfy hon. members who now suddenly are converted to the principle of respecting the owners’ rights and owners’ claims.

We were always in favour of it and we accepted the Minister’s assurance that he would bring it in.

I am not concerned with an assurance by a former Minister who is no longer in the House, but I am going to be responsible for my own actions, but I do point out to the House that the conditions which I am called upon to deal with are conditions not of my own creation, they have grown up during these last five or six years, and I am now called upon to supply suggestions for a remedy. This Bill is the result of deep consideration—the deepest consideration I have been able to give it since I assumed office. It is not a conclusion hastily arrived at. For the purpose of meeting this particular difficulty— and I am not committing myself to meet anything else—I am introducing this Bill, and this Bill in the circumstances is the best I can think of. For these reasons I want to inform the hon. member that while I appreciate the kind things which he has been good enough to say about me I am unable to accept his motion.

Motion put, and the House divided:

Ayes—32:

Bekker, G.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

Grobler, J. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Swart, C. R.

Theron, P.

V. d. Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Viljoen, D. T.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob. Wilkens, Jan.

Tellers: F. C. Erasmus and J. J. Haywood.

Noes—56:

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark. C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van d. Byl, P. V. G.

Van Zyl, G. B.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Motion accordingly negatived.

House in Committee:

On Clause 2,

I should like to know from the Minister whether the reference there in line 23 to any particular trade will not involve us in difficulties? In terms of this particular amendment the Mining Commissioner will now be compelled in certain circumstances to issue the necessary licence in respect of any particular trade or calling. I should like to know whether that will not conflict with section 78 of the Act. There the right to trade is strictly limited to a general dealer’s business, or alternatively, to a kaffir eating house. It seems to me that there is an opening for first class litigation here. The law says to the Mining Commissioner: “You are under an obligation in certain circumstances to issue a licence to any particular trade without limiting it.” The applicant will be able to say what particular trade he refers to, but under section 78 of the Act it is made an offence for anyone to carry on such a trade. Then there are the provisions of section 2 of Act 13 of 1910 where these trades are limited to that of a general dealer and a kaffir eating house. These are points I raise and I take it that the Minister will reply.

Mr. Chairman, I don’t think the hon. member quite sufficiently appreciates the difference between the provisions relating to trading on open proclaimed ground, and ground held under mining title. He has referred to Clause 78. Clause 78 in the Gold Law refers to land held under mining title, and Clause 2 in the Trading on Mining Ground Regulations Act refers to ground which is held under mining title. The two things are quite different, and the provisions relating to them are entirely different. May I say further, in answer to the point that he made under Section 78. Section 78 of the Gold Law, which relates to stands on open proclaimed ground, refers only to stands under the Gold Law, and it has got nothing to do with sites under the Trading on Mining Ground Regulations Act. There is a radical difference between a trading stand and a trading site, and may I say further that with regard to Section 28, when the hon. member raises the question whether the owner or his nominee will be able to choose whatever trading he likes, whatever business he likes, and that therefore there is conflict between that particular provision under the Trading on Mining Ground Regulations Act, I draw his attention to the terms of Clause 78—

That is the provision of Section 78, and in practice, although it is not compulsory, the Mining Commissioner does, or at least he has in the past, restricted the conditions to kaffir eating houses and a general trading licence.

It seems to me the matter could have been put far more clearly. As the clause stands, it is open to confusion, and I suggest that the Minister should take the opportunity in another place, of rectifying it. I would like to know whether the Minister is aware of the contents of the Report of the Mining Ground Commission of 1935, and if so, why the recommendations of that report have been so consistently ignored? The State went to considerable expense in connection with this commission of inquiry, a large number of witnesses were called, and I find that all through this Bill the recommendations of the commission are entirely ignored.

Mr. Chairman, the answer is very simple and very definite. The conclusions of this commission will doubtless be considered by the Government, by me or by anybody else who happens to be in charge, when the time comes for revising or consolidating the Trading on Mining Ground Regulations or the Gold Law, but this is not a Bill that sets out to do that. I am not concerned with all this gamut of recommendations, I am concerned only with putting right one wrong, one set of facts which have created this mess, and which has led to illegal trading at the present time.

Why should we not work thoroughly, why should each Minister come along with a small Bill dealing with only one aspect of the matter? In 1934 we had a two or three clause Bill patching this up. In 1936 we had the Bill that the hon. Minister tried to amend, as I have tried to amend this one this afternoon, and now, in 1941, we are trying to amend the 1936 Bill. It seems to me the trouble all along is that no Minister of Mines so far has been able to urge his officials to give proper attention to these matters. Surely, the hon. Minister with his martial spirit is the right man to do it. What is going to be the upshot of this? Already we have volumes of amending Acts, and now the Minister admits in so many words my contention about the report having been ignored, as far as its vital recommendations are concerned, and his excuse is that he is only dealing with one aspect of the question. Next year will he come along with another little Bill, or will he dismiss the matter for years?

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I want to know, in line 40, reference is there made to the provisions of stand licences; what does the hon. Minister mean by that, what provisions are going into the stand licences, has he got any control over the provisions?

I have just read you the clause.

No, I am dealing with something quite different, the amendment to paragraph 96.

Yes, it is Clause 78 of the Gold Law.

I don’t think it is open to that construction. It seems to me one has got to read something into this, what is meant by “in accordance with the provisions of stand licences”? Further, in this Bill we see the Minister takes power to settle the conditions on which stand licences are going to be issued. For instance, in Clause 5 (ter) the Minister has certain powers.

Five (ter) refers to ground held under mining title, and it deals with the conditions attaching to stand licences granted under Section 78 of the Gold Law. I have just read to the hon. member what the conditions may be. The conditions may be whatever the Mining Commissioner may attach to such ground, and he attaches whatever he thinks necessary, and in particular he may restrict the use of such a stand to a particular purpose. These are the conditions to which this proviso is referable.

That being so, will the Minister not give us some assurance that in settling those provisions the Mining Commissioner will have instructions to have regard to the recommendations of the report? I would like to refer, for instance, to the fact that in many of these localities there is great lack of competition. For reasons best known to himself, the Mining Commissioner says there is to-day one trading store, and he refuses to allocate a further stand. I say that on many of these proclaimed localities there is an insufficient number of trading stores, in most cases there is only one.

That is news to me.

I refer to this report, paragraph 81—

The report goes on to say—

It seems to me I was right in thinking that the Minister was unaware of this valuable report. The report goes on—

The recommendation of the committee was that a minimum of two stores, two trading sites, should be allocated, in each proclaimed area. I wonder whether the Minister will issue an instruction to his Mining Commissioners that that should be done. That is by no means the end of this valuable report. They comment sharply on the fact that there should be no ties, that businesses carried on on these trading stands should not be tied in any respect. I would like to know, will the Minister give heed to this, and instruct his Mining Commissioners to make a provision that when these stands are allocated the businesses carried on there shall not be tied? The Commissioners’ comment on this is contained on page 37, sub-paragraph (4). They say that the occupier shall not enter into any agreement called a tie, whereby he binds himself to purchase goods from any person to the exclusion of others. This condition is new, but its inclusion was thought advisable, because it was alleged in general terms by more than one witness that a tied system is in operation, although no specific evidence of its existence was given. There are other practices which the Commissioners thought it necessary to comment on. Is the hon. Minister going to take steps to see that no monopoly is obtained, that no big business concern can start a system of chain stores, which is probably already the case? There is every reason to think that the influence which this very wealthy class of merchant has obtained is already so great that no political party in power, so far, has been able to interfere with that in any way.

May I say my general reply to this is the one I have given before, that I am not setting out in this Bill, still less in clause 3, I am not setting out to give effect to the recommendations of this commission. I have not purported to do so. If the hon. member wants to remind me again and again and again that the terms of this Bill do not carry out the recommendations of that particular commission, I admit it, I admitted it from the first, I have never challenged it; I don’t pretend to do it, nor do I purport to do it. And how that can be a criticism on clause 3, I fail to understand.

It is a criticism on every clause in the Bill.

I do not understand how that can possibly be, still less how it can be a criticism on clause 3. I admit that we are not carrying out all the recommendations of the commission to which the hon. member has referred.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On clause 4,

This clause is also not so simple as it looks. Here we have a clause which may possibly, and I think probably will, interfere with the rights which were formerly safeguarded. Under clause 23 of the Gold Law, the owner of proclaimed land was entitled to a reservation in respect of his homestead and fenced lands, irrigation system, and so on and so forth. Now by this amendment it seems to me that the owner of the land will be seriously prejudiced. It is clear to me that the farmer will now fall within the provisions of this Bill. Surely it was never the intention of the law to prevent a farmer from carrying on the business of a farm on the lands which the old Gold Law reserved to him. If that is the case, I suggest the Minister takes the matter up, and introduces the necessary amendments at a later stage.

I am quite satisfied that this does not interfere with any farming rights. Of course it was never intended to do so. The language which is followed here is the language of the existing law, in the Trading on Mining Ground Act, clause 2. We are using the same term here, “business or trading.” Nobody has yet described the farmer as a trader.

No, but he carries on the business of a farmer.

Very few farmers fall in the category of business men.

They may be poor business men, but farming is a business.

No, I am afraid I differ from the hon. member. I don’t think there is the slightest chance of any court of law describing or thinking that a farmer who is selling his produce, which he grew on his owner’s reservation, is carrying on a trade or business within the terms of this prohibition. I am satisfied that the position under the Gold Law and under the Mines Trading Act has been established in that respect beyond all possibility of controversy.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On clause 5,

I should like the Minister to give me his view on this point. Some time ago a mining company in my division saw fit to close down one of their compounds, and distribute the occupiers to three different places. Owing to the fact that the compound was closed down, the concessionaire lost his business. I understand that he is entitled to a site somewhere in another part of the mine, but where these labourers were moved to there are already in existence three stores, and what is the position of the concessionaire in a case of this sort? Is the hon. Minister going to give this man a site in the vicinity of these compounds, where there are already three concession stores? There is a case which will have to be dealt with in the near future.

Mr. Chairman, the reply is this. If the native inhabitants of a compound are moved to another site on the same property, then the Mining Commissioner has the option or the right of setting aside a fresh trading site in the neighbourhood of the compound to which they have been moved. But subject to the operation of Clause 5, I think it is, on the Trading on Mining Ground Regulation Act, Clause 5, sub-section (4). Subject to that the Mining Commissioner can set aside a new trading site in the neighbourhood of the compound to which the natives have been removed, on the same property, but the Mining Commissioner has to be satisfied, having regard to the number of persons residing or employed in the neighbourhood of the proposed site to the number of existing traders supplying the needs of such persons, and to the distance of the proposed site from the nearest township, that there is public necessity for the additional trading facilities aforesaid. The provisions of that make it quite clear that there will be no transfer to a new site in lieu of the old site, to the detriment of those traders, because the provisions of the existing law insist that the Mining Commissioner must have due regard to the existing facilities, and whether there is necessity for the new site. I hope that makes it clear.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

I move—

Before I get on to that amendment I want to deal with an amendment a little bit higher up in the paragraph. In line 59 I see the Minister can sell, by public auction, subject to such conditions as he may prescribe. I wonder whether the Minister will let us into the secret and tell us what conditions he intends prescribing. The Minister takes up the attitude that he is not concerned with any reports, but only with amending this law in one or two respects. Let us concede that this Bill does not delve very deeply into the mining law, but surely that is no reason why we should not do it properly, and if the Minister is taking power to settle the conditions on which this land is to be sold, the Committee should have some inkling as to what those conditions are going to be, and whether the Minister will have some regard to this report. I want to ask whether he is going to make it a condition that no man shall hold more than one trading stand; is he going to make it a condition that no lessee of a trading stand shall be entitled to form part of a chain of stores, is he going to make it a condition that no lessee shall tie himself?

You can’t expect him to do anything.

I still hope for the best. Is the Minister going to carry out the recommendation of the Commissioners by limiting this very great privilege to Union nationals? On page 30, paragraph 182, the Commissioners say—

If the hon. Minister does not find himself in a dilemma, he should. There he sits, treating this very serious matter with contempt, roaring with laughter when all the rest of us here are serious. It was because of this—

Will you put the dilemma to me?

Yes, show us the horns.

It was on this very issue whether South Africa and South African nationals should come first, or whether other people could come first, that the Minister walked out of the United Party in 1933, and it is on this very question that the hon. Minister walked back again into the United Party.

That is not correct.

The position remains that if the hon. Minister does not feel himself in a predicament, he should feel in a predicament. Most of the hon. members sitting behind him have reiterated the fact that they are 100 per cent. South African, some of them think they are 200 per cent. South African. This afternoon we shall give them an opportunity of doing something about it, of voting, and by that voting showing whether they really mean that or not. That leads me to the essential difference between the Minister and his new followers. The Minister has always said that South Africa ranks a very poor second, in his estimation, and that England comes first.

I never said anything of the sort.

And he has acted accordingly, and I myself admire him and respect him for it. The hon. gentlemen sitting with him say they put South Africa first, but what they have done is a different matter. I come back to the question whether it would not be just and equitable for us to limit this very great privilege that we are giving these strangers from England, Scotland and other places, to South African nationals. What can possibly be the objection? Unless, of course, it is that the Minister, who has always been quite candid about it, does not put South Africa first.

I want to bring to the notice of the Minister the question of trading on certain mines on the Far East Rand which have been closed down during the last two or three years. I refer particularly to the West Vlakfontein and Spaarwater Mines. As a result of these mines closing down certain traders thereon have also had to close down their businesses temporarily, and I should like the Minister to tell us what the position of these traders will be, whether their rights are entrenched in this section 6 or not, and generally, what his attitude is towards these traders. I believe there are about half a dozen of them who are affected and they have made representations to me and, I understand, to the Minister’s department. They have asked me to raise the matter in the House with the Minister, and I should like the Minister to tell us now what his attitude is. Then there is just one other point. I want to ask the Minister some information on Clause 5 bis. The clause says: “The purchaser of the said right shall at the time of the sale pay the purchase price to the Mining Commissioner who shall deduct therefrom the cost of the sale, and pay the balance into the Consolidated Revenue Fund.” Will the Minister tell us what the costs of such a sale will be, and whether there is any reason why the cost thereof should not be borne by the purchaser? Why should the State bear the cost? The general principle is that when a property is bought the purchaser bears all the costs. In an ordinary sale of immovable property the costs of transfer duty, conveyancing fees and so on, are paid by the purchaser. I submit that there is no reason in this particular case why one should depart from the ordinary principle that the purchaser pays the cost of the sale and I personally can see no reason why the State should have to pay these expenses.

I wish to support the amendment of the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth). I feel from the way the Minister spoke that it is perfectly clear he has no intention of accepting it. I must say honestly that I believe the hon. member for Zoutpansberg to be an optimist if he thinks the Minister is going to accept his amendment. I want to pay the Minister of Mines this compliment, and say that I believe he has so much influence over the Cabinet—because the Cabinet is dependent on his support in order to remain in power— that he can accept anything and can refuse anything and the Government will acquiesce.

I must ask the hon. member to get back to the amendment.

I shall be very pleased to be allowed to conclude my argument and not to be interrupted half way in the course of my argument.

The hon. member must get back to the clause.

I shall proceed with my argument. The Minister has the opportunity in this clause of putting in the principle of South Africa first. When we have a Bill before this House which gives us the opportunity of giving preference to a Union National we should see to it that it is done, and there should be no difference of opinion on the question. I think the Minister will agree with me that any country in the world will welcome the opportunity of affording protection to its own nationals and that no Minister in any country would refuse to accept an amendment like the one which has been proposed here to-day. I therefore want to ask the Minister for the time being to look upon himself as a typical South African Minister and to concern himself with the people in our country, and to accept this amendment. Can the Minister tell us who are the people who run those business institutions on mining grounds? I should like to know from him whether the majority of them are Afrikaners. I am so convinced that the majority are not Afrikaners that I am prepared to ask the hon. member for Zoutpansberg to withdraw his amendment if the Minister gives us his assurance that the majority of them are Afrikaners. I am convinced that very few of those people trading on mining ground are Afrikaners, and that being so I want to appeal to the Minister to give the Afrikaners the opportunity of running their business in their own country. There is another matter I wish to bring to the Minister’s notice. He knows the tragic things that have occurred on the Witwatersrand in connection with the sale of these types of businesses, and it is largely on account of that that these business undertakings are in the hands not of Afrikaners but of unAfrikaans people. I again want to appeal to the Minister to tell us who the people are who own these concerns. I understand that there are 20 or 30 of them and we should be pleased if the Minister would tell us who they are. I believe their names would convince him of the fact that this amendment is not only fair and reasonable, but that it is an essential amendment here in South Africa.

This is a very important amendment, but I am afraid that notwithstanding the pleas which have been put up from this side of the House the Minister of Mines will turn a deaf ear, because so far he has always refused to admit that there is such a thing as a Union national. In his opinion, there are only British subjects. I wish to mention a consideration, however, which unquestionably will weigh with him. Even in England provision is made for the protection of citizens of the country itself as against foreigners. In this country we have no protection under our Immigration Acts, and for that reason we are moving this amendment. In England a person entering the country is prevented from getting a trading licence. He cannot get work, or start a business. The British subjects are protected against foreigners coming into the country, but if we from this side of the House put up a plea for the protection of Union nationals against foreigners from overseas, then it is taken amiss, and yet we are doing no more than any self-respecting country should do. I want to point out, however, that the Commission on Trading on Mining Ground, which was appointed by the Government in 1934-35, went fully into this question and produced a very thorough report, and after having investigated and considered this matter, that commission recommended that no person who was not a Union national should be allowed to obtain a trading licence on mining ground. The commission said this—

The commission, which made a thorough investigation into this matter and which went into all the malpractices in connection with it, laid it down as a condition that trading licences should only be granted to Union nationals. The commission went on to say—

This recommendation, that Union nationals only should have the right of obtaining these trading licences was unanimously agreed to. What struck me was that the majority of the commission which made this recommendation did not consist of Afrikaans-speaking people, but of English-speaking people. They cannot be accused of racialism in making a proposition of that kind. Their unanimous recommendation was that this privilege should be granted to Union nationals only. I am convinced that this recommendation should weigh with the Minister of Mines. If he gets a recommendation from a commission like that, he should set his own prejudices aside, and he should restrict the issue of trading licences to Union nationals.

Let me deal with this question of Union nationals first. Hon. members who have spoken seem to think that I have some ingrained hostility to the introduction of the words “Union nationals”. Let me tell them that that is without a vestige of justification. I find difficulty in accepting this amendment for reasons which I am going to give, and I shall be pleased if hon. members will resolve my difficulty. First of all, I want to know whether the hon. member for Zoutpansberg is really in earnest in moving this, and whether he knows what the effect of this would be? He proposes to omit persons above the age of twenty-one. Does the hon. member wish to delete the word “white” as well?

No.

Well, that clears up one thing. Let me just remind the Committee of what we are doing. I must say again that this is not a general amendment, either of the Gold Law or of the Trading on Mining Ground Act. If we were dealing with the Gold Law or the Trading on Mining Ground Act generally, you might introduce this amendment right through. The last thing the Commissioners recommended was that instead of doing that throughout the Act, you should pick out one tiny group of people which does not exceed 20 or 30, and confine the term “Union national” to them, while for all the rest you are going to leave everything open to anyone. You are going to make a hotch-potch of the Gold Law and of the Trading on Mining Ground Act if you do that. That is the last thing they would have recommended. I as a lawyer have the greatest regard for the form as well as for the substance of the laws of the country, and I have the greatest objection to fathering the introduction of an amendment which would be an excrescence upon, and lead to absurd distinctions in the general law for the form of which I, as Minister, am to some extent responsible. The only thing which will be done by the amendment which the hon. member for Zoutpansberg is fathering now would be to restrict the right of an owner to select the people whom he wants on his own land. Does the hon. member want to do that? We are not dealing with the rights which are given away by the State. This Bill is not touching them at all. This Bill is designed to regulate and provide for the continuous trading of the people who have been selected by the owner of the land, who have been allowed by the owner of the land to trade there for three years, and to secure for them the right to continue to trade. Hon. members will therefore see the position which we would be reduced to if this amendment were accepted. An owner having chosen to let his land to someone who is not a Union national would be told that he was not allowed to do that. The owner, who presumably would be a good South African, might have chosen to let the trading right on his land to someone who is not a Union national. This non-Union national has now been trading there for three years. He has built up a good business, and has spent a good deal of money on his buildings, and because he is not a Union national the hon. member is now proposing to deny him the right to continue to trade there.

Then he must hire someone else and select a Union national.

It is perfectly possible to do that. But if the hon. member is going to do that, he is going to inflict on the owner and on the person he has chosen those very disabilities which have been a constant matter of complaint for the last six years, and which I am trying to remove. I am trying genuinely in this Bill to do something to make an approach as near as I can to giving the owner the maximum amount of right I can to get trading tenants, to choose whom he likes as trading tenants, and to secure the right to continue trading. The hon. member is proposing by this amendment to limit and cut down and to circumscribe the right of the owner to let his land to whom he pleases. Does the hon. member wish to do that? Would it not be rather absurd to say that an owner throughout the length and breadth of South Africa can let his land to anyone he likes, but if it comes to allowing a person to continue to trade at a place where he has been trading for three years before on proclaimed ground, he is not allowed to do so unless he is a Union national. Do hon. members appreciate the invasion there would be on the ordinary rights under the Common Law? I have no desire to favour anyone who is not a Union national as against Union nationals. It would be ridiculous and absurd, but I want to point this out. If the people who look to the hon. member for Zoutpansberg as a man of legal experience, as a man who will lead them …

The Minister has admitted that this will only affect twenty or thirty people.

Quite so. If you are going to legislate that twenty or thirty people may not continue to trade unless they are Union nationals while you allow all the rest of the people to trade even if they are not Union nationals, you are making an invasion on the Common Law of the country which I cannot justify. And no one else can. Do not hon. members opposite realise what has been the principle of the Gold Law from the very earliest days, from 1874 onwards, down to the present time? The rights to be conferred under the Gold Law from the Republican days to the present time have not been confined to Transvaal nationals or to Union nationals. The rights, the more important rights of mining, which are much more important and much more valuable, have been open to anyone who complied with the terms of the law. That is the old Republican Law. It has been the law of the Transvaal from those days down to the present. Are you going to get right across them, and say that although we are going to continue to allow all the other rights under the Gold Law and under all the other laws, under the Mine Trading Act you are going to do something different? In this particular case we are trying to help the owner of the land to secure his trading tenants and to keep his trading tenants—are we going to prevent him from keeping those people if they are not Union nationals? I could not justify it and I do not think the hon. member for Zoutpansberg can. I venture to think, if I may, with great respect for the hon. member for Zoutpansberg, that he did not quite realise how far the principle he is advocating is going, and he did not realise how utterly discordant it is with the general principles which are underlying the Gold Law, and have been from the earliest days until the present moment. You are going to say that you leave the Gold Law untouched in its main principles, but under this Bill you are going to allow anyone to occupy a trading stand, whether he is a Union national or not, but if he is trying to get a trading site as opposed to a trading stand—where he will be allowed to continue trading—as he has been doing for three years—he is not to be allowed if he is not a Union national. Is it not absurd? Hon. members must really bear in mind that we are not in this Bill altering the general effect of the Gold Law.

That is the attitude which other Ministers have taken up and that is why we are in this mess.

That is the attitude I am taking up now, and from the position in which the Bill now stands it appears probable that the House will take that attitude too. But the introduction of this amendment would lead to a complete anomaly. If it were not for that anomaly— I am not concerned in the least with trying to favour someone who is not a Union national at the expense of someone who is, but this is hitting at the farm owner. It is his right you are circumscribing, it is him you are interfering with. Having said that, I think I can pass on to the other points made. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg asked me what regulations we were going to enforce. The regulations have been enforced. This is merely a re-enactment of what is already in the law. The regulations were published in 1910 giving all the different conditions of sale. There are several pages of them and they are at the disposal of the hon. member.

That is an entirely different aspect of the case. Now the Minister is giving discretion. It says, “Such regulations as the Minister may prescribe”.

These are the ones prescribed by my predecessor!

Now the Minister has discretion.

It simply is a repetition of the provision that the Minister shall approve of the conditions of sale. If the Minister were to make any absurd conditions the matter would be published at once and Parliament would take appropriate action. The statement made here is merely a repetition of the existing law. I think that covers everything raised by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg.

I want to know whether you were going to include the recommendations of the Commission.

No, the recommendations of that Commission would require fresh legislation.

This is fresh legislation.

I know, but I am not going to set out to make a general reform of either the Gold Law or the trading on Mining Ground Act.

Why not?

Because I am not out to do it.

Surely it is necessary.

It is not the purpose of this Bill. For good or ill what I propose to do and what I am prepared to do is to introduce legislation which is calculated to put right the particular wrong which has been growing for the last six or eight years. Now the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) raised the question of the position at Spaarwater and West Vlakfontein. The position there is this: these mining properties got to a certain stage of development after a lot of money had been spent, and trading stores had been built, but owing to financial difficulties and comparatively poor results these mines were closed down. The question is what is to happen to the trader? The traders have settled that themselves in that they have shut down their businesses. Under the Gold Law the Minister of Mines, if the purpose of a trading site has come to an end, can cancel it. There is no vested right. It is a precarious title in the strict legal term, and a very precarious title it is. The owners I gather of these two trading stores have closed down. If they had been really entitled to trade, they would have received permission to close down for the time being and they would have been permitted to start trading again if conditions permitted it, if the mine reopened. But if they have no title, if their trading has been illegal, then they will not come under the terms of this Bill, and I see no reason why they should. We are only seeking here to continue to give persons the legal right of trading, who are already carrying on their trade. If they are doing that, it is hard to close them down, but if they are closed down by other circumstances, I see no reason why the State should go to their aid. That is the answer. The question was also raised as to why the costs should come from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. That is not a new provision. I am merely following the existing law.

Is it sound—surely it is not?

I do not know, the Consolidated Revenue Fund gets a very large sum out of these things.

You can say that about any men who sells land.

It is a very small item, and the Consolidated Revenue Fund gets very large sums indeed.

What sums does the State get from these trading sites?

You mean the upset price—it runs up to £15,000, I believe.

It runs up to £25,000.

I certainly know that they have got the figure I mention. Anyhow I do not think this is worth worrying about—it is a matter of a few sovereigns. Now the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) was evidently criticising the fact that trading rights have been getting into the hands of Jews. He did not actually have the courage to say that. Let me tell the hon. member this. That if the people who are occupying these trading sites, who happen to get these trading sites, happen to be Jews, I know of no reason why they should not be. It is open to anyone in the country to offer whatever terms they please, either to a private owner or in the case where a sale by auction is taking place, to the Mining Commissioner. If the hon. member wishes to induce me or the Government to go in for differential treatment against the Jews let me tell him here it will not be done. The hon. member for Bloemfontein District (Mr. Haywood) spoke of these traders getting preferential treatment. I may not have got this point correctly. If I got his point it was this, that some preference was being given to the traders who were going to be the subject matter of this Bill. There is nothing of the sort. That is a complete misconception. This Bill only seeks to perpetuate, to make legal the right to trade, which had already been negotiated by the owner of the farm.

The defence put up by thé hon. the Minister for not being prepared to accept this amendment is a very poor one. He first of all says that this amendment affects about forty people. He says it only touches the fringe of the problem, and he asks why those people should be deprived of the right to lease the land to people who are not Union nationals, while thousands of others are allowed to do so. I should like to know from the Minister whether he approves of the principle that only Union nationals should get these trading licences? If the Minister is in favour of the principle he should tell us so. He has given us the impression that he wants to take refuge behind the fact that this amendment only concerns part of the problem, but later on he also gave us the impression that he was not in favour of the principle. The Minister hides behind so-called vested rights; if we lay it down that the trading rights are only to be granted to Union nationals, then I want to know what rights are being taken away. The Minister says that there are people who have had those rights for years and years and that those rights will be taken away under this amendment. I want to say to the Minister that if there are people who for years and years have already had those trading rights and who are not yet Union nationals, then the sooner those rights are taken away from them the better. I want to put a question to the Minister. I want to point to the position in a country which he is particularly fond of, England. In that country people are not allowed to come in and trade; they cannot obtain any trading rights. Such people are regarded as foreigners, and they have not got the right to start business concerns. The people in England are protected by their Immigration Acts. We have no such protection. Now we come along here with legislation which touches a very delicate problem: a commission was appointed to go into the whole question. That commission was presided over by an English-speaking person, Mr. Page, a former magistrate of Johannesburg, and that commission made certain recommendations after having gone into the position, and one of its strongest recommendations was that henceforth trading rights should only be granted to Union nationals. How can the Minister ignore that recommendation in such a light-hearted fashion? I want the Minister to reply to the question in view of the fact that a Commission under the chairmanship of such an able person, an English-speaking person, a chief magistrate …. why he should ignore their recommendation? I do not think the Minister has made out a good case for the attitude he adopts. I want the Minister to tell us clearly whether he accepts the principle that Union nationals should receive preference in trade. I even go so far as to say that Union nationals should be the only ones to obtain those rights. We should leave alone these other matters behind which the Minister is trying to take refuge. We have a commission here which has made a strong recommendation. Why does the Minister not accept that? How can the Minister possibly get out of the thing as easily as he is trying to do now?

I should like to repeat the question which the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District (Mr. Haywood) has put to the Minister of Mines, namely, whether he accepts the principle that a Union national is entitled to receive preference. I do not want the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth) to have the effect of making the Minister think that there is something behind the amendment, which I personally feel. I want to admit openly that when we deal with trade I naturally want to put my own flesh and blood first, I want to put the people of my own flesh and blood first. But I do not want this amendment to be wrecked because the Minister says that I want to keep the Jews out of business. Let the Minister look at the amendment and he will see what is being proposed—it says here “to omit person of the age of 21 years or over, and to substitute adult Union national”. We are not now discussing the question of whether Jews or non-Jews should have the business, but we are pleading for Union citizens being given the preference. I want to say honestly that I do not expect the Minister to act any differently from what he has done, but I do not want the Minister to use as an argument for the rejection of the amendment the feellings which I personally have. I support the amendment because I feel that these rights should be given to Union nationals and not to other people. The Minister very light-heartedly refused to give us the names of the people who run those shops. The Minister said that all I wanted to do was to talk about the Jews, and that being so he was not going to give the names. And then he spoke about “selection of owners”. I should like to know who the people are whom the owners select. That was the reason why I asked for the names. I had no other reason. The Minister further said that he was not prepared to go into everything so far as the Gold Law was concerned. All he wanted to do was to improve certain minor points. We have an amendment here which affects 20 or 30 people and the Minister now tries to get away from his own argument and he tells us that he is not going totackle such a large and important question, but it is a minor matter, and consequently the Minister destroys his own argument. He cannot get away from the fact that it is desirable for these rights to be granted to Union nationals. I do not want to say that he wants to give preference to foreigners, but his sympathy for Union nationals is not what it should be. Is it incidentally a fact that not all the people who have those shops on the mines are Union nationals? Is it incidental that these people, generally speaking, are people who are unable to, or unwilling to, assimilate in this country? I want to repeat here what the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District, said. If the Minister is so greatly concerned about the question of vested rights, does he not think it is high time that those people who for years and years have had those vested rights should become Union nationals? I feel that the argument put forward by the hon. member for Bloemfontein, District, is very much to the point and that the Minister should accept the amendment. We want to go further than that; if the Minister refuses to accept the amendment we shall wait and see how hon. members opposite will vote, and we tell them in advance that we shall conclude from the way they vote whether they take up the attitude of South Africa first, whether they are prepared to give preference to Union nationals or not, and we shall tell the people outside that in this instance again hon. members were not prepared to give Union nationals the first chance, and that they voted side by side with the Minister who did not belong to the majority party but whose influence is so strong that the supporters of the United Party gave the preference to foreigners and not to Union nationals. This question has nothing to do with the Jewish question, it is merely a question of whether they put Union nationals first or not. I am therefore making an appeal to the Minister, and also to hon. members opposite, to accept this amendment.

I am disappointed with the answer the Minister has given. First of all, he takes up the attitude that it is out of consideration for the owners that he cannot accept the amendment. He suggested that the owners of the stands would suffer were they to be limited in their choice to Union nationals. That is the big reason. In reply to that, I referred him to this report which, apparently, his Department has failed to place before him. The commission came to the conclusion that by limiting the choice to Union nationals, the owner would not in any way be prejudiced. There is every argument why this amendment should be accepted, and the Minister has not raised one substantial argument against it. He departed from the first attitude he took up, and then turned about and said that it would be illogical for him to limit this type of trade to Union nationals unless you did it all over the Union.

No, simply throughout the Gold Law.

He has overlooked one important thing. This is a monopoly, these trading stores monopolise something in the neighbourhood of £1,000,000 per annum.

This is only dealing with owners, this is only the group of traders who are chosen by the owners, they can make the group as large as they like.

They monopolise trade which runs up to £1,000,000 per annum. There are many of them who turn over their goods four times a year; it says so in this report. That being so, how can it be said that because we want to treat these monopolists in this particular way, that therefore the rest of the Gold Law should have the same rule applied? If the hon. Minister wants to do that, let him do it. But because he cannot do it now is no reason why he should refuse to do what he can. He has taken one step in the right direction, but he will not go any further. There sits the Minister of Labour; surely he cannot subscribe to this.

You cannot drag me into this.

The Minister knows perfectly well the irregularities that are to be found in connection with this monopoly, and I suggest that that is a complete answer to the Minister. I want to get back to this report. I am disappointed that the Minister is now going to follow the course that his predecessors took in this matter. He now says there are regulations framed under the law, and he is not prepared to depart from them. I say the State is losing revenue because the recommendations of this commission have not been adopted in this Bill. There is one aspect of this case which struck me, if I apprehended correctly, and that is the rental paid by these mine traders is calculated by their turnover, and that turnover is to be established by the trader. Any business man would think that the only way to establish a turnover is to produce a properly audited account. In this matter the commission made certain comments on page 36, article 230—

And then it goes on to set forth the sliding scale. The report goes on—

They go on to say—

Obviously the affidavits don’t set forth the truth. The commission recommends to stop this leakage that audit statements should not be put in. Now what is the Minister’s excuse for not doing that?

Will the hon. member tell me what that has to do with this clause?

This clause gives the Minister power to sell by public auction stands subject to such conditions as the Minister may prescribe. I put it to the Minister, how far is he going to be guided by this report in framing these conditions? The Minister replied that he was going to ignore the report and confine himself to current practice. I therefore think I am at liberty to read to the Minister—

I don’t think that justifies the hon. member in reading the whole report.

I am not reading the whole report, but that part which says that there is a leakage of State revenue based on turnover. I am suggesting, as a remedy, that audited statements should be put in, and not merely an affidavit by somebody who is not even a Union national. If the Minister has a reason for not doing that, I am sure the Committee would be interested to hear what it is. There is another point. In sub-clause (5) (bis) it says that the purchase price of one of these trading stands shall be paid to the Mining Commissioner at the time of the sale, and the cost of the sale will be deducted and paid into the consolidated revenue fund. The point I am on is this. In the past, I believe, this purchase price was paid annually.

No, that is not correct. You are confusing trading stands and trading sites. A trading site is something which is given under the Trading on Mining Ground Act, and the trading stand is given under the Gold Law, the sections under which trading stands were given have now been repealed, but the trading stands remain in being. There was no capital sum in respect of trading stands. Sale by auction was introduced in respect of trading sites.

Well, this rule covers both now.

If I can introduce into the conditions something in respect of audited reports, I will look into that, and endeavour to do so. I cannot make a positive statement at the moment, but I will endeavour to tighten that up. I think I have answered all the other points.

Excepting why you cannot accept the amendment.

Well, I have said that again and again. There is no question of vested rights here at all. Hon. members opposite will not accept from me, or, reading the Bill, will not appreciate the fact that this is not dealing with trading rights on mining ground generally, it is only allowing an owner to secure for those whom he has chosen, not whom the State has chosen, but whom he has allowed to trade for two or three years and taken rent from, whether they were Union nationals or not, securing to them the right of being allowed to continue to trade. It will be an excrescence on the Gold Law, and altogether unjust to circumscribe it in that way. I have yet to learn that those who trade generally are not Union nationals; my own impression is, not having a list here, that they are in nearly every case. My impression is that the owners of farms have, generally speaking, chosen Union nationals. If they have not I am not prepared to single them out to be penalised.

The Minister of Mines refuses to accept this amendment because, so he says, it will cause discrimination. I just want to tell the Minister that his clause already contains discrimination, although I quite agree with the provision. It says this, that those rights can only be given to white persons. We have discrimination there and I agree with it.

That is the existing law.

As we have this discrimination in the clause the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) should object, but she remains silent. We want to go a little further. We have the hon. member for Cape Town Castle (Mr. Alexander) over there, and the hon. member for Cape Flats (Mr. R. J. du Toit) and the hon. member for Cathcart (Mr. van Coller) who is always so concerned about the natives. They are not prepared to give these rights to natives— there is discrimination there in favour of the whites; we are pleased that that is so, but now we want to go a little further and we want to restrict it to Union nationals. Discriminate a little further, stretch your conscience a little further, or rather give effect to your principles a little further. I knew very little about this matter, but I read the report of the Commission and I saw this strong recommendation to the effect that those rights should only be given to Union nationals. The Commission in its report (in 1935) says that the reasons for restricting the rights to Union nationals are important. It is an important matter. Here we have a Commission which has reported that there are great benefits in connection with this matter, and they say that it is an important matter and that those rights should be restricted to Union nationals. We certainly expected the Minister to have had the courage to insert a provision to that effect. We now have a new Minister of Mines with new ideas, but he comes along again with patch work. Why does he not bring in a consolidating bill in regard to the whole of our mining question? Why does he not bring in a Bill to fit in with modern conditions and a Bill which aims at removing the difficulties which prevail in connection with the mines? He comes here with a little bit of a Bill and even now it is incomplete. He does not accept this important recommendation. He says that he does not want to discriminate against the Jews. We are not asking him to do so, but what we say is that only Union nationals should have the right to secure those important trading rights.

This has been a very pretty little argument, on two sides, about this process of making money out of the natives of this country. I am rather inclined to think the hon. member who moved this thinks that if money has to be made out of the natives, it should be reserved for Union nationals to make it. He does not see why people should come from other countries and exploit our natives. If they have to exploited, why shouldn’t they be exploited by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth) and his Nationalist colleagues.

Are you a South African national?

I am a Union national. As I say, if the natives are to be exploited, why should not the hon. member for Zoutpansberg and his colleagues exploit them? The only difference between the hon. member and the Minister is that the Minister is prepared to allow anybody to exploit the natives, whereas the hon. member would confine the process to “ware Afrikaners,” and particularly members of the Nationalist Party. Now why should the natives be exploited? That, I think, is a matter we are justly entitled to draw the attention of the House to, and to see precisely how this matter of trading rights has grown up. I have been surprised to see the casual manner in which the hon. Minister of Mines, supplemented by the hon. Minister of Finance, who I always understood was the leader of the liberals in this country, determined not to see the natives exploited, I have been surprised to see the casual manner in which they say these trading stands are worth up to £15,000. I think the Minister of Finance said they were worth anything up to £20,000. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg has said they are worth £25,000. Now why should they be worth all this money? It is because the exigencies of the mining position brings a large collection of natives into the compounds, and by granting some individual who offers the highest amount of money, a right to trade, it is made possible for that individual to raise as much as £20,000. It is obvious that that trading site is able to show a quick return for an investment of £20,000, and it is also quite obvious to me that the people who provide the custom are being exploited. There is not arithmetical argument against it. If by merely getting a trading site you are in a position to show a good return, and it must be a good return, because there is keen competition amongst both Union nationals and non-Union nationals for these trading sites, if you can show a good return on an investment of £20,000, it proves to me that it is the natives who are being exploited, and paying the piper. These trading sites become valuable because nature has blessed the ground in the Transvaal with the presence of gold. And allegedly under our legislation —I say allegedly because it is one of the little pieces of self deception which we put across ourselves. Gold allegedly belongs to the people of the country and the benefits should accrue to the people of the country.

I agree.

Well, your friends do not agree; they want to keep these benefits for Union nationals.

Why not say bilingual Union nationals.

Can anyone who is not bilingual be a Union national? I appeal to hon. members over there; they have been attempting to talk economics. I appeal to them if they are concerned about this position of trading rights on mining ground, this position which we want rectified—which seems to have grown up from the bad old days—but which should be rectified—I appeal to them and I want to tell them that they are not going to rectify it by doing the thing they are trying to do. Why don’t they say that the gold of South Africa should belong to the people of South Africa.

I think the hon. member is going too far from the clause.

The clause deals precisely with the question of how trading rights have to be sold.

The policy has to be discussed on the second reading and not in Committee.

I am not discussing policy, I am discussing the clause.

Order!

Now I don’t know where I am; I don’t know what I have to say now.

The hon. member must not discuss the policy or principles of the Bill.

I assure you, Mr. Chairman, I am not discussing the policy. I am opposing the principle and the method laid down in the clause whereby these trading sites are sold to anyone, provided they are white persons. I am suggesting to the Minister and to members over there that it is high time these particular trading rights were retained in the hands of the State.

The hon. member must not pursue that.

I am not pursuing it; it is high time something were done to protect the State. I object to exploitation. It is high time we realised that the assets of the Union should be kept in the Union. We should get away from this system of auctioning the assets which belong to the people and which the Government has no right to put up to auction at all, and they are assets which the Government should retain.

Why not have State trading?

Why not? There is nothing wrong with it. If you buy a railway ticket it is State trading, only there is no opposition there, it is a monopoly. And any monopoly should be in the hands of the State. That is why you get £20,000 for a stand. [Time limit.]

If the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Burnside) wants to be consistent he should vote for the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth). The hon. member states that the assets of the State should be reserved for the people of the country, and what is being proposed here by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg amounts to that, because we are dealing here with an asset in the form of a monopoly which is being created by the State under this Bill now before the House. We are dealing here with an important principle, namely, that of giving people of our own country, of giving Union nationals, the preference over people coming from outside, when such important rights are given out by the State. We are dealing with the principle of a Union national getting preference over people from outside who may perhaps have been a week or two in the country. That is the principle at issue. The word discriminate has been used here. It is discrimination, but it is discrimination which is fully justified, namely discrimination in favour of our own people—the people of this country as against people from outside who may perhaps be a few weeks in the country. I hope hon. members opposite will feel, as the hon. member for Umbilo has said, that the assets of the country must be reserved for the people of the country, and I hope hon. members will think twice before voting against this important principle which is at stake here. If we take away all other points, the principle amounts to this, that we have to look after our own people in the first place and only after that should we look after people who who have come to this country from elsewhere. The principle is perfectly clear and plain. There is no need for us to say anything more about it. I heartily support the amendment and I trust hon. members opposite will realise that the principle at issue is a very important one.

Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the Clause,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—53:

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payn, A. O. B.

Reitz,. D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van d. Byl, P. V. G.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—33:

Badenhorst, A. L.

Bekker, G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Brits, G. P.

Conradie, J. H.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

Erasmus, F. C.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Oost, H.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Swart, C. R.

Theron, P.

V. d. Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and P. O. Sauer.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment, proposed by Mr. Rooth, dropped.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 7,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clause and the Title of the Bill, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The Chairman reported the Bill with amendments; amendments to be considered now.

Amendments in Clause 7 put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Third reading of the Bill on 7th March.

When this Bill was being discussed on the second reading the Minister of Lands stated that I had confused the issue, that I did not understand the position, and that my contentions were wrong. I made certain statements. My first statement was that, to my mind, this Bill had been wrongly drafted. My second statement was that the State was now going to give transfer of more land than had originally been disposed of under the principal Act. In other words, more land is being given up. Thirdly, I contended that there might be existing rights to that land of which additional transfër is now being given and those existing rights were being destroyed. Those were my contentions. As the Minister stated that I had confused the position, I again want to make the position perfectly clear. First of all I want to take my contention that this Bill has been wrongly drafted. Clause 1 of the Bill reads as follows:

I want the Minister to take a note of this, that we have here the words “by virtue of” another clause appearing in another law—

By virtue of that clause of the Act of 1897 transfer of this property is given to the City Council of Cape Town. I am not even going to move an amendment to this clause, because I am convinced that if the Government comes forward with the grant under this clause, the office of the Registrar of Deeds will not pass it, because all the Minister can give transfer of is land which belongs to the Cape Town City Council by virtue of that law. It is land which was granted to the Municipality of Kalk Bay and its successors, and in view of the fact that the successors of the Municipality of Kalk Bay are the City Council of Cape Town, those rights are therefore described. If the Minister alters the law, that the land which by virtue of this clause was transferred to the Municipality of Kalk Bay must now under this Bill be transferred, I want to point out that the Act is perfectly clear. Let me read it again—

That Act therefore grants certain land to the Municipality of Kalk Bay. The Municipality of Kalk Bay, however, has ceased to exist, and the Ordinance which was passed in 1913, to extend the boundaries of Cape Town, provides for the disappearance of the Municipality of Kalk Bay, and in that Ordinance it is also laid down that the land of the Kalk Bay Municipality will be transferred to the Corporation of the City of Cape Town; even though therefore this Bill were to transfer to the Cape Town Corporation the land which at one time was transferred to the Municipality of Kalk Bay, it does not yet refer to that part which is now being added. It is my duty, as a member of Parliament, to draw attention to this fact. It is not my duty to move an amendment. If the Minister is not prepared to do so he can leave it at that, but when he goes to the Registrar of Deeds with the transfer and he says that by virtue of this Act he wants to transfer the land to the Corporation of the City of Cape Town, he will find that he is going to have trouble. That is the first point I have mentioned. I am trying to make it as clear as I possibly can. The second contention I put forward is that more land is being given to the City of Cape Town than is mentioned in that Act, more land than was given under Act No. 17 of 1925. I want to make that perfectly clear. In all those laws there was a difference in regard to the high-water mark. There was a difference between that law and the definition now laid down in this Bill. In this Bill the highest line of normal storms at any period of the year is being taken, consequently the line is being taken higher up and consequently a larger bit of land is being included.

That was the intention in those laws from the very beginning.

I said that more land was being given to the Cape Town Corporation than was provided for in the previous Acts, and that the Minister says that that is not so. I said the land was being extended. The Seashore Act contains a definition of “high-water mark” and in the previous laws there is also a definition of the high-water mark intended. In this Bill the definition of the Seashore Act is taken and it means that an additional piece of land is being given to the City Council of Cape Town. I therefore feel that I have proved my contention and the Minister now agrees with me. Now I come to the question which has caused me most trouble, and it is my duty, as a member of Parliament, to ask for protection for existing rights over that additional land which is now being disposed of. In Act No. 17 of 1925, in which certain land in Muizenberg is made over to the City Council of Cape Town, we find the following in clause 2 (1).

We therefore find that the rights of these people are protected Now we come to the additional land which is being disposed of under this Bill. In regard to the land at Muizenberg existing rights are protected under the clause I have read, but in regard to Kalk Bay those existing rights are not protected by this Bill. The Minister is asking for powers to transfer other lands to the Municipality of Cape Town—not the land at Muizenberg and not the land belonging to the other Municipality—additional land is being transferred and in respect of that land existing rights are not protected. I propose moving an amendment in that connection. [Time limit.]

I wish to reply very briefly to my hon. friend’s remarks. No land is being given additional to that which was given under the law of 1897 or that was intended to be given under law No. 17 of 1925 to the City Council of Cape Town. It is merely a question of the definition of the line. In the original law the intention was that the land should be handed over up to the high-water mark, in ordinary or normal storms during the year, but unfortunately the law referred to storms during the winter months. We find that that line varies. The storms are not at their height during the winter months but they are during the summer months when the south-east winds blow. No more land than originally intended is being given here, but the high-water mark is laid down in accordance with the ordinary definition. All we do here is to define that line which varies from time to time as a result of the difference between normal storms in the winter and the summer months—we define it as the normal storms throughout the year and consequently we also lay down the high-water mark which is reached during the summer months. The object of this Bill therefore is to lay down the high-water mark. It will be wrong to describe it as the high-water mark in the winter months and we are putting that in order. We consider the line will be the high-water mark which is reached throughout the year. We do not give any more ground than was originally intended in the laws of 1897 and 1925. In regard to existing rights I want to give the hon. member the assurance that he can put his mind at rest because the existing rights were protected in 1897 and again in the Ordinance of 1913. We do not touch these in any way. All we do is to give a correct description of the high-water mark reached throughout all the months of the year, and we do not say that high-water mark is reached during the winter months.

I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to this, I am not going into the question of the high-water mark again; I think he is wrong but we shall leave it at that, it is a matter of minor importance. But I want to come to another matter.

When business was suspended I was explaining that if the Bill is passed as it stands now existing rights are not protected, irrespective of the other law. I consider that the Act was wrongly drafted, but that has nothing to do with me. I am only concerned with this Bill. I just want to say that some member of the Minister’s staff has told me that there is provision under which certain conditions can be laid down under the proviso. Now I want to read to the Minister what appears here—

It is definitely stated therefore that certain conditions can be laid down, but it is not compulsory. Clause 5 is a clause which protects the existing rights. Now I want to suggest that the word “may” should be amended to read “shall.” It will then mean that the State would not be entitled to give transfer without protecting existing rights. This amendment has nothing to do with the original Act of 1925. It is quite a new Bill and I therefore move—

It has also been contended that there are no existing rights. If that is so then there is no difficulty. Then this alteration does not matter. I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to this fact, however, that when the Act was passed in 1897 a proviso was inserted into it. If it was necessary in those days to grant protection, that same necessity exists to-day. The State loses nothing by it and existing rights are protected. Nor do I see how the City Council can object to it, because they did not expect to get clean transfer from the Government in regard to land on which there are existing rights. Clause 5 (1) of the Act of 1897 says this—

Those rights have been kept out there. I am satisfied with the words “the effect of the provisions of section 5 of that Act”. But I can see no objection to our altering the word “may” into “shall”. The Minister should bear in mind that Cape Town is the only Municipality which has received transfer of seashores. None of the others have such transfer. The Municipality of Cape Town can sell its rights; it can sell those seashores, and it is therefore essential to protect existing rights. There are other municipalities which have been given control of their seashores by the Government, but those shores are not their property. The only Municipality which has the ownership of the shore is Cape Town.

We are not giving anything away under this Bill—that has been the position for years.

I also think that the other provisos contained in the original Act should have been taken up in this Bill, namely, to give the Government the right to take the shore for war purposes or for other purposes without compensation.

Under this Bill there is no change.

I understand that you do not give transfer now, but the proviso disappears and the existing rights are no longer protected. What objection can there be to say “shall”? Or does the Minister simply want to put the Bill through and to say “It does not concern us, we do as we please, we have the majority”? If that is his attitude I have to submit, but the day will come when they will have to pay if they do something which is wrong. I say that what is being done here is wrong, and that existing rights are not properly protected. Why are those rights protected in the original Act? This Bill has not been drafted on a proper business basis. I therefore warn the Minister and I hope he will accept my amendment.

I think the intention of the hon. member is perfectly good, no one wants to take away existing rights; but I think the hon. member paid unnecessary tribute to the words “may” or “shall”. They don’t mean anything more than the context says they mean. The hon. member knows that in many cases where the text says “may” the Supreme Court has held that in spite of the word, the provision is imperative. My friend knows also that in cases where it is a question of taking away rights, and the word “may” is used, it does not mean that those rights are not protected. The court goes behind the words. We have cases where the imperative word is used in the Act, and that has been construed by the court as giving a discretion, and there have been numbers of cases where the word “may” has been used, and the court has held that it meant “shall.’

What a farce the law is.

No, it is not a farce. The court finds out the real intention of the statute. There are certain men who have existing rights at Muizenberg, and unless the statute clearly takes away those rights the court will not construe the Act as taking them away. In 1925 a case came before the Cape Provincial Division under the Railways Construction Act of 1922. The word “may” was used, and it was contended that that was discretionary, but the court said “No, the word ‘may’ in that section is imperative.” Then there was a case of the custodian of enemy property, which came before Judges Wessels, Curlewis and Stratford, three very strong judges. It was contended that the custodian had a discretionary power to pay a debt due to British subjects out of property belonging to German nationals. It was held on a purview of the whole legislation on the subject that the word “may” did not confer a discretionary power, but made it obligatory on the custodian. I am merely pointing out that the hon. member does not achieve very much by moving out “may” and putting in “shall”.

Are there cases where “shall” has been construed as “may”?

Yes, but not so many. Is it necessary, in view of the assurance of the Minister that existing rights are protected, for the hon. member to move this?

I listened carefully to the hon. member for Cape Town Castle (Mr. Alexander). He carefully refrained from saying what the position was. He mentioned certain instances, but I confine myself to this Bill. This Bill says in so many words that they can do certain things if they want to do them. They may insert certain provisos, but I want to lay down that they shall do so. If this Bill is made perfectly clear, there will be no need later on to go to court to obtain an interpretation. If we put the position clearly, we know what it is. If the Minister is not prepared to accept my amendment, then he will have to stand the consequences.

I am reminded of the old saying, when doctors differ the patient dies. I don’t know what happens when legal members differ. I am only a layman, and I am going to follow the advice of my legal advisers, who tell me it makes not the slightest difference whether it is “may” or “shall”.

Amendment was put and negatived.

Remaining clauses and the Title having been agreed to,

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I should like to know from the Minister whether he will have any objection to substituting the words “British subject” by “Union national”? We are dealing here with the qualifications necessary for an aspirant surveyor. It is laid down here that a person serving his articles with a surveyor must be a British subject. Why not a Union national? Why must it be stated “British subject”? Many of us know of young fellows in South Africa who find it difficult to make a living. Why should we open the door to anyone? I move—

I am sorry that I am unable to accept the amendment. This matter was discussed yesterday, and I explained to the House the reason that the term “British subject” was used because we have reciprocity with Rhodesia. Our surveyors can go to Rhodesia, and surveyors from Rhodesia can come here.

But they can also go as Union nationals. Why not?

We have a reciprocal agreement with Rhodesia.

You can make an agreement with Rhodesia in regard to Union nationals.

There is reciprocity with Rhodesia, and that is the reason for the term as it appears in the Bill. If we make it “Union national” they will exclude us from Rhodesia.

The hon. the Minister surprises me with his reply when he tells us that he cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth) on account of the fact that there is a reciprocity agreement with Rhodesia. He says that we must meet Rhodesia. He first of all said that if we did not retain the term “British subject” our surveyors would be unable to go to Southern Rhodesia. Subsequently he said that Southern Rhodesian British subjects could now come and practise in the Union, but that amendment would make that impossible. We are not opposed to reciprocity and we can make arrangements with Southern Rhodesia, but I ask the Minister whether Southern Rhodesia will object to Union nationals going there and to our adopting our own nationality? Surely the matter is one which can easily be settled by letter or by negotiation. I am surprised at the Minister’s answer. If we want to enter into an arrangement with Lourenco Marques tomorrow will it be impossible for us to do so because we are Union nationals? Will that make any difference? We can simply make an arrangement with Portugese East Africa, just as we can make an arrangement with Rhodesia. What difference will it make to Southern Rhodesia whether we are Union nationals or British subjects? It is merely a question of arrangement between us. Let the Minister answer that. As it happens we on this side of the House are keen on having the name of Union national for the citizens of South Africa, and if we want to make an arrangement with another country the question is whether such a country would turn us down because we are Union nationals? Will they say for that reason that our surveyors cannot go there? If we want to make an arrangements with Portugal, will trey turn us down because our surveyors are Union nationals? We can come to a mutual understanding, and surely Portugal will have no objection if our people go there as Union nationals. No, that cannot be the reason. I hope the Minister will think this matter over very carefully. His argument sounds ridiculous to us. He says that he is anxious to let our young fellows, the aspirant surveyors have the opportunity of going to practise in Rhodesia, while Rhodesians, as a matter of reciprocity, will be able to come and practise in the Union, and that for that reason we must retain the term “British subject.” It really sounds too ridiculous. In any case we prefer that our young fellows in South Africa should in preference occupy the positions of surveyors in this country. I fail to see why we should throw open our country for surveyors from elsewhere as we are doing now. We have had quite enough of that in the past. Apart from the arrangement which the Minister has entered into, if he wants to do that, I still object to that arrangement as such. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to give us some other reason for the insertion of the words “British subject.” May I ask him whether there is such an agreement to-day?

Yes, there is such an agreement.

If there is an agreement in existence under which British subjects from Southern Rhodesia can come and practise here and under which our people can go and practise in Rhodesia then it is simply a question of writing a letter to the Government of Southern Rhodesia and of notifying them that we want the arrangement in future to be that Union nationals can henceforth go and practise in Rhodesia, and that British subjects from Southern Rhodesia can come and practise here. I am not in favour of making that arrangement, but if the Minister wants to have such an arrangement, all he has to do is to write a letter to Southern Rhodesia. If Southern Rhodesia wants to turn that down, well, then it will have to turn down Union nationals. I do not believe, however, that their Government will do so. Now I come to my final point. This clause now states simply that anyone who drifts in here and who can describe himself as a British subject and who possesses the qualifications can practise as a surveyor. People who come from other countries and who become British subjects in Great Britain drift to this country. We know those people. When they come ashore here and they are able to comply with the other requirements, they can settle here as surveyors because they are British subjects, but if we insert the provision that they must be Union nationals, then they have to wait two years, because they have to be two years in the country before they can become Union nationals. It seems to me that the Minister should protect our people in that respect. Assuming the Minister says he will not do so then it simply means that those people who have drifted in here can immediately become surveyors in South Africa, but if it is laid down that they have to become Union nationals they must first be here for two years.

Foreigners can practise here now.

Yes, but then the Minister must assist us to put the law in order. Does the Minister not agree with us that it produces an impossible position if anyone who drifts in here and who complies with the other requirements can practise here as a surveyor? We know that people drift in here from every part of the world after having become British subjects. I want to object to that.

It appears desirable to make it clear in this House that one cannot be a Union national without being a British subject, and if the hon. member’s idea is that he can isolate the Union from the rest of the British Empire, I do say it is a highly undesirable policy.

Undesirable so far as you are concerned.

If it is insisted upon it may lead to reprisals and our sons will be reduced to the necessity of taking in each other’s washing. If the other parts of the British Empire were to take up the same attitude, I wonder where the Union would be, I say it would be in a very parlous position.

I want to ask the Minister whether he now wants to contend that the Union is dependent on Rhodesia, and that it wants to maintain that agreement with Rhodesia so that our sons shall be stamped as British subjects before they can become surveyors. We get people here in South Africa like the hon. member who has just spoken who want to say that we are not independent and we should like to know from the Minister whether he shares that view. We are here to look after the interests of our young South Africans, and for that reason we want a surveyor to be a Union national before he can practise here. We want to give the Union national that privilege and we do not want to give it to the British subject, no matter where he comes from, no matter whether he comes from New Zealand, Rhodesia or whatever it may be. We do not want to give him the preference over the sons of South Africa. That is why we insist on this Bill laying it down that a person shall be a Union national before being able to practise as a surveyor.

This is the second proposal which the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth) has introduced here to-day in which the Government is asked to lay it down in the law that Union nationality should be a requisite for certain privileges being obtained in our country. We had a reply this afternoon to that request from the Minister of Mines.

The hon. member cannot refer to what happened in a previous debate.

The Minister of Mines this afternoon gave an answer to show why he could not insert the words “Union national” in the law. This evening another Minister gives a totally different reason as to why he cannot put it in. It appears to me as though neither of the two reasons adduced here is the correct one. It seems to me as though the only reason is that which was given here a few moments ago by the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Hooper), namely, that one must not do anything for South Africa alone, leave alone for South Africa first. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) has clearly proved that if the Minister is so anxious to enter into a reciprocal agreement with Rhodesia, all he has to do is to write a letter telling Rhodesia that she must allow Union nationals to practise there as surveyors. Assuming the Minister is interested in a business, and he has entered into an agreement which appears to be detrimental to him, what will he do in a case like that? He is not going to sit still, but he is going to write a letter in order to try and get the agreement amended. The Minister in this case can simply write a letter to Rhodesia. Whatever may have been the position this afternoon, in this case it is still more deplorable because we are dealing here with a Minister who is Afrikaans-speaking and who refuses to insert the word “Union national.” I want to make an appeal to him and ask him not to allow himself to be influenced by the surroundings in which he finds himself, but to make Union nationality a requisite for a surveyor who wants to practise in the Union of South Africa.

I do not wish to repeat what has already been said here, but I want to emphasise what the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) said here a few minutes ago in regard to the two attempts which were made here to-day in our economic struggle by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth), to have certain guarantees laid down for Union nationals. When we speak of Union nationals we speak of both English and Afrikaans-speaking people. The psychology of the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Hooper) is that of the British subject, a man who is subject to Great Britain. No, we are freely associated with the British Commonwealth of Nations, but each of us stands on his own and lives in his own way and arranges his affairs in his own manner. We are citizens of South Africa; we are Union citizens in exactly the same way as Canada, New Zealand and England have their own citizens.

And what about Rhodesia?

Rhodesia is still in the position of being a subject Crown Colony although it has certain powers of self-government. Rhodesia has not achieved the same status as the Union has. That being so, I am surprised at the Minister adopting this attitude. Our universities in South Africa are doing everything in their power to fit young South Africans as surveyors, and they are also practising in Rhodesia. We are supplying Rhodesia with competent persons, and that being so all the Minister has to do is to write a letter to Rhodesia to tell them that our surveyors have to be Union nationals, and if Rhodesia wants to enter into a reciprocal agreement it can be entered into on that basis. The superior enters into an agreement with the inferior. We may be prepared to do so with our neighbouring State, but I raise my voice in protest against this proposition of the Minister’s, and I wish to support the motion of the hon. member for Zoutpansberg. I also wish to express the hope that those on the other side of the House who call themselves Union nationals and who do not want to be only British subjects, will vote for the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg.

The hon. the Minister of Lands has given his reasons for not being prepared to accept this amendment and he says that there is an arrangement in existence with the Rhodesian Government to the effect that their surveyors can practise here and vice versa. I should like to know what are the details of that arrangement?

They are contained in the regulations.

If the provisions are such as laid down in the existing law, that anyone who possesses the qualifications can come and practise here as a surveyor, why should any agreement have been entered into then? If my amendment is accepted the agreement will be necessary, but so far it is not necessary. I believe the Minister’s information is incorrect. There is no agreement required at the moment. If it is his contention that there is an agreement in existence at the moment between ourselves and Rhodesia, then surely some of our surveyors must be practising there, and the arrangement must have been entered into in order to admit them there.

Rhodesia is not training any surveyors.

Why is it necessary then to enter into an agreement? It is simply a question of law. If an individual complies with the provisions of the law he is entitled to practise as a surveyor, failing which he cannot do so. The law lays it down clearly that he has to pass certain examinations, and if he has not done so he cannot practise as a surveyor. I fail to see any need for entering into an agreement with Rhodesia. If that is the Minister’s only objection to the amendment then I want to suggest that he should accept the amendment and confine it to Union nationals, but he can add to it that so long as our surveyors are allowed to do survey work in Rhodesia, Rhodesian surveyors will be entitled to do survey work here. I feel, however, that that is not the only reason why the Minister declines to accept the amendment. We have the Dominion Party sitting on the other side and they are making things difficult for the Minister. They say they stand for South Africa first, but when they are put to the test they prove the very opposite. To-day they are tested for the second time. The Minister of Mines gave an explanation this afternoon and made an excuse why he could not put in the words Union notional as a requisite for the obtaining of certain rights. Now the Minister of Lands comes along again and says that there is an agreement with Rhodesia which prevents him from doing so. I would suggest that the Minister should consult his legal advisers, and that he should so amend the Bill that Union nationality shall be a requisite for surveyors in the Union, and that people from Rhodesia can be trained here with the qualification of their being British subjects.

It is somewhat difficult to understand the mentality of hon. members over there. I am inclined to think that they will not be satisfied until we put a ring fence round South Africa to prevent anyone from coming in, whoever he may be, and to prevent anyone from going out, in case he should learn something of other parts of the world.

Hear, hear.

This reciprocity which exists in the British Commonwealth of Nations is in the interest of Union nationals of South Africa, and we are all Union nationals.

No, you are a British subject.

Of course, members of the Opposition would like to define a truly Union national as someone belonging to the Purified Party—or the re-Purified Party— one wonders what particular section of that party he would have to belong to. If our friends have any real thought for our country, they would realise that there are many hundreds of South Africans in other parts of the world—even in other parts of the Empire. If we are going to amend this Bill in the way hon. members want to so that it shall apply only to Union nationals, other parts of the Commonwealth will say: If that is South Africa’s idea—it is a two-edged sword—why should we allow South Africans into this country and allow them to practise and set up in the various professions if South Africa is not prepared to reciprocate? Do my hon. friends realise what a handicap we would be putting on our people? Whatever hon. members over there may think, we are a very small people, but we have South Africans leaving the Union and going all over the world, and when they come back they are much better South Africans. They have got rid of their narrow views—their outlook is broader—and there are many things they have been able to learn. When Rhodesia is mentioned, one should remember this: that large numbers of Rhodesians come to South Africa to get their training here as surveyors, and also for other professions, and the more reciprocity there is the better it is for the country. I am sure those who have the interests of South Africa at heart will realise that they are making themselves look foolish by the attitude they are now adopting. To some people it is the beginning and the end of everything to be a Union national, but we are a very small people, and we want to get people with brains into this country to help us build up this country. The majority of members over there really know that that is so, and there is some hope for them. I trust the Minister will not give way on this matter. Hon. members opposite, by acting as they are doing, are not out to confer any benefit on South Africa; it is just their racial tendency which is brought into this House on every possible occasion. I believe that if the Minister had been prepared to delete the words “British subject” and put in “German national,” quite a number of hon. members over there would have said “Hear, hear,” and would have agreed to it. The mere fact of “British subject” being mentioned is what they object to.

Are you a British subject?

It is the fact that the word “British subject” is mentioned which they object to. They are very small-minded, and their whole attitude is pettifogging in the extreme. I hope the Minister will not accept the amendment.

When the angels of the Dominion Party go astray and land in Hell, we cannot be surprised at their burning their wings. The wings of that hon. member over there have been completely burnt, and it is quite likely that something else may also happen to him. I believe there is a misunderstanding on this question. So far as the training of surveyors is concerned, nobody is opposed to surveyors for any country being trained here in South Africa. We have our universities and our schools to train those people, but there is no need for all those people to be given the right to come and practise in our country. We should enable everybody requiring it to get the necessary knowledge, but there is no need to allow all of them to come and practise here. We are dealing here with a peculiar profession. I believe that nearly all the surveyors practising in South Africa have been trained here. South Africa provides a very special training for surveyors, and I do not even think that anyone trained in England is competent to come and practise here. He cannot be registered here.

I instanced the case of a Pole who had the qualifications and who started practising here.

Yes, I am prepared to accept that, and that is the very point I want to make. We should tell people like that that the fact of their having the qualifications is not enough. They should satisfy us that they can meet all our requirements, and that in addition they are also Union nationals. We are dealing here with a very special profession. We have most outstanding men in that profession, and we should make Union nationality a requisite. It does not cause the surveyors of Rhodesia the slightest trouble. The surveyors from Rhodesia are trained here, and then they return to Rhodesia. They are British subjects, and that is quite enough so far as they are concerned, but it is not enough so far as we are concerned. We must make the Union nationality the qualification. So far as our surveyors are concerned, I believe that they go and practise in Rhodesia only on very rare occasions.

All the surveyors from Rhodesia have been trained here.

They need the surveyors, and I have no objection to their surveyors being trained here. If they need surveyors, then they will not exclude Union nationals. It appears to me to be quite unnecessary to have any agreement, and it certainly is essential so far as our people in South Africa are concerned to lay it down that surveyors must be Union nationals. It is a very special profession, and for many reasons which I need not mention now it is essential that we should make Union nationalism a requisite. I think the Minister should accept this amendment, because it is a good principle to put into the Bill.

The profession of surveying demands protection. These men have to undertake very heavy and difficult studies as the Minister knows. A large percentage of students are studying to become surveyors, and their studies cost a lot of money and take a long time, and we shall make talented young men hesitate to take up this profession if the door is to be opened wide in the way it is now proposed. I feel that the door which is now being opened to Rhodesia is in actual fact not meant so much for our young fellows to go and practise there, but rather more for them to come here. It is an opening for foreign countries to enable men, fugitives who have landed in England, to come through Rhodesia and who have become British subjects in a short space of time, to come here. The object is to provide work for foreigners, and in that way to take the work out of the hands of our own young men. That to my mind is far from just. We must protect our own people. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that there is a surplus of surveyors in the Union.

No, there is a shortage.

There is a surplus and a large percentage of the young men who are still studying and who will shortly quality do not know where to turn to get employment. When they have finished their studies they will want work. I personally am conversant with the case of three young men who could not find work here and who went to India. Two of them died there, the third one lost his health there. It is not fair towards our own young men to close the door for them in this way and to open it to others. Why does the Minister hesitate to substitute the word “Union national” instead of “British subject”? There is no disgrace in being called a Union national— it is an honour, and any hon. member opposite should regard it as an honour. They are Union nationals and so are their sons. It is our honour to be Union nationals, and we want to remove this misunderstanding. I want to encourage our young men to take up this profession, but when they hear that this profession has been opened so wide to all comers it will undoubtedly discourage them. I shall be glad if the Minister will accept the amendment, and if he will change the wording of “British subject” to “Union national” especially in view of the fact that a Union national is a British subject; so if there are no undermining tactics at the back of all this then I wonder why we should not put in the words “Union national” instead of British subject.

I fail to understand why the Minister is not prepared to accept the term of “Union national.” No country in the world which respects itself will give its citizens a different nationality through its legislation. Any nation will in the first place look after its own young men and will not look after other young men first of all. We are proud of the fact that we are an independent country. The Union of South Africa is independent. Let the Dominions go on saying that we are first of all British subjects and then Union nationals. We feel that we are independent and we are proud of the fact that we are Union nationalis, but now the Minister wants us to show our inferiority complex and be British subjects first of all. What is there behind it? I cannot accept the statement that the agreement with Rhodesia is the only reason. Will Rhodesia, our neighbour, refuse to accept our young men and refuse to allow them after they have been trained here, to enter the country, because they are Union nationals? An arrangement can easily be arrived at and surveyors from Rhodesia can come here so long as we do not have too many of them, but let us first of all look after our own young men. The Minister wants it to be the other way round, and he wants everyone to be admitted under the wide term of British subject. We must let them all come into the country whether they come from Rhodesia, Australia, Canada or India; but as one of the speakers already said under this very wide provision all the refugees who have been in England for a few years, or in any of the other Dominions, and who have become British subjects there, will also be able to come here and take the work away from our own young men. Our country is full of people who have drifted in and who were not born British subjects, but who easily acquired British citizenship by living in some part of the British Empire for a few years. They now have to be protected at the expense of our own sons. It would appear to me that the great motive among members apposite is that they do not wish to be known as Union nationals. They are ashamed of that description whereas we are proud of it.

I want to make an appeal to hon. members opposite, and especially to the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Dr. Bremer), whom I have always looked upon as a man who likes to take up a fair attitude, and I would like to ask them from a moment to think over the policy which they want to lay down here, the isolation policy.

It only shows your ignorance if you talk of isolation in this respect.

If the hon. member will just give me a chance to speak he will see what my point is. Incidentally it is a fact that nearly all the surveyors in Rhodesia are Union nationals. If Rhodesia were to decide that nobody else but her own citizens could come in and take up the position of surveyor, what would become of our young men?

Will they refuse to admit our young men because they are Union nationals?

That is not the point; the point is that we cannot create a future for our people if we only look after ourselves. In spite of everything the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet says it is a question of isolation. We want to keep this profession for our own Union nationals, and if we do so we must expect other countries also to keep our our nationals. And where are the universities where the people from Rhodesia are trained? They are here in the South. They come here to qualify and then they go back North. But hon. members want to lay down the narrow policy that only Union nationals are to be admitted to this profession in the Union, and as it happens all the surveyors in the North are Union nationals.

But surely the Rhodesians do not become Union nationals if they come here to study?

I say that as it happens all the surveyors in Rhodesia are Union nationals. Rhodesia might go along and decide that only Rhodesians will henceforth be admitted. The policy of hon. members over there will kill our Afrikaner people stone dead. We should have a wider outlook and not just think of a few votes which we may be able to gain by creating the impression that we are standing up for our young men. We must look a bit further ahead. We are busy to-day trying to create markets for our factories in Rhodesia and in other parts of Africa. What are people going to say if we adopt this very narrow attitude. They are going to turn round and say that they will keep our products out of their countries. We are looking for markets and we want to expand our markets, and yet we are busy drawing a line so far as our professions are concerned, and trying to restrict those professions to our own people. We are going to suffer as a result of that sort of thing in other respects so far as the North is concerned. This is not a question of politics; it is one of business and nothing but business. We want to create a future for our people, and if we want to do so we must take up a broad outlook. Are we South Africans not good enough—are we not able to compete in our country and in other countries with people of other nations?

But why British subjects?

The hon. member can realise what the position is; the motion before the House is that this work should be confined to Union nationals only but under the Bill British subjects are allowed. Let us look at this matter from a broad point of view. Our people can stand on their own feet and they are quite able to compete with others. If we adopt that attitude we shall create self-confidence, and in that way we shall be able to develop.

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood), who has just spoken, gives a totally different excuse to that given by the Minister. The Minister gave us as his reason the so-called agreement with Rhodesia, and he said that surveyors from Rhodesia should also be able to come and do surveying work here.

Yes.

The Minister’s argument is that our surveyors go to Rhodesia.

Where do the Rhodesians get their training?

Nobody has any objection to their coming and studying here, and no hon. member on this side of the House has any objection to a reciprocity agreement with Rhodesia, so that their surveyors can come here and our surveyors can go there. That is not the point, but we want to have the right to call ourselves Union nationals and we want to see that right mantained in our legislation. I doubt whether there is a Government in the whole wide world which is either afraid or ashamed of putting the interests of its own citizens first and foremost, but here we have the position that hon. members opposite take up a different attitude. I contend that the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) spoke the truth when he said that the privilege to be allowed to practise here as surveyors should apply to people from the whole of the British Empire. I take it that that is the real position. How many surveyors come here from Rhodesia, and how many go from South Africa to Rhodesia? Will there be ten of them? At the utmost twenty. And in order to protect those twenty people in the way the Minister is proposing to do we have to open the floodgates to the countless thousands from other parts of the British Empire. It is not an agreement, it is foolishness. I suggest that the right way to deal with this matter is to lay it down that none but Union nationals shall be entitled to practise here as surveyors, but in addition to that we can enter into an agreement with Rhodesia so as to give their surveyors the right to come here and to give our surveyors a similar right as far as Rhodesia is concerned.

I always try my best to understand the attitude of hon. members opposite, but I cannot possibly associate myself with the attitude now adopted by hon. members over there. If hon. members on the Opposition benches are concerned about Union nationality and their concern is justified, then they have my sympathy, but I want to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that it is unwise to exaggerate or overdo any principle, however good it may be. What is the result of the attitude adopted by hon. members opposite? The hon. member who has just spoken referred to surveyors who had gone from South Africa to Rhodesia, and he said that perhaps there were twenty of them. Does not the hon. member know that the great majority, I believe at least 80 per cent., of the surveyors and mine surveyors who are to-day in Rhodesia are young South Africans, and South African-speaking people? Assuming South Africa were to follow the policy suggested by the hon. member, it would mean that hundreds of young South Africans in Rhodesia would lose their employment.

That is not what I proposed.

I am trying to follow what the hon. member said. He said there were only a small number of about twenty Union nationals in Rhodesia to-day as surveyors. The fact of the matter is that the great majority of the surveyors, and of the mining surveyors there, are Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. If Rhodesia were to follow the same policy as the hon. member now wishes to follow in respect of Rhodesia, what will be the result? Hundreds of those young men will have to come back to the Union. I want to point out to hon. members that in the past, when they have insisted on a principle, they have often spoilt their own case by overdoing it. They have committed the radical mistake in the past of overdoing things every time they dealt with a question of Afrikanerdom. Hon. members over there are inspired by an inferiority complex; they are always afraid that Afrikaners will have to compete with other people in the world. If they knew the Afrikaner worker as well as I do, they would have no fear of competition, but they are always afraid, and they want to put a barbed wire fence round this country to protect the people; they are afraid that the worker and the professional man will not be able to hold his own against other people in this world.

You are ashamed of your nationality. You put “Loyal Dutch” behind your name in the hotel register.

And I shall do it again. Hon. members opposite regard loyal Dutch as an epithet, but so far as I am concerned it is a name of honour. I am loyal, and not disloyal. I am Afrikaans-speaking, and not disloyal Dutch-speaking. They may call me loyal Dutch as often as they like; as far as I am concerned, it has become a name of honour.

You have been branded for all eternity.

Yes, because I do not want to share in disloyalty; I am loyal, and not disloyal. I do not bring any dishonour to my own country. I am loyal to my own country. Hon. members over there sometimes adopt a good attitude, but when they do they are very prone to overdo the thing. There is nothing in the world, not even religion, which does not cause a reaction if it is overdone, and if people become fanatical about it. If hon. members opposite become fanatics about Afrikanerdom and Union nationality, and they go too far, they wreck all the things they stand for. So far as the Union of South Africa and Rhodesia are concerned—I mention Rhodesia because it has been mentioned several times —it will certainly be against the interests of the profession, and it will have bad effects so far as the Afrikaans-speaking section of the profession is concerned, if the policy suggested by hon. members opposite, namely, to isolate the profession and to reserve it for South Africans, is followed, at a time when many South Africans go to Rhodesia as surveyors. What is going to the position if the Rhodesian Government were to adopt the attitude that they only want Rhodesians in that particular profession over there? If hon. members over there really stand for their own nation, for their own nationality, they should learn one thing, and that is not to lock themselves up behind iron bars. A nation which has confidence in itself will become great, and we need not be afraid to compete either professionally or in any other sphere with any other nation in the world. I therefore hope that hon. members opposite will rid themselves of their inferiority complex, and that they will not always be afraid of an Afrikaner being able to hold his own, either in a professional sphere, the military sphere, or any other sphere, against other nations.

It seems to me that the reason mentioned by the Minister for this amendment is not the true reason. He stated in his speech that it is due to an agreement with Rhodesia, and in order to allow Rhodesia to bring its surveyors here. But now I ask the Minister, as the law stands to-day, what is there to prevent a British subject from coming here, what is there to prevent anyone from Rhodesia coming here? Nothing. The law provides the qualifications for a surveyor in our country. He has to be (a) 21 years of age; (b) have passed an examination in South Africa, or an equivalent examination: (c) have done practical survey work; (d) have made satisfactory experimental survey work; (e) have passed an examination in the laws of the Union; and (f) have made a declaration. Consequently, anyone can come from Rhodesia and practise here. Why, then, this amendment? It helps the Rhodesians no more than the law as it is to-day. Now the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) comes along and talks of isolation. He wants to isolate it for British subjects. As the law stands to-day, it allows any person, if he has the necessary qualifications, to practise as a surveyor. Now I want to ask the Minister why he comes along with this amendment, seeing that the law, as it is to-day, meets the needs of Rhodesia? It is very clear that the object of this Bill is not to help Rhodesia, but to confine the profession of surveyor in South Africa to British subjects. That is the object of this Bill, but beyond that there is no need for it. I want to say this, that the reason is not, as the Minister has said, to make a casual concession to Rhodesia, or to carry out an agreement, but to draw a circle and to say that henceforth only British subjects shall be allowed to practise here. If you want to isolate, isolate the profession for Union nationals, but do not draw a circle within which only British subjects shall fall. How about Hollanders, for instance, who want to come and practise here? They can only practise after they have been here five years and have been naturalised, but a British subject can come in and practise immediately. Here we have another instance of favouring British subjects over the people of other friendly nations. We say: “Very well, if you want to draw a ring, draw it, but confine it to Union nationals and not to British subjects, to give them preference over others.”

I feel that the hon. member for Zoutpansberg has made the position very clear, and that he has put a very reasonable proposition to the Minister. I want to ask the Minister whether he will not get up to reply to this reasonable proposition; I think he owes it to this House. I do not think the Minister is prepared to associate himself with the plea put up by the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire). If he is prepared to do so the Afrikaans-speaking people will be very disappointed. I further want to ask the Minister whether he agrees with what the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) said. He said that he was no longer an Afrikaner but that he was a loyal Dutch. I do not think the Minister of Lands will agree with that.

In any case it is better to be a loyal Dutch than a disloyal Dutch.

The hon. the Minister should not get excited now. I want to give them credit for more than they expect perhaps. I say that on the other side there are still some people left who want to be South Africans and not loyal Dutch. When the hon. member for Krugersdorp was speaking I expected, Mr. Speaker, that you would call him to order, because it sounded as though the whole House were talking and not just one member. When the hon. member for Krugersdorp prides himself on being loyal Dutch he is loyal to another country and not to South Africa. We have the test here. Hon. members can show here whether they are loyal to South Africa or not. They can show here that their loyalty is primarily loyalty to South Africa. I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Krugersdorp speaking about exaggeration. If we exaggerate we exaggerate from conviction. Then we fight for a cause which we are serving, but when the hon. member exaggerates he exaggerates because he is paid for it. Surely there is a difference there. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) said that we wanted to isolate ourselves.

Yes, it is so.

I am glad if we can keep ourselves isolated from the pernicious influence of the Dominionites. On two occasions to-day the other side of the House simply gave away to the policy of the Dominionites which they have previously disapproved of. Hon. members said that we wanted to isolate ourselves; it is not a case of isolation nor is it a case of an inferiority complex, but it is a case of a superiority complex. The hon. member for Krugersdorp says he wants to stand on his own feet; if he wants to stand on his own feet let it be Union national feet and not loyal Dutch feet. The hon. member for Vereeniging spoke about isolation and he also said that we must be broadminded. I was afraid that he would afterwards be broader than he was long. We have a reasonable proposal before us. If this amendment is agreed to it will not mean that our young men will be cut out of Rhodesia, nor will it mean that people from Rhodesia will not be able to come here and study and practise. Every individual with a grain of common sense must understand what the intentions and objects of this amendment are. One can enter into reciprocal agreements with Rhodesia or with some other neighbouring State, but we want to prevent foreigners coming into this country from abroad.

Foreigners?

Yes, Canadians and …

A Canadian is not a foreigner.

Listen to that. And an Indian? We refuse to allow South Africa to become the dumping place of the surplus Jewry of the whole of the British Empire and of the flotsam and jetsom of other countries. We do not want them to come into this country, and for that reason I ask the Minister to accept the reasonable amendment of the hon. member for Zoutpansberg. It is a sound amendment, and if he refuses to accept it it will go to prove that he is tied to the demands put forward here by the hon. member for Greyville.

One expects the sort of thing which the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) said here this evening— one expects it of him. He is British in his entire outlook and he only wants to be a British subject, and he wants to have that term in all our laws. One cannot blame him very much for refusing to accept the nationality of a country which he has adopted as his country, where he makes his money and where he will probably die, but what we do take amiss is that those loyal Dutch on the other side of the House come here and talk in the way they do; we do take it amiss that the Whip has to go among them and that they have to talk and contest the term of Union national and that they hold forth here in the way the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) has done. I would be ashamed if I were to belie my own nationality in the eyes of the world in the way he has done, and I would be ashamed to get up here and to say that for the sake of that little country, Rhodesia, I have to show contempt for my own country; that for the sake of twenty young men who are doing survey work in Rhodesia we must retain the term British subject. Have we become such cowards? Have we become such cowards that we dare not insist on our own nationality? If a crowd of Frenchmen under a system of reciprocity want to act in Great Britain as surveyors, will they forsake their own nationality and become British subjects in order to practise in Great Britain as surveyors? The Frenchman is proud of his French nationality and he will never do so, but our Minister comes here and says that for the sake of a small number of young men who are practising in Rhodesia as surveyors South Africa should be so weak as to renounce its own nationality and to say to the world “I am so weak-kneed that I would rather call myself a British subject”. I am ashamed. I am ashamed of the hon. member for Krugersdorp for the sake of the uniform he has donned; I am ashamed of him because of our country; I am ashamed of his belying his own nationality. For the sake of the agreement with Rhodesia we are now asked to renounce our own nationality. Let me say this to the Minister who has now refused to accept the amendment, that he should realise and accept the responsibility resting on him, and that he should accept the amendment. The point is one which we have been fighting about in South Africa for many years, and which we shall fight about a great deal in future. Our law provides that if a person is born here he is a Union national, and be is also a British subject. That is the law of the country. There is a small group of people in South Africa who have the privilege of being Union nationals without at the same time being British subjects; they are the people who fall under the naturalisation laws of 1927 and 1932. I unfortunately do not belong to those people who have the privilege of only being Union nationals and not British subjects. The Minister of Native Affairs has the privilege of being a Union national without simultaneously being a British subject. I want to congratulate him on that fact but I do not think he is proud of it. What I want to make clear to the Minister of Lands is this; when he says that Rhodesia will not admit our surveyors if they are Union nationals I want to point out to him that 99 per cent. of them are British subjects at the same time. It is unnecessary for me to keep on repeating that point. I ask every lawyer opposite whether what I am saying is not correct. Every citizen of South Africa is a Union national and at the same time he is a British subject with the exception of that small group falling under these two laws. If Rhodesia were to say now that a Union national cannot practise there then we can point out to Rhodesia that a Union national is also a British subject, and if Rhodesia still refuses to allow those people to practise there because they are British subjects who, according to him, have the blot of Union nationalism on them, then I say that I do not want to have anything to do with a neighbour like that. But it will not be done—the position is that our surveyors are Union nationals and also British subjects and Rhodesia will not turn them down on account of the fact that they are also Union nationals. Assuming 15 or 20 of our young men are practising there. In all probability there is not a single one of them who is a Union national only, and not a British subject at the same time. What objection can Rhodesia have to our laying down the qualification of Union nationality. I think the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) is quite correct when he says that the reason adduced by the Minister is not the real reason; there is another motive behind all this. The Minister wants to protect those people who have come to South Africa and who cannot become Union nationals within the first two years of their arrival. Those people are British subjects but they have not yet become Union nationals and they are the people the Minister wants to protect. That is at the back of this provision. We know that if British subjects come here they must be here for two years before they can be regarded as Union nationals. Now a Bill is being passed under which a crowd of those people who have drifted into this country to-day can start practising as surveyors to-morrow provided they comply with the other requirements. He does not want them to wait a few years. A British subject can come here from Timbuctoo or from India and has to be put into the position of being able to practise at once if he is a surveyor.

As a rule they come from Kovno.

I want to point out to the Minister that the man who comes from India immediately gets the right to practise in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, if he has the other qualifications, but if the Minister puts in the words Union national instead of British subject, as proposed by the hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. Rooth) then that British subject from India has to wait two years before he can practise here as a surveyor. Now why does not the Minister want those people to wait two years. Why does he not want the British subject who comes from elsewhere to wait two years before they can practise in that profession. The Minister says that he does not want our young men to be faced with the difficulty of not being able to practise in Rhodesia, but our sons are British subjects at the same time as they are Union nationals, and if Rhodesia refuses to admit them as British subjects because they are also Union nationals then I ask what is the use of our having people like that as our neighbours? I do not want them. And I say that we may just as well abandon all these economic arrangements between Rhodesia and ourselves because they are one-sided in the interests of Rhodesia. Why cannot the Minister write a letter to Rhodesia and put this matter right. He can point out to Rhodesia what the legal position in the Union is, that we demand Union nationality as a requisite for a surveyor, but that the man who is a Union national is at the same time a British subject. No, under the smokescreen of keeping Rhodesia open for our surveyors an injustice is being done to-day to the young men of South Africa. I also feel that the Minister is doing an injustice to Rhodesia, because Rhodesia will not be so unfair as to turn down our young men there because we have our own nationality. If Rhodesia were to adopt such an unfair attitude as to turn down British subjects who are also Union nationals it would mean that as a neighbour Rhodesia would be no use to us, and we might as well abandon our relationship with Rhodesia.

The interjection which the Minister of Lands made in reply to an interjection from this side of the House casts a fair amount of light on the proposal contained in this Bill. Somebody on this side of the House remarked that if the Minister’s proposal was agreed to, Canadians would be able to come here and immediately start practising as surveyors. Why did the Minister interject “Why not?” He added that they were not foreigners. There we have the whole position, and we can see what is behind this proposition. The idea is by means of this provision to open the door to people from any part of the British Empire. We must look at this matter specially against the background of certain statements recently made by two Cabinet Ministers. Two Cabinet Ministers made statements in which they pointed out that after this war was over there would be a great influx of immigrants from England to this country. A short while ago the Minister of Commerce and Industries made such a statement. Among those hundreds of thousands of immigrants coming here we may safely take it that there will be large numbers of surveyors, and this provision has co be inserted in order to make it possible for those people to come and practise here at once. This evening we again heard from the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) that we must adopt a broad-minded attitude. We usually hear it from the English Press—we are usually told that we must be broad-minded. We also hear it very often in this House from members like the hon. member for Vereeniging, that we must have a broad outlook, when they mean that we must be loyal to Great Britain and British interests at the expense of our own interests here in South Africa. Nor was I surprised to hear from the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) that he admitted that when writing his name in the hotel register to show what his nationality was, he put “Loyal Dutch” behind his name. He tells us here that he is loyal and therefore he described himself as loyal Dutch in the hotel register. I want to tell the hon. member that that word was not coined in this House, but it is a word which for the first time was used in the English Press in South Africa. They commenced with that expression, and when the English Press uses the words “Loyal Dutch” they only mean one thing, and that is not loyalty to South Africa and South Africa’s interests but loyalty to England and the Empire. When the hon. member for Krugersdorp or any other member puts that description behind his name in a hotel register he testifies thereby not that he is loyal to South Africa and South Africa’s interests, but he testifies that he is loyal to the Empire. We have come here this evening with a reasonable proposal, a real South African proposal under which we want to protect our own people in a profession such as this one. We want our people to be protected against foreigners, but our objects are held up as being something strange; our object is represented as being narrow, and hon. members opposite even go so far as to say that we stand for isolation. No, the people who are isolated are those members opposite because they do not know what is going on elsewhere. Let us assume that the hon. member for Krugersdorp were to go to the United States or to France or to any other country, any of the so-called Allied countries, he would find that foreigners are not allowed to practise in those professions there. All those countries protect their own people. They protect their own subjects. But when we come and ask for similar privileges in our own country, when we say that it is time for South Africa to protect its own people and to protect the interests of its sons, against the foreigners coming into the country, we are told that we are narrow and not broad minded. The meaning of the Minister’s proposal is perfectly clear. It is perfectly clear that its sole object is to make it possible for immigrants from other parts of the British Empire to come and compete here with our own people. The position is quite serious enough in South Africa as a result of the competition which we have from people who come from outside and who have only been in this country for a short while. Let us study the examination lists which were published recently, for instance of the medical courses or of the legal profession. Let us study the examination lists and we will find that this year 40 per cent., 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. of the people who had passed their examinations were people who had not been in this country long, or whose parents or ancestors had not been here a long time It is high time that we should stop opening the gates of this country to these people. It is high time that we should protect our own young men. But when we do so then we are told we are narrow. No, it is not we who are norrow, it is hon. members opposite who are narrow because they do not realise their duty to their own country. When we find that an hon. member like the hon. member for Krugersdorp does not write in a hotel register that he is a South African citizen but that he is a Loyal Dutch, we can see who are the narrow-minded people. It is peculiar, if we study the hotel registers, we find that whereas people two years ago used to describe themselves as South African citizens, they do not do so any more to-day. If we go to the hotels in Cape Town we find that people with English names no longer call themselves Union nationals but British. They are ashamed of their own nation. The hon. member for Krugersdorp is ashamed of his own nation. I can only say that we on our side are ashamed of having that type of Afrikaner among us.

Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided.

Ayes—50:

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Reitz, D.

Reitz, L. A. B.

Rood, K.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Steytler, L. J.

Sturrock, F. C.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty

Noes—30:

Bekker, G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

Erasmus, F. C.

Hugo, P. J.

Labuschagne, J. S.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, N. J.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Swart, C. R.

Van Den Berg, C. J. V. d.

Merwe, R. A. T.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel. J. J.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and P. O. Sauer.

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. Rooth dropped.

On the motion of the Minister of Lands, an amendment was made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

On clause 4,

I do not want to move an amendment to this clause, but I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister to retain the period of one month and not to change it to one week, which he wants to do now. We are dealing here with the machinery which is being created, and the procedure which is being laid down in the event of a re-survey and also in the case of a first survey. In the case of a first survey when the parties do not differ from each other, a period of a week is not unreasonable, but when there is a dispute and a re-survey takes place a week is too short. The hon. the Minister should take into account the fact that these things may happen on a farm which may be 100 or 200 miles from the nearest dorp. The owner may be an ignorant man, and he may receive notice to lodge his objections within a certain period, within a week, with the Surveyor-General; that he must lodge his objections to a certain map, and if he fails to do so he loses all his rights. I want to say that all this sort of thing is unnecessary and unfair. Why is the Minister doing it? In the past this section used to answer well. If there was a dispute about beacons, the section answered its purpose. What difference is it going to make if a period of a month is allowed instead of a week, as proposed here? I should like the Minister to reconsider this matter, and unless there is a very good reason for the amendment he should retain the period of a month.

I am sorry, I am unable to accept the hon. member’s suggestion. This alteration was put in on the advice of the surveyors, who have practical experience of the matter. It is not a question of a man living 100 miles away. When there is a dispute about beacons, all the owners are together, and the agreement is handed to them personally. It is not a case of a man getting a letter. A month is too long, and it causes a lot of delay in the surveyor’s office. The surveyors say that a week is enough. That is the practical experience they have had.

I wish to bring one instance to the Minister’s notice. Take the case of a man whose boundaries are on the Limpopo. Assuming he has a dispute with his neighbour about a beacon. He is notified on the Friday or the agreement is handed to him, and he has to lodge his objections in Pretoria within seven days. That man has no motor car; he has to travel by cart and horses, and the position so far as he is concerned is impossible.

He can post it.

How many miles has he to travel to get to the post? The Minister laughs. I am looking at it from the point of view of the farmer. The farmer may not be able to understand all the necessary documents, and he is afraid of writing a letter. He has to go to the town to see the magistrate, or perhaps to appoint his own surveyor. The Minister laughs. He does not care what becomes of the farmer. He sits among the capitalists who keep him in his seat. He has no sympathy with the farmer. We quite understand that, but I ask him to use his common sense, and not to take too much notice of the officials who sit in their easy chairs in their office in Pretoria.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On clause 7,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On clause 9,

I move—

I move—

I should like to refer the Minister to the practice which obtained in South-West Africa prior to the last war. Our German neighbours in those days had a system which I think is much to be preferred to the system which prevails in the Union. I am referring particularly to the survey of townships. In South-West Africa they did not issue diagrams for each particular plot, they only issued a general plan, and people got title deeds as per the general plan. This meant that great economy was effected. If it was necessary to alter the layout of the township, which happened frequently, it was easy to agree with the plot holders about this, and without causing them the expense of new diagrams; they simply agreed, and a new general plan was drawn. It is a fact that, however carefully a township may be laid out, as it develops and becomes populated, it almost invariably becomes necessary to make considerable alterations, and to save expense I commend to the Minister the acceptance of modifications such as giving the owners the right to decide whether a re-survey is to be undertaken at a particular time, and I also commend to his consideration whether it is not possible to follow the practice which obtained in South-West Africa, which I am sure is very economical and elastic.

I am sorry I cannot accept that amendment. It would mean that I would be interfering in the affairs of the local authority. A question as to whether the council or the local authority would have the right to have a re-survey I think would be subject to the consent of the ratepayers. That is a local and domestic matter, and I don’t intend to interfere with that.

I see provision is made that the local authority has to go to the Minister for a re-survey of a particular area under its control. I would ask the Minister to take into serious consideration any application for a re-survey by a local authority. A local authority might embark on a very expensive re-survey that might not be in accordance with the wishes of the people concerned. I hope the Minister will see that in agreeing to the application he is acting in compliance with the wishes of the people in the area.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Lands put and agreed to and the amendment proposed by Mr. Hooper put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 11,

On the motion of the Minister of Lands, certain amendments were made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 17,

On the motion of the Minister of Lands, an amendment was made in the Afrikaans version which did not occur in the English version.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 19,

I move—

1. (b) by the substitution for the definition of the words “local authority” of the following definition:
   “local authority” includes a municipal council, borough council, town council, village council, town board, village management board, local board, health board, divisional council and any like institution:
2. (c) by the substitution for the definition of the words “public place” of the following definition:
   “public place” includes any street, road, thoroughfare, sanitary passage, square, or open space shown on a general plan of a township, filed in any deeds, registry or surveyor-general’s office, and all land (other than erven shown on the general plan) the control whereof is vested, to the entire exclusion of the owner, in a local authority or to which the owners of erven in the township have a common right;
   and in line 67, after “survey” to insert “or re-survey”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Remaining Clause and the Title having been agreed to,

When this debate was adjourned. I had made an appeal to the Minister to make provision in this Bill, such as there was in the old Act, for segregation between European and non-Europeans in the factories. The Minister has been advocating a principle for 30 years. He has advocated rights for the working people. He made demands which according to his opinion should be fulfilled. Now he has got the opportunity of enforcing them. He has the special privilege of the support of this side of the House, and he has the power in the Cabinet to demand it. He knows that his colleagues there will not break with him. If they break with him then they know that it will be fatal to their prosecution of the war. This is the only opportunity which the Minister will have in his lifetime to effect in practice what he has promised the workers for more than 30 years. If he does not do it he will be regarded by the workers as the greatest hypocrite of our time. The same applies to the supporters of the Minister in this House. They made promises. Now they can fulfil the promises. Perhaps they have to pay a price for sitting over there, and even to receive a price, but they can now give the proof of whether they are really concerned about the workers or not. We now want to see proofs. They now have to prove that it honestly was their object to assist the workers in the past, to give them the rights that were their due. I would like the Minister to make provision in this Bill for pensions for the workers. If he cannot do so in this Bill, let him do it in another Bill. The Minister knows that this side of the House will support the Bill by reason of the few good things that there are in the Bill, for the purpose of extending the rights of the workers. We are going to support it for that reason.

The Minister of Labour has finally got to the point, after all the years during which he has been trying to do so, of bringing forward a Factories Bill. He said that this Bill was of great interest to the factory workers but on the other hand we heard the complaints that were made by the Minister in introducing the Bill. He said that he was not satisfied with the Bill. He said that he was unable to get the best thing, he could not get any more from his colleagues. The Minister of Labour has been fighting for the working classes of the country all his life, so he said. That may be so. It may be a fact that he has placed himself at the service of the labouring classes in our country. The labouring classes have waited patiently until the Minister now has an opportunity of doing something for them, but I fear that the workers will be disappointed with the Bill which the Minister is introducing now. It is the misfortune of the Minister of Labour that, after he has devoted his whole life to the working classes, he should now find himself in the hands of the capitalists, chained up to a capaitalistic Cabinet. We welcome the Factories Bill to the extent that it contains improvements for the workers, but I must emphatically say that we are not satisfied with the provisions of this Bill. We are not only dissatisfied with certain things which there are in the Bill, but we are especially dissatisfied about certain things which are not contained in it, and which ought to be there. Our greatest disappointment is in connection with segregation in the factories, the separation of the workers, the non-Europeans and Europeans. The Minister of Labour knows just as well as we do what conditions prevail to-day in some of our factories, and the Minister also realises that we cannot permit those conditions to continue. In the first instance the Minister introduced a Bill which contained the principle of segregation, or which made segregation possible, at any rate. Then he suddenly withdrew it, with the excuse that the Afrikaans of the Bill was very faulty. He then dropped the principle of segregation. Nevertheless he says that in this Bill also provision is made for segregation, or as he calls it “separation”. He apparently refers to the clause in the Bill on page 46, which says—

The Minister intends that the Government will thereby be enabled to “separate”. This provision is very unsatisfactory. There is no mention of coloured segregation.

How are you going to effect that in industries?

It is for the Minister of Labour to effect it. It is the easiest thing in the world to segregate workers, the Europeans on one side and the non-Europeans on the other side of the factory.

That is impossible.

The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) surely does not suggest that the conditions should continue where European and non-European sit together, arms around each other’s necks?

The “separation” is impossible.

Everything is impossible if you do not have the will to change it. The Minister has not reserved the right of carrying out segregation in our factories. The clause as it now stands means nothing. If it really meant separation or segregation then the champion of the coloured people in our country, the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) would quickly enough have protested, but he is satisfied with this Bill, because there is no such thing as separation. The hon. member for Vereeniging says that it is not practicable. It is talk on the part of the Minister to say that there actually is a provision in the Bill for segregation. We on this side feel very strongly on the question of segregation in our factories. It affects thousands of European workers, and it is necessary. In the chief town of my constituency there is a large factory with hundreds of European workers. Under the good old model government of the Free State we fortunately had the colour bar, we prevented the infiltration of coolies and Indians and coloured people into the Free State; nor do we want to see that a state of affairs shall be created there such as you find in other parts of the country. The factory at Harrismith is a clean factory. There you do not have the mixing of coloureds and whites. But if this Bill passes, then the danger exists that gradually conditions of that kind will also develop in our towns. That is why we are protesting. The Minister has an opportunity here of doing something for the workers. He has always said that he is their champion. Let him give the proof of that now. We are concerned here with a very important provision which was in the Bill, in the first instance, and which the Minister has now removed, a provision which will enable colour segregation to be introduced in our factories. We cannot maintain our white civilisation if the present bad conditions continue in our factories. We are pleading with the Minister to reconsider this serious question. When we move amendments in Committee to make segregation possible, we hope that we shall receive the support of the Minister. White South Africa demands it.

I hope you appreciate the consequences.

The Minister says that he hopes I understand the difficulties. There may be difficulties, but the difficulties lie with himself, with his party. He is subservient to the Cabinet, he does not stand his ground. That is why there are difficulties. The Minister has now been swallowed up by the capitalists.

Is your party anything else than capitalistic?

That is another idle question. We want to get capital, but we are not in the service of it, not bound up with it as the Minister is. He is a strange champion on behalf of the workers. He has his £2,500, but he leaves his workers in the factories in the lurch.

If I introduce a Bill to bring about socialism, will you support it?

If it is a just measure, really in the interests of the workers, why should we not support it?

Are you a socialist?

I do not mind whether you call me a socialist, or any “ist” as long as I can do something to promote the interests of the white workers.

And the non-white workers?

We have nothing against the non-white workers, we say that something must be done for them also, that they also should be protected by the Minister of Labour. But we are protesting because this Bill is faulty, not only with regard to the drafting of it, but we also feel that provisions which are necessary in the interests of our factory workers are not in it. Let us mention a few, and I hope that the Minister will give his attention to them. We hope that he will yet, when we move amendments, effect important alterations in the interests of the factory workers. Provision, for instance, is not being made in the Bill for the payment of factory workers when they are ill. The factory workers only earn a small wage, and when they become ill they have to lie up at their own expense, and they get no payment. You do not find conditions of that kind in any other service of the State. The factory owners earn big dividends at the expense of the cheap sweated labour of our European girls and boys. Why cannot the Minister introduce a provision for the payment of workers when they are ill. Another provision in the Bill which is faulty is in connection with overtime payments. We find on page 23, e.g., a provision that overtime shall be paid to factory workers; if they have to work on Sundays or ordinary public holidays, they get the ordinary wage plus one-third of the scale of wages in addition, but we know from experience that when the holidays come the workers are not always inclined to work—they also like to be free on holidays, and it is not fair only to pay them at the rate of one and one-third for the hours that they work extra. It is unfair, because it spoils the whole holiday if they have to go and work for a few hours, and then they get a few shillings or a few pence, and the day is gone. In any case, we ask that the individual shall be paid at the overtime rates for the full day, and not merely for one or two hours.

Is that reasonable?

It is not unreasonable. Then I come to the provision on page 9, in connection with the appointment of inspectors. There is a provision that the Minister, after consultation with the local board, can appoint inspectors who will have the right to investigate the working conditions in the factories. But I do not notice adequate provision to require that the official who is appointed must be white and bilingual. We already have the position in Cape Town that there are coloured persons sitting on the town council, and there is no provision that the municipal officials who may be appointed shall be bilingual. Nor is there any provision that the municipality of Cape Town, e.g., cannot appoint a coloured person to be an inspector of Europeans in the factories. That is a dangerous thing. About 50 per cent. of the people in the factories are probably Afrikaans-speaking, if the percentage is not larger. Is it fair towards them for no provision to be made that the inspectors should be bilingual? When we move amendments in this connection in Committee, I hope to have the support of the Minister. Now we come to another provision which is not quite satisfactory, and you will find it on page 13. It concerns the registration of factories. It says that no premises shall be used as a factory unless they are registered, and then it goes on to say that for a period of twelve months after the coming into force of this Act, this clause shall not apply in respect of premises which are a factory, but which are not a factory as defined in section 1 of the Factories Act of 1918. That means that such a factory can only continue for twelve months more before it will be necessary for them to be registered under this Act. I think that that is not right. When we notice the bad conditions that are prevailing to-day, we cannot allow the coming into force of this Bill to be postponed for another twelve months. Three months is quite enough. Why grant such an excessive time for the bad conditions to continue for all the additional period? The Minister admits that there are bad conditions prevalent in our factories to-day. We have, for example, another trouble. It is a provision which I find on page 26, namely, clause 22 (1). In this clause the Bill provides that if the Minister in consultation with the employers and employees has entered into an agreement with regard to the scale of wages, hours of work and the like, and the benefits of that agreement between the employers and the employees are better than what are provided for in this Bill, that agreement shall continue in force, notwithstanding the provisions of this Bill. But the Minister knows that he has already entered into agreements under the Wage Act and the Industrial Conciliation Act between employers and employees, which are not so beneficial as the terms which are contained in this Bill. Why does he provide that those stipulations which are not so advantageous as the provisions of this Bill should continue? In such cases provisions of this Bill should have been brought into force immediately, and protection granted where the conditions are better than those in the agreements mentioned. But where they are worse, he will not give the opportunity to the people of coming under the Bill immediately. That is not fair, and accordingly we are advocating the passing of an amendment. Then there is a section in the Bill which deals with victimisation. When an employer, such as those we know, holds back from the male or female worker money which they have duly earned, when he, for example, instead of paying overtime at the rate of one and one-third wage, only pays one and one-quarter of the wage, then our experience in the past has been that the employer makes the employee sign that he or she has received the correct amount, although they have not received it. When the employer is found out, and litigation ensues, then we find that the employer is fined. But what does he do then if the man or woman worker has given evidence against him? Immediately the case is over, such a worker has to leave the factory. He victimises him or her, and dismisses them. The Minister protects them in so far as that when the factory owner victimises the worker by discharging him, and it can be proved in the court that he has done so for that reason, then the only demand on the owner of the factory is that he must pay three months’ salary to such male or female worker, that is the wage or salary which the worker was receiving on the date of his discharge. That is the position. Now is it fair to discharge such a person when he or she has sued for wages in the court and has been dismissed from the work for that reason; is it fair that only three months’ salary shall be paid? We demand that the Minister will make provision that such a merciless employer shall pay twelve months’ wages to such a worker, and then there will be less of that kind of victimisation. I said at the beginning that we are thankful that the Minister has made this attempt to introduce a Bill. I said that the Bill was drafted in a weak manner, and that it definitely did not contain sufficient benefits for the worker. The Minister has left out a great deal which could and should have been for the advantage of the worker. He did not include it. We know why he was unable to do so. We have moved an amendment to this Bill. I want to support that amendment, and I trust that when we reach the Committee stage we may be able to convince the Minister that we are acting in the interests of the factory workers in our country, and that the Minister, as an ex-champion of the workers, will realise that what we are proposing is in the real interests of the factory workers. We hope that he will assist us to promote their interests, and that he will in that way show that he is really the champion of the factory workers of the country.

It had been my original intention to move the adjournment of the debate, but I have now been persuaded that the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down has been an election speech concerned with the two by-elections which are taking place in the Free State shortly, and so I think it is my duty to draw the attention of the House to several things which have occurred in this House within the last couple of years. It is my intention, as I proceed in my speech, to deal with the rather impudent attack made on the Minister of Labour by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman). It is my intention to show, and I think I can show very conclusively, that the present attitude being adopted by the Opposition is an attitude—

Louder, please.

I think that is also rather impudent, to say that I do not speak loud enough. It is my intention to show conclusively in my speech that the attitude of the Opposition in so far as they are attempting to deal with economic measures, is an attitude of complete hypocrisy. I understand that the words “personal hypocrisy” is against the rules of the House, but I am satisfied that, speaking about the party generally, the term of complete political hypocrisy is in order.

The hon. member must not use terms of that nature.

I am not referring to any member of the House. I am referring to a political party and to the principles of a political party, and I suggest to you that it is entirely within the rules.

Order! The hon. member should not continue in that strain.

Very well, then I shall move—

I second.

Agreed to.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 10th March.