I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

May I avail myself of the half-hour rule. As regards this Vote also we have the case of a Minister of whom exceptionally much was expected. The hon. Minister of Mines, while he was a private member of this House prior to 1938, was always a great advocate on behalf of the miners’ phthisis sufferer. In those days the Minister of Mines represented the Roodepoort constituency, and in Roodepoort is resident a considerable number of mineworkers, and consequently the Minister in those days took considerable interest in the requirements of the miners’ phthisis sufferers. In those days the Minister pleaded for pensions for the miners’ phthisis sufferers, not only for the sufferers in the last stage of miners’ phthisis, but also for those miners’ phthisis sufferers who were in the second stage. The Minister also pleaded for bigger pensions for the miners’ phthisis sufferers. In 1939 he obtained the necessary power when he was appointed Minister of Mines. Just as in the case of the Minister of Labour, considerable expectations were entertained when he became Minister of Mines. Now 3½ years have passed and in those 3½ years the Minister has introduced only one amending Bill, and this was not to ensure benefits to the miners’ phthisis sufferers but merely to increase the ex gratia grants a little. The amount made available was doubled. After repeated pleas from this side of the House for improvements in respect of miners’ phthisis sufferers, the Minister got so far as to appoint a Commission in October 1941, and this Commission was instructed to inquire into the miners’ phthisis legislation, as also into the grants. The result was that when any further representations were made in connection with improvements in the conditions of the mineworkers the Minister simply referred to the Commission. Everything must wait until the Commission should ultimately introduce its report, and then a vague possibility will exist that perhaps some improvements may be brought about. This Commission was appointed in October, 1941, that is eighteen months ago. The Minister appointed the Commission eighteen months ago to investigate the miners’ phthisis legislation and to make recommendations in connection therewith, and after the effluxion of eighteen months that Commission has not yet issued its report. In reply to a question, the Minister said it was not expected that the Commission would introduce its report before the end of this Session. For eighteen months the Commission has been busy with its activities but the report is not expected before the end of the year, with the result that if something is done for the miners’ phthisis sufferers it cannot be done before the next Session at the earliest, that is to say next year. In the meantime the miners’ phthisis sufferers must toil to make a living. What is the position of the miners’ phthisis sufferers today? What is the position in which they have existed since this Minister assumed the Portfolio of Mines? When a man contracts miners’ phthisis in the first stage he gets a cash payment which can be placed at £330 on an average. Then he is permitted to go and work in the mine again if he wishes, after he has received a warning. That is to say that he can go and work in the mine again if he does not accept the payment, but if he accepts the payment then he must leave the mine and must seek a living elsewhere. He may possibly get employment above ground or on a mine that is not listed, but it generally happens that the miners’ phthisis sufferer gets no work because he is physically unfit and the door to work is simply locked against him. The man’s health has been sacrificed. He suffers from miners’ phthisis. He has a small sum of a few hundred pounds and on that he must live until his miners’ phthisis develops further and he reaches the second stage, the primary stage. When he reaches the primary stage, he still gets a cash payment. Generally a few years elapse between the time he contracts miners’ phthisis in the first stage and the time when he reaches the second stage, but in the meantime he is expected to exist on the £330 which he has received. When he ultimately reaches the second stage, he again gets a cash payment, and in this case we can put the average amount at £500. On that sum he must now live further. Now he is more physically unfit than before, but now he is compelled to live on the cash sum of £500 until he ultimately reaches the third stage. When he reaches the third stage one must accept that he will not be able to live very much longer. I have here the figures of the Medical Board which show that the anticipated span of life of a miners’ phthisis sufferer, after he has reached the third stage, is no longer than 4.72 years. When the third stage of miners’ phthisis is reached the sufferer is almost in the condition where he coughs up his lungs in pieces. Life has then become a burden to him. In addition, it should be remembered that the man has big medical expenses. He is perpetually under medical treatment. His requirements are much more than those of a healthy man. When he has reached the third stage he gets a little pension. Then the man and his wife and his child must live on a pension of approximately £15 per month. On that they live until he dies, and when he dies his wife gets only a small amount as compensation. The widow merely gets a little over £4 per month. That is the position of the miners’ phthisis sufferer from the first stage at which he contracts miners’ phthisis to the third stage, when he gets a pension until he dies. What has been done to improve the position? The Chamber of Mines has allotted a few pounds from its riches as a living cost allowance, and the amount that the pensioners receive is £1 6s. 3d. per month. This House has admitted repeatedly that there has been an enormous rise in the cost of living, that living costs have already risen by almost 47 per cent. These phthisis sufferers, who are in such a condition that they are physically unfit and must receive perpetual medical treatment, people who have their obligations, receive £1 6s. 3d. as cost-of-living allowance. That brings the pension of the pensioner to an amount of approximately £16 11s. 9d. per month. The allowance is calculated on the salary which he received when he worked, and the average amount which a mineworker draws is more or less £30 per month. On the strength of that he then gets a pension, with an allowance, which amounts to £16 11s. 9d. per month. These mineworkers have given their health and their life to the mine owners. Only young men in the flower of their life, who are physically strong and sound are allowed to go underground to take out the gold. They are examined thoroughly medically before they are allowed to go underground. Only if they are physically fit may they work in the mines. And the average working life of a miner is put at eighteen years, according to the medical bureau. A young man who begins at the age of 21 years is 39 years old when he contracts miners’ phthisis, that incurable disease. No cure has yet been discovered for miners’ phthisis. He then gets a few hundred pounds and thereafter he has to sit and wait until his phthisis develops and until he ultimately gets a pension. All that time he has to keep his family alive. It is the mine workers who produce the riches, it is these men who enrich the gold mine owners, who like parasites catch up the wealth without doing a shred of work themselves to obtain those great profits. During the past 3½ years the gold mines have made greater profits than during any other time of their history. What did the miners’ phthisis sufferers get? After they had sacrificed their health, after they had reached the stage where they sat down and coughed up their lungs, they got a pension of £16 11s. 9d. per month. Can you be surprised at the bitter disappointment that is being expressed at this Minister, who was at one time a pleader for the miners’ phithisis sufferers, but who is today neglecting his duty so shamelessly? He has the necessary power, but, of course, he is in the same position as the Minister of Labour. He has not the courage to put demands to the Government, he has not the courage to demand what he knows these people are entitled to; these people whose interests he formerly had at heart. Now he has his arms about the necks of the mine owners and he is satisfied to allow those evil conditions to continue. Everything has been pushed off onto the Commission, a Commission on which the workers have not even got representation. That Commission has to solve the whole matter. If you go to the Government to plead for these people, then the Government says: “Wait until we receive the report of the Commission.” There is another group for whom we have pleaded repeatedly in the House, and that is the big group of mine workers who suffer from other diseases as a result of their occupation on the mines—workers who as a result of the conditions under which they must work contract chronic rheumatism, cancer of the lungs, and chronic heart diseases. They have to work under damp conditions, and other conditions of such a nature that they contract diseases. In respect of those diseases they get no compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I pleaded with the Minister at the time to include these diseases, and to look upon these diseases as occupational diseases under the Act, but he refused to do so. These are diseases that the workers contract without receiving compensation. I have seen not one, but numbers of affidavits from mine workers, who, after working in the mines for years, contracted the diseases that rendered them totally unfit physically. All they get is a small amount from a Provident Fund, and on that they must live. Some of them are doubled up in such a way that they can do no manual work, but they get no compensation from the mines, and they get no compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. I have pleaded year after year for those people. I said: In heaven’s name do something for these people. The people are in a sad and pitiful condition. The Minister has consistently refused. I pleaded that the ex gratia grant should be made applicable also to them. The Minister refused. When the Commission to enquire into the Miners’ Phthisis Act was appointed, I pleaded that the Commission should also make an enquiry into the occupational diseases, so that those persons could get something. He refused. No provision is made for them. They must die of misery. We pleaded for an improvement in the lot of those people. According to the report of the Miners’ Phithisis Board for the year ending 31st March, 1941—up to the present we have received no other report—there were only 1,635 miners’ phthisis sufferers in South Africa at 31st March, 1941, who received a monthly allowance. Just a little over 1,600 miners’ phthisis sufferers were receiving a monthly allowance. Do you want to tell me that it is a big task to improve the allowances a little, that it will cost a tremendously big sum to the mine owners? Would it make such a big difference if the Government decided to set aside a small portion of the larger amount in taxation which they receive from the mines when there is such a small group of people who receive pensions? That there is such a small group is clear proof that the miners’ phthisis sufferers, when they reach a certain stage, the stage at which they receive pensions, do not live many years longer. That is why there are so few. The average pension that is paid out is £12 7s. 9d. That is what the poor people receive for the few years they have to live. Then, according to the report, there were 3,288 widows who received on an average £4 18s. 3d. per month. After the man has given his life and has died from this terrible mine disease, his widow gets £4 18s. 3d. per month. The average period that miners’ phthisis sufferers live after they have reached the secondary stage is 4.27 years, according to the report. Thus from the day on which they reach the last stage, their chance of further life is no more than 4.27 years on an average. Then they have the great privilege of receiving £12 per month for four years, after they have sacrificed their health and their all to the gold magnates. It is sad to learn that between 1911 and 1941, the number of mine workers who died from miners’ phthisis was 10,330. In that period the number of victims of the gold mines numbered 10,330. That is quite apart from those others who died, and in respect of whom the post mortem showed that miners’ phthisis was not the immediate cause of their death. Those are not counted. Only if there is adequate proof that the people died of miners’ phthisis are they classed as sufferers from miners’ phthisis. What of the thousands who have met with accidents? If we count all these together, then we find a terrible number of victims who were sacrificed to take the gold from the ground in order to fill the pockets of the mine magnates. It is interesting to learn what the difference is between the amount that is paid out in benefits to miners’ phthisis sufferers and the amount of gold that has been sold. According to the figures we have, a sum of approximately £960,000 was paid out in benefits in 1926. In the year 1940 that figure dropped to something over £881,000. Miners’ phthisis decreased a little. It was not so severe, on account of the improvement of the conditions underground. But when £881,000 was paid out in benefits to the miners’ phthisis sufferers, approximately £118,000,000 worth of gold was sold in the same year, namely 1940. That is a great difference. In 1926 gold was sold to the value of £42,285,139, and then the benefits that were paid out to miners’ phthisis sufferers amounted to over £900,000. But in 1940, when something more than £881,000 were paid out to miners’ phthisis sufferers, gold was sold to a value of £118,000,000. Now I ask again: Cannot a small portion of the great profits be set aside to improve the benefits to the miners’ phthisis sufferers a little? I have another matter here that I want to raise. I have already said that nothing was done in the past 3½ years to improve the position of the miners’ phthisis sufferer; nothing was done to increase his pension, except the cost of living allowance. But now the question arises, where the Government has done nothing to give the miners’ phthisis sufferers additional benefits, whether the Government has also done nothing to conserve the health of those people? Has the Government perhaps done something to see that the health of the mine worker is better preserved? What is the reply; has the Government done this? The reply is that the Government has not done it. In the latest report of the State Mining Engineer which has just been issued, namely the report for 1940, we find remarkable data. In 1939 the number of underground inspectors was 5,046. In 1940 the number was 4,550—a decrease therefore in the number of inspectors by 496. These inspectors are of exceptionally great importance. These mining inspectors have to go underground to see that the mining regulations are properly applied. Regulations have been issued in respect of the work underground for the purposes of health and the prevention of accidents. These are extremely important regulations, and it is the duty of those mining inspectors to ensure that those regulations are applied. But now we see that there has been a decrease in the number of inspectors. Apparently it is due to the fact that there has ben a decrease of staff. The Minister can say that to us. But if there was a decrease for the last year in respect of which we have a report, namely, 1940, what then was the position in 1941 and 1942, when there was a still greater decrease of staff? A few months ago certain mines decided to remove the additional hose-pipe employed with the drills. Every drill has two hosepipes, and according to the regulations it is compulsory to use the additional hose until the rock has been drilled 6 inches deep. The purpose of the additional hose is to stop an increase of dust. For that reason this regulation stipulates that it is compulsory to use the additional hose-pipe until the hole in the rock is 6 inches deep. A few mines have now decided to abolish it. They say it is not necessary. Indeed, some of them even say that that hose-pipe causes more dust instead of stopping the dust. This method has long been in operation, and the mine worker takes an entirely different view of it. Immediately this decision was announced protest meetings were held against the abolition of the additional water hose-pipe. I would like to know from the Minister whether this is an economy measure, or what the reason is why this safety measure, which has to protect the health of the mine workers, should be abolished? That is one of the retrogressions that has taken place during the past three and a half years. The inspections have decreased instead of increased. These inspections, which are of such vital importance and on which the safety and health of the mine workers underground depend, have been decreased. So much for the health of the mine workers. Now we put another question to the Minister, and it is the following: If they have done nothing to give greater benefits to the miners’ phthisis sufferers, if they have done nothing to improve the health of the mine workers, if they have done nothing to improve the health and working conditions, have they then perhaps done something in connection with the wages of the mine workers? I shall confine myself to one group of mine workers, namely, the learners. Those apprentices must spend two years in the School of Mines. They must pay £10 to be admitted to the School of Mines, and after six months they get a temporary certificate—I shall be glad if the interpreter will convey it to the Minister, because the Minister cannot understand a word—I say that after six months the apprentice gets a temporary certificate, and then he goes to work in the mines. Particularly now, because there is a shortage today of skilled mine workers, those apprentices are obliged to do the same work as the skilled mine worker. Now the question is: In view of the fact that he is obliged to do the same work, do they give him the same remuneration as the mine worker gets? Again the answer is no; it is not done. He gets 7s. 6d. today, plus a bonus of 1s. 6d., and his wage thus comes to about 9s. per day. For that 9s. per day the young apprentice is obliged to do the work of a skilled mine worker. I have before me here the statement of one of them. He says that his wage amounts to about 9s. per day, and then he adds—

He states that he broke 93 fathoms. The ordinary mine worker would have received £32 per month, but he gets about 9s. per day. That is how these boys are being used. The same complaints which I lodged when the Labour Vote was under discussion yesterday, namely that apprentices are being used to do the work of skilled workers but that they do not get the wage of those skilled workers, is also applicable here. Here again use is made of cheap labour for the 18 months until the apprentice is qualified. The mines are making millions in profits, but they make that use of cheap labour for 18 months until the apprentice has completed his apprenticeship period. He is obliged to do the work of the skilled mine workers. There are numbers of other scandals under the administration of the Minister, as I have said. They see everything through war spectacles. So long as there is a war in progress, that must serve as an excuse for everything. Any scandal can occur in the mines, but everything must be excused because the Government wants to see the war through. There is a gradual infiltration of native labour. We remember the strike of 1922 which took place on this account. The same thing is happening now. There is a gradual infiltration of native labour, and this will again end in a repetition of what happened in 1922. In certain mines the early shift is now being abolished in order to throw all the duties on the late shift. The result is that more of those duties are transferred to native workers. [Time limit.]

I would like the hon. Minister to tell us something about the progress he has made in the last twelve months concerning the diamond cutting industry. As the Minister Knows the diamond industry is perhaps one of the most efficient industries in this country, but the diamond cutting industry has had a somewhat chequered career. It has had its ups and downs; it has had more downs than ups; but I am encouraged by what the hon. Minister said last Session, namely, that it was the Government’s deliberate policy to get a share of the diamond cutting industry. I would like to know what progress the hon. Minister has made since last Session. During the last Session I suggested that the time was ripe for a diamond cutting industry in this country to receive some consideration. I thought that we had a golden opportunity, and that we should grasp that opportunity with both hands, because in the low countries the industry has been wiped out, and refugees and others have fled to other countries. They fled to England and to the United States, to this country and to Palestine. I do not want to deal with Palestine, because although the industry is a very flourishing one in Palestine today, a lower wage is paid there, and I do not think the cutting there is up to the standard of the cutting in other countries. For that reason I do not want to deal with Palestine. I want to confine myself, therefore, to England and the United States, particularly to the United States. In England there are about twelve factories today. It is limited to twelve factories for obvious reasons. In the United States there was some trouble last year, as the United States found that a diamond cutting industry was being established there, but that the United States citizen derived very little benefit from it, so they put their heads together. The Labour Department of that Government met the master cutters, and they decided upon several very important matters, namely, upon the ratio of apprentices to journeymen, the wages that should be paid to these apprentices, and the wages of journeymen, and the training of apprentices. I believe they have come to a working agreement, and on that account the industry in America today is on a far sounder basis than it has ever been before. I spoke to the hon. Minister last Session, and I mentioned this matter to him. I believe that he has gone quite a long way since then. He has also conferred with the master cutters, and in regard to some of these points he has come to an agreement; for instance, on the question of apprentices—not long ago the apprenticeship position was a sad one—but an agreement has been arrived at. Formerly there was one apprentice to every four journeymen. It meant that we could only with the greatest difficulty have South Africans cutting diamonds. It meant that this ratio was just about making up the wastage. I believe that the Minister has got the master cutters to agree that there will be one apprentice to every journeyman, and the result is that today there are about five hundred young South Africans engaged in diamond cutting. I would like the hon. Minister to tell us what wages these boys get during their apprenticeship period, and whether there will be continuity of employment. As the House knows, in the diamond cutting industry when there is a war, or even a rumour of war, there is a slump, and these boys have in the past been put on the streets. We cannot allow that sort of thing to go on, and I would like the hon. Minister to tell us what agreement has been reached with the master cutters. Then I should like to know how he is going to train these apprentices. It was suggested at one time that we should have our own technical school. That was a good suggestion. I believe the Minister has another plan. He has come to an agreement with the master cutters, and I should imagine that he would have come perhaps to a better agreement. Up to just recently the industry in this country has not been under control, and I believe that we shall never establish a diamond cutting industry here on a national basis unless it is under proper control.

What sort of control do you mean by that?

What I mean by control is principally the control of wages. That is the first point. To a very great extent it is the control of wages that is required. Wages today have reached fantastic heights. There are cutters today who are earning up to £200 a month; in other words, £50 a week, £8 a day, or over £1 an hour. When you compare that with the ordinary artisan who gets 3s. 3d. an hour, it is a fantastic wage.

Many lawyers can do that.

I say that if we do not remedy this state of affairs, we can never establish the industry on a national or competitive basis, for as soon as the war is over, these people in the low countries will re-establish their industries, and this industry of ours, on these high wages, is simply going to melt like mist before the rising sun. That is why I would like the hon. Minister to put wages on a lower level. After all, diamond cutting is not hard work. It is true that it requires brainwork and judgment, but I should imagine that if a journeyman got £60 or £70 a month, it would be a good wage, and we would be doing this in the knowledge that we would be able to develop this industry after the war. But an industry on these fantastic wages, will never remain here. I mentioned the instance the other day of a young boy who had learned his apprenticeship in this country; about nine years ago, when the industry went to the wall, this boy went to the mines, where he is today earning £40 a month. He has not seen a diamond in the last nine years, and the master cutters are offering him £35 a week. That is where I say the unsoundness of this thing comes in; and if the hon. Minister can bring this position under control, then we can look forward to a sound and expanding industry, and an industry which will, I hope, in the course of time, be able to support some thousands of people on a very good wage, and on a national and competitive basis.

Must diamonds be cheaper, too?

They may be; one never knows. I say that the position is causing much concern. High wages today are the result of too few journeymen. Master cutters simply cannot get journeymen. They are prepared to offer almost any price. My second point in regard to control is this: The Minister must stop for the time being the issue of new licences to master cutters—as the industry grows he can issue licences to master cutters—but while there are few journeymen available, and while the competition is so keen, the hon. Minister must be very careful about issuing licences to diamond cutters, otherwise we shall be heading for disaster.

You do not want it to be so high?

That is why I say that we must not issue so many licences to master cutters while there are so few men who can cut diamonds. I know my hon. friend’s point of view. He contends that while there are big wages to be had, these men should be given big wages. He contends why should it go into the pockets of the master cutters. [Time limit.]

When the time limit intervened during my speech, I was busy explaining to the Committee that certain mines have now abolished the early shift and have thrown additional responsibility on the late shift, with the result that the late shift has transferred a certain part of it to the natives, which is inevitable, and thereby not only a watering down of labour took place, but the life of the mineworker was also endangered. On the Brakpan mine the mineworker has himself to ensure that his place is clean, and for that he gets a bonus of 2s. 6d. This was formerly done by the trammer, who received 21s. per day. That is the position in which the mineworkers and the phthisis sufferers find themselves today. That is the position after three and a half years, and I think that this Committee can accept with certainty, that very little can be expected from this Government, which is so dependent upon the mine bosses. Now, in contrast to the lack of policy of the Government and the neglect of duty of the Minister of Mines, I want to give a brief exposition of what the policy of this side of the House is in connection with the phthisis sufferers, and what our policy is in connection with the mine workers. It has already been done on a previous occasion, but I am going to do it again now on the vote of the Minister of Mines. The most important part of that policy is this, that when this side comes into power an important principle on which we shall set to work will be this. We say that the workers who by their manual labour create those great profits, those great riches, are entitled to share in the profits. This party’s policy is therefore that it will in the first place put the mining industry under State control. The gold mines belong to the people and must be worked in the interests of the people. Secondly the mineworker will be permitted to share in the profits, quite apart from his normal wage. This party will also maintain the status quo between European and non-European in the mines. As regards the miners’ phthisis sufferers, it will ensure that the mineworker, when he contracts phthisis in the first stage, shall receive a supportable pension. And after he receives this pension provision will be made for semi-fit employment for him to supplement the pension. It will also be ensured that he shall receive free medical services. The policy of this party is a State health service and under that scheme the miner’s phthisis sufferer will be entitled to free medical services. Then it will also be ensured that there shall be adequate and proper housing for miners’ phthisis sufferers, and that they shall not be compelled to live in hovels in the slums of the big cities. Special provision will be made for decent and thorough housing. All possible measures will also be adopted to conserve to the mineworker the little help over which he still disposes after he has contracted phthisis. Everything possible will be done, and the State will accept responsibility for it. Then provision will be made for all the mineworkers who, as I have said, have contracted some chronic diseases or other. They will receive the same treatment as the miners’ phthisis sufferer, because those diseases which they contract are due to the nature of the work which they are compelled to do. Then there is another important principle for which this party stands. We want to try and conserve the health of the people. We must try, when we get to the head of affairs, to prevent the mineworker from contracting phthisis. How must this be done? Take the mineworker who works underground out of that employment before he contracts phthisis. We say that when a mineworker has been employed underground for fifteen years he will be entitled to come out and to apply to the State for other work at the same remuneration. If that is done miners’ phthisis will largely disappear. If this is applied miners’ phthisis will ultimately not make its appearance, except in exceptional cases. The Miners’ Phthisis Bureau tell us that the average working life of an underground mineworker is eighteen years. We shall give him the privilege of returning to the surface after fifteen years. It is the policy of this side of the House that I have sketched here briefly. The first is that the mine worker may share in the wealth which his manual labour has created; the second is that everything humanly possible shall be done to prevent miners’ phthisis; all mineworkers shall be given the opportunity of getting out of the mine before they have contracted this incurable disease, and when the miner has left the mine after fifteen years he will be able to get work at the same remuneration. The whole industrial world is insisting that there should be more fluidity of labour. Each man should not only fit into one particular groove. Each worker must also be able to fit into other grooves, and be able to do other classes of work. That is the direction in which the industrial world is developing. There must me fluidity of labour, and every worker must have the capacity of fitting into other labour circles. We are going to apply that principle, and the mineworkers will be placed in a position of adapting themselves to other circles of employment. That is the policy of this party. We shall care for those victims of the mining industry, and we shall care for them properly. That is our policy in contrast with the policy of the Government on the other side, which in the past three and a half years has done nothing or precious little. In the event of the Government having a policy this committee will be only too anxious to hear from the Minister what it is. There is mercy for the mineworkers and the miners’ phthisis sufferers in only one direction today—they will have to help and they will receive improvement only when a change of Government takes place. We on this side do not make promises that we do not intend to carry out. All these things we undertake are things that will be put into effect, and therefore there is only one way out for the miners, and that is to ensure that the other side of the House is not again returned to power.

I think that the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) has given a fairly accurate description of the lot of the poor mineworker, and I must support the hon. member when he simply gives a duplicate of my speeches that I have made in this House on many occasions. If I am going to find fault with what the hon. member has said, then I must only find fault with what I have said myself in the past. With a few slight mistakes here and there, the hon. member has simply repeated my own speeches.

I thought I had heard that speech before.

I should simply have read your speech from Hansard; that would have been much easier.

There is one thing which is new. The hon. member says that when his party takes charge of the affairs of the country, they will see to it that their policy is carried out. I hope they will do so. But they did have charge of the affairs of the country some years ago, and we often listened to their fine promises, but those promises were never carried out. But where the hon. member’s speech is really a contribution is where he described the lot of the mineworker. Let me assure the hon. Minister that the description given by the hon. member for Fordsburg of the lot of the mineworker is a fairly accurate one. Since the inception of the mining industry right up to today, not one man has finished a full lifetime in the mines without contracting miners’ phthisis. In other words, every mineworker is a potential sufferer, and every miner has to face, in the future, what has been described by the hon. member for Fordsburg. That is why this question is so serious. Before a man receives a card that will enable him to find employment underground, he must be a first-class Springbok type of man, before the bureau will certify him as a suitable man to work underground. And every one of them is facing this disaster and it is at the time when his family depends on him more than ever—it is before he reaches the age of 41 that he contracts phthisis and his lot becomes that as described by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman). After three and a half years we have only had a Commission so far. I am not going to blame the Minister for the delay in the Commission’s report—he himself is not personally responsible for that. I understand something unfortunate happened to the Chairman of the Commission. I remember the very time speech which the Minister made in his first Session in reply to a question by myself and the hon. member for North East Rand (Mr. Heyns). People asked me afterwards: “What do you think of Col. Stallard as Minister of Mines”? and I replied: “Well, I must judge him by his first speech and he should be a very good Minister. I believe he is a man who is absolutely honourable and that he will carry out what he says.” So far we have been rather disappointed in him. That is the point I want to make. The Minister must not allow himself to be told by other people that the miners’ phthisis sufferer is alright at the moment. I have received many a letter asking me what the Minister is going to do—asking me what the Minister proposes in order to improve the lot of the miners’ phthisis sufferer—these people are anxiously looking forward to legislation providing for pensions for everyone. What I have done so far has been to send them the Minister’s reply to our question in the House. What is the position today? Yes, there an ex gratia grant for every sufferer, not in receipt of a pension. Now, how does this work? How does the pension work—it is very low.

There is a very substantial increase.

There is an increase, but in spite of that it is very low, and if a poor miner applies and a grant is made to him—in the event of his finding employment for a few days—bang goes that allowance. The maximum is £12 10s., and the maximum only applies to very few cases.

Yes, very few get the maximum.

Yes, that is my point, and a large number are turned down altogether, because the Miners’ Phthisis Board, who are charged with the responsibility, suddenly finds that the poor mineworker has a son who has a daughter who has a sweetheart in receipt of a salary—and then the Board throws the responsibility on the shoulders of these people to look after the miners’ phthisis sufferer. They say: “We cannot make a grant to you, because we believe that so-and-so, who is your son-in-law, should support you.” No, it is entirely wrong to throw the responsibility which rests on this rich industry on the shoulders of a poor working man and say: “You must look after your father who has contracted phthisis after your father has worked in the mines for a number of years.” That poor fellow who is called upon to support his father or his father-in-law may be working on the Railways perhaps. He may be earning a very low wage, but the Board throws the responsibility on him. It is a very bad business. I don’t know whether the Minister knows this, but another very weak in the whole position is this, the miners’ phthisis sufferer in the primary stage, is really in the second stage; while he is alive he does not get any pension, but if he dies tonight, then tomorrow his family will get a pension. Surely that’s all wrong. It means that the mother and children must pray that Daddy may die tonight so that they can get a pension tomorrow. I don’t think the Minister is aware of that, but that is one of the biggest mistakes this House has ever made—it is a blot on this House. I protested against that clause at the time—that is in the Hofmeyr Act—that notorious Hofmeyr Act! I protested against it at the time, and I shall continue to do so, and I think the Minister will agree with me that that blot should be removed. Yes, the Minister made a very fine speech that first Session. I said at the time: “Well, I think this whole question will now be solved once and for all”, because those were actually the Minister’s own words. I want to ask the Minister not to delay this matter any longer.

Do you want me to introduce legislation before the Commission has reported?

The hon. member must not advocate legislation.

No, but I want the Minister to instruct the Board immediately to make the maximum available to every applicant. The Minister has that power, and if he does that he will do a lot towards alleviating the position of these people.

They should also contribute something to the cost of living allowance.

The Minister can do that at once, even if the report is delayed. I am receiving letters every day. People get an allowance, but not the maximum, and many are turned down, and in the meantime they have to try and keep going until one day the Commission may see fit to introduce their report. The Commission don’t seem to be in any great hurry.

It is now almost four years ago since the Leader of the Dominion Party became a Minister in this Cabinet. After he became Minister, the Minister of Mines visited the diamond diggings and the diamond diggers entertained great expectations of the Minister. I want to give him the credit that he was the first Minister who investigated the diamond diggings so thoroughly. He went practically from place to place, and even went through the congested native location. The diamond diggers all thought that there would now be for them a square deal, as they put it. The diamond digging community is undoubtedly the community that has always been the most neglected in the past, and the special visit of the Minister to the diggings gave rise to great expectations that the Minister now took an interest in the diggers and would help them. What happened? The speeches delivered by the Minister on the diggings gave the diggers new hope, new courage, and great expectations. The Minister came to this House and asked for legislation to put his plans into operation. We came to his assistance as far as possible, and gave him the right to enable him to act. The Minister even wanted to go so far as virtually to put up shops, in order to get away the backward diggers who could make no living. He could have taken radical steps. A few years have now passed. How have the expectations of the diggers been fulfilled? What has the Minister, of whom so much was expected, done for the diamond diggers? Can he tell us a single thing that can give us satisfaction, except that he is out more than ever to crush the diamond diggers out of existence, and that at a time such as this we live in, when diamonds have risen to an unprecendented price. There is even a shortage of diamonds in the world. One company sold diamonds for £7,000,000 in 1941. The Minister came to this House and said he wanted powers in connection with landowners in respect of mineral wealth, which these landowners are busy locking up. He also asked for these powers in respect of oil resources, just as in respect of base metals. We asked him in the past to assume the powers in so far as the diamond diggers are concerned, where companies deliberately lock up the wealth of South Africa. The Minister told us in the past that this was impossible, but just a year later, after he had said this, he came here and assumed powers in connection with base metals and also in respect of oil rights. When we accused him he said that this was merely a serious warning to companies that they must gradually throw open certain land for diamond digging. Now what was the serious warning to the companies? What followed subsequently? What steps were taken to remove the over-population at the diggings? What the Minister has done and what he is now busy doing, is to close all the diamond diggings, a community who for more than 70 years have made a living from digging. We are now speaking of those who penetrated into the diggings and who ought not to be there—it is in connection with that that we gave the Minister powers, but he is now assailing the professional diggers, a community who made a living from digging for 70 years, and he throttles them and destroys them. This is a community who have brought enormous sums of money to the Treasury through their activities, and there is still the opportunity to obtain large sums of money for a long period into the future, but certain people, certain companies, are exercising their power to suppress this community. They are out to deprive this community of their rights to serve their own purposes. The Minister has the power to compel the companies. But what has he done? Not a single thing. On the contrary, he is busy crushing the whole community. Not a sigle step is being taken to meet those people. On the contrary, he is even busy gradually destroying certain charitable work in the community. There we still have something, but he is also busy destroying that. The Minister is busy not only in locking up this wealth, but is also allowing the companies to gain the wealth for their own purposes. And as I have said, we are living in a time when the price of diamonds is high. Diamonds now are not merely luxury articles, but there is today a world demand for diamonds. Never before have diamonds been so sought after, and never has the world been so anxious to obtain diamonds. More than 60 per cent. of the diamonds of the world are already being used for industrial purposes, and the Minister is busy depriving South Africa of the chances which South Africa now has of competing in the world markets. Not a single diamond mine is operating in this country today, and the diamond diggings are busy retrogressing. The Government is today the only diamond producer in Namaqualand. What the diamond diggings produce today is a mere bagatelle, and of little consequence. The diamond mines have been idle for some years, and the accumulated supplies of diamonds are nearly exhausted. It is expected that more mines will be opened in the future, but only after the war stops. But we have to wait, because the Government is afraid that it will harm the war effort if persons are employed in the mines and if the work is thrown open. The opportunity is there, but these persons have to be taken up in the army. For that reason the diamond diggings may not be reopened, and the opportunities which now exist for South Africa have to be lost.

I think I had better reply to the points that have been made before we get any further appeals in touching on other branches of the activities of this Department. First of all, let me deal with the speeches made by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) and the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) with regard to miners’ phthisis. They will pardon me if I commence by saying that they have struck no new point of any kind or description in the speeches which have come from either of them. I don’t know that they pretended that what they said was in any way new, but I think it is right to remind the House that what they have said and the attitude they have taken up is, as the hon. member for Krugersdorp said, exactly the same as what they said in speeches years ago. If that is so, one has to go and deal with the subject on the broad issue. They have made the same points year in and year out for some time past. And now they have made reference to my own speeches, and I agree that I said in quite definite terms, when I spoke as a member of this House from the Opposition benches, that I was not satisfied with what had been done under the Acts, that had been placed on the Statute Book, and that I would as far as I individually was concerned spare no pains in improving the position.

And in the meantime three and a half years have elapsed.

Oh, all right, all right. Now by everything I have said I stand; I have nothing to qualify or to withdraw. Now, what is the position? Let any hon. member take up the miners’ phthisis laws and improve them. It is almost a mosaic of legislation, and I, though I have given the main portion of my life to the study of law, when I have to interpret or answer any particular problem in regard to the miners’ phthisis laws, I have metaphorically speaking, to put a wet towel round my head and study the Act the amendments and the extra amendments. It is a mosaic of legislation and the time has come when this legislation has to be put into a comprehensive form which the ordinary person may be able to understand, without having to take legal opinion as to the meaning of a clause, or to find out exactly what the position is. This is the first thing. The next thing is to see that the principles underlying this law are sound. Are the principles sound or not? If they are sound, then you only have to see that they are applied, but I for one was not satisfied—I was not satisfied that the principles which were underlying this legislation were sound, and furthermore, I wanted an up-to-date report on the position in which phthisis beneficiaries, phthisis sufferers were, and a recommendation as to the alteration which should be made. Now the House endorsed, Parliament endorsed, what I said in that respect. I had not one single word said against my proposal that these matters, these very important and difficult and intricate matters, should be referred for enquiry and report to a Commission. There was no dissenting voice anywhere, and the hon. member for Fordsburg and also the hon. member for Krugersdorp had supported as far as I am aware my proposal that a Commission should report on these matters. Now the Commission was appointed, and its terms of reference were duly considered, and that Commission was appointed in October, 1941, and I certainly think I had reason to expect that it would have reported before this date. Let me say at once that I regret that the report is not to hand, but as the hon. member for Krugersdorp quite courteously, and also, if I may say, correctly observed, I am not responsible for that. Apart from the accidents of illnesses of members, the House will remember that this is a very intricate subject indeed, and the gentlemen who have been appointed members of this Commission, are very responsible persons, and they are each capable of making considerable individual contributions to the problems with which we are faced. But who am I to say that they are to do so within a certain time? It would be most improper for me to say to a Commission appointed by the Governor General to consider this matter that they must report before a certain date.

You can order a Select Committee to do so, so why not a Commission?

Most certainly not. A Select Committee is, in order to be efficient, expected to report to the Session of Parliament. It is the creature of this House and this House can say to any Committee of its own that it is to do this, that or the other, but a Commission is on an entirely different footing. It is a Commission which bears not the order of this House or of any individual Minister, it bears the order of the Governor General to enquire into the terms of reference and make a report in due course. That is the procedure which has been followed from the very start.

The Governor General merely means the Cabinet.

And I say that if it had been suggested that there was to be a time limit, I would have resisted it.

In the meantime something should be done.

Had there been any suggestion at all that there should be a time limit for the report of this Commission I would have resisted it because I feel that this is such an important matter that if I had been a member—not a Minister, but a member of this Commission, I should have considered very seriously indeed whether I would accept appointment if at the start, before I started, even, I was told I must report on this matter by a certain date, never mind how intricate I found it to be, or how difficult and intricate the position might turn out to be. So I am quite unrepentant in saying that I am wating for the report of the Commission. And as I interjected while the hon. member was speaking, can it seriously be put to a Minister when a Commission has made an enquiry and is called upon to make a report—can it possibly be asked seriously from the Minister to introduce legislation on the subject before that Commission has submitted its report? It would, be an outrage, it would be an insult to Parliament, and not only to Parliament, it would be an insult to the Commission—it would be an outrage to Parliament and to the country if, after having appointed a Commission of Enquiry, Parliament should be asked to pass legislation before the report of such a Commission is received. I say with great confidence that the position which I took up is absolutely unassailable.

But surely in the meantime you could have done something.

What I can do in the meantime is another question. I am at the moment dealing with the complaint that there has been no legislation on this matter. And if that was the complaint of the hon. member for Fordsburg then I say that 99 per cent. of the hon. member’s speech falls to the ground. It was only because I had done nothing, because as he said, I had not the courage to implement my promise that anything he said had any logical sequence. What becomes of his claim that I did not have the courage to do this unless he meant that I should have introduced legislation altering the law of which he complains. What indeed becomes of it? Have I ever said that the law was adequate? On the contrary, I have not. But the speech of the hon. member for Fordsburg was not a speech directed to facing up to the present—that there was this outstanding report of the Commission being awaited by us—a speech recapitulating as he candidly, but incautiously, said—but it was a programme which he was hoping to use in order to attract votes in the forthcoming election.

But you waited two years.

His speech constituted a programme of his Party and himself. I gather that the hon. member for Fordsburg finds that it is his lot to speak for his party on most points, and he takes quite a large section of the allowance of half an hour speeches to do so. The hon. member for Fordsburg is becoming something like a universal joint to his party, and the speech which he has made on this miners’ phthisis question is a rehash of the position which he is going to take up in the forthcoming election, and is not a serious criticism of the action of a Minister.

But you waited two years before you appointed that Commission.

I took office in 1939.

Yes, and you appointed the Commission in 1941.

I had to go into the question very carefully, I had to make myself familiar … .

That’s only an excuse.

I had to make myself familiar with the position of all the branches of activity of my Department. I might have done it a bit earlier perhaps but I do not remember the hon. member or anyone else urging me to appoint a Commission before I did so.

I urged you to improve conditions.

Did they ask you in 1940 to do it?

No, I have no recollection of any request being made in 1940 or before I appointed this Commission that I should take that course.

No, but we asked for improved benefits.

That is another thing; you did not want the Commission straight away but you wanted increased benefits.

Yes.

Before that Hitler was going to take the mines over.

Yes, perhaps they were waiting for Mr. Hitler to take over the mines.

You call him “Mr.” this time.

There is no bite in this at all. The standpoint taken by the hon. member for Fordsburg is quite clearly the standpoint of a person who is advertising his speeches beforehand and not a serious criticism of the action or inaction of the Minister who is charged with responsibility.

I will have to repeat my speech, then.

Now I want to proceed a little further. There is a constant demand that the benefits should be increased and improved. I myself, as my speeches are being used and referred to, am very grateful that they are referred to and taken notice of, and I am very pleased when I find that hon. members have taken note of what I have said. I have nothing whatsoever to qualify or withdraw. I have said in another place and in this House that particularly the position of the primary sufferer did require amelioration. I realised that, and what I did short of radical alteration and legislation which I had to consider and which I may tell the House I did consider very carefully, I came to the conclusion that the best way of meeting that is to double the amount of money which is placed at the disposal of the Board for ex gratia payments. That was doubled. An extra sum of £75,000, making a total of £150,000, was placed at their disposal. Where does that come from? This money comes out of the funds which are supplied by the mining houses under the quarterly assessments which are made under the Phthisis Act, and I obtained the authority of Parliament for the purpose of increasing this amount, and that, of course, increased the liability of the different mining companies who have to supply those funds. The doubling of this amount has led to a very considerable amelioration. It has been of great benefit indeed to a class of sufferer who did need, who did deserve, and who did warrant better benefits being given to him. I recognise that. I do not say this is the last word. I do not say this is final at all, but I say that this is a very substantial stop-gap before we reconsider the whole position and the possible re-consideration of the groundwork on which phthisis compensation is to be given. I say without fear of contradiction that this grant has been of outstanding importance to hundreds and hundreds of families and individuals who have benefited thereby. To tell me that I have done nothing is not true. It is not facing up to the position.

I mentioned this.

Then why say that nothing was done?

I said that nothing except this. You will have to change your interpreter.

Perhaps you will make your language more clear.

The language was quite clear enough.

Whatever the precise word was which was used, it was calculated to depreciate the efforts I have made, and I say that what I have done has been of very substantial benefit, and that we must await the report of this Commission. I want to correct one thing—again if I understood the hon. member for Fordsburg aright—he said that I had committed myself to giving pensions to all sufferers.

From the primary stage.

I thought the hon. member said all stages. I accept that. Now the hon. member says that years elapsed before the progress of the disease took place. Do I understand him to be rather sorry that years elapsed? Why should not they? I hope the stage will increase and increase. It is a sign that the care which is taken in the mines, the care which is taken to spot the first sign of the disease, is bearing fruit. The precautions which are being taken delay very much the time at which the miner will either suffer or will get progress in his suffering.

My argument was that they had to starve between one stage and the other.

That is not correct.

I have seen them starving.

That is a statement which is without a tittle of justification. You may say that they do not get an allowance which is enough, but to talk of their starving in between is to use the language of an agitator, not the sober language of a statesman, and I feel confident that in his calmer moments the hon. member will not use language of that kind again, and will use language which is measured to the facts of the case. To talk about starving in between is quite unjustified. I want to bear testimony to the great care which the members of the Miners’ Phthisis Board have exercised and used, and to the sympathetic consideration which is given. The people who come for ex gratia payments are, I am satisfied, treated with the greatest courtesy, and with great consideration. From time to time I get letters written to me making complaints. In every case where I have received a letter of complaint, I have called for a report. There have not been very many, but I do from time to time receive complaints, and in each case I have been satisfied that consideration has been given, that courtesy has been given, and that the needs of the case, in so far as the money placed at the disposal of the Board will go, have been met.

I admit we always get it.

I am very glad to get that. May I say that the actual amount of money cannot be altered until you have altered the legislation. The amount of money is fixed, and until you get fresh legislation, I have no means nor has the Board any means of extracting more.

Who can change the legislation?

Parliament.

In other words, yourself?

I can introduce it and suggest it, and the hon. member can assist me. I do not think the hon. member was in the House when I dealt with the question of the delay owing to the non-report of the Commission. I am very glad to be able to say that the average age at which the miners enter into the last stage has been increasing. I think a little extract from the report would be of interest to the House. The incidence rate for the period of service between 19 and 24 years has been increasing. The amount of the incidence in that fourth period, and the number of people in that fourth period has been increasing, and the incidence rate of that group may appear to be alarming, but it should be remembered that the two groups include miners from 19 to 30 years service, and the number of miners in 1940-’41 was 1,060 and in 1941-’42 this number had increased to 2,416. This is a very important figure, because it shows that the number of miners who had attained that lengthy period of service underground, had so benefited by their improved conditions that their number was doubled during that period. That is of considerable interest, and it is of importance in showing that the efforts of the Prevention of Phthisis Committees, and all the efforts we are making to prevent phthisis, are bearing fruit—I cannot say we have destroyed it, but we are making progress, and it is marked progress, and therefore the person who enters mining now as a profession for his lifetime, has got a very much better expectation than ever he had before of being able to go through his life’s work, either escaping it altogether or having a much longer period before the disease falls upon him. And I think that is a fact that every member of Parliament and every citizen of the country will welcome, and be very pleased indeed to see. Sir, the importance of this to the country is very great indeed. Again I want to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Fordsburg. In outlining the millennium which he is advocating, I want to remind him and I want to remind the House that all these things, supposing that they are going to be done, are going to absorb considerable sums of money, and that the amount of money which is available is not unlimited, and will therefore in the long run restrict the amount of money that is available for taxation. What is the position of the gold mining industry with regard to taxation? At the present time the gold mines are contributing something like 60 per cent. of their profits, of what ordinarily would be profits, and the amount of money which revenue derives from the gold mines, is, of course, fundamental to the Budget of the Minister of Finance, and of every Minister of Finance that comes here. If all these benefits are to be given in the unlimited way that the hon. member for Fordsburg describes, it is bound to have an effect upon that amount of taxation, and this Government and every Government has got to bear that consideration in mind when they consider what the financial needs of the country are. May I state that my position with regard to that is this: I say that the first duty in any employment in the gold mining industry, or in any other industry, is to see that the people that are employed in that industry are properly paid and properly looked after, and I say that the next duty is to see that those who fall by the way, as a result of occupational disease in that industry, are also provided for; and after that only can taxation be resorted to. Well, the application of that is, of course, clear and definite. I do not know what particular point is to be made of the amount of currency and the amount that is paid in compensation. Most of the amounts realised from the sale of gold goes into the cost of producing it.

What about a temporary measure now to alleviate the distress of these people?

I am not prepared to introduce emergency legislation.

Not legislation, but just an instruction.

The hon. member, and I think every hon. member of this House, was prepared to assent to the appointment of a Commission, and to await its findings. I want to mention this question of the deficient supply of water. I think the hon. member for Fordsburg charged us with actually reducing the preventive measures—a very grave charge indeed.

What did I charge you with?

The hon. member charged the Department with reducing the precautions taken for the prevention of phthisis by reducing the amount of water available.

Your interpreter is at fault again. I will have to repeat my whole speech in English.

What did you say then?

I spoke of the reduction of the number of underground inspections. I did not charge you in regard to the water. I charged certain mines with abolishing their additional hoses.

That is only a round-about way of charging me. If I permit the mines to act that way, I am responsible; and I accept the responsibility. But what are the facts? This matter was submitted to the Phthisis Prevention Committee, on which the Mine Workers’ Union is represented, and when this matter was mentioned, I sent for the file and I am reading now from a report that reached me at the beginning of last year. It is this—

It should be noted that the Transvaal Chamber of Mines, the Managers’ Association, the Underground Officials’ Association, and the Mine Workers’ Union are all represented on the Miners’ Phthisis Prevention Committee, and that the membership includes all Reef Inspectors of Mines, a Sub-Inspector of Mines, two ventilation experts employed by the mining industry, and two medical experts. This resolution was adopted unanimously. So much for the criticism.

Why did individual mineworkers organise protest meetings against it?

Because they were ill-informed, and they do not repeat it now. Their own union went down and stopped that. I come now to the question of the falling off in the number of inspections. Well, it is perfectly true that the number of mineworkers has been reduced, and I have no reason to suppose that the number of inspections is out of relevancy with that fact, and with the activities of the mining industry at the present time. The hon. member will remember, and the House will remember, that certain developing mines have closed, and that it has been the policy adopted by the mining industry generally to reduce development in the producing mines. That has been adopted as a policy owing to the difficulty of getting mining stores at the present time, and presumably with all these different factors taken into consideration, the number of inspections may show a falling off. Whether it is actually due to that I am unable to say, but I do know that the mining activities have been curtailed in that respect quite materially, and it is only reasonable to suppose that the number of inspections would be reduced.

Did you reduce the number of inspectors?

I cannot answer that question. I shall get the information for the hon. member if he desires it. With regard to the Government training school, I find it very difficult to follow what the complaint is. In the Government mining training schools we train young people to be miners. They have to be trained in every branch, and at some time or another they have to do everything, with their own hands, which the fully qualified miner does. Of course, they have to do it.

They take the responsibility of a fully qualified man.

No, they do not take that responsibility. They have to do it as part of their training, but they do it under the supervision of a properly trained and skilled man; otherwise they would not be turned out qualified at the end of their apprenticeship. As time goes on, these apprentices have to take more and more responsibility, but they do not take complete responsibility.

They do in many cases.

No, they do not take complete responsibility until they have completed their apprenticeship. But during the course of their training, as in the course of training for every other occupation, an increasing amount of responsibility and initiative must be given from time to time to the trainee. I am very proud indeed of these training schools. I went over the latest training school in detail the other day, and the accommodation which is provided, and the care which is taken of these youngsters is outstanding, and at the present time it is more or less like a public school. The food and the accommodation and the sport and everything else leave nothing to be desired. Before I leave the training schools, I should say that the number of apprentices has fallen off very considerably owing to war conditions, and the question arose as to whether we should close some of these schools, because they could not all be fully occupied with advantage. But we considered that it was undesirable to do that, having regard to the fact that at some time or other the war would come to an end, and when it does come to an end there will be a considerable demand for training facilities, probably largely coming from those who will be classed as returned soldiers, and preference will be given to those who have done their duty at the front in getting training at these training schools if they so desire. That is adopted now as a definite policy. There are no natives taking the place of white men. As a matter of fact, during the last year or so the ratio of white men to black has been on the increase, but, generally speaking, taking year in and year out, it remains the same—round about one to eight.

What about the alluvial diggings?

I am coming to that. I just want to make sure that I have covered all the points. I do not want to talk at any great length about the Government being solely dependent on the mining magnates. I can tell hon. members that there are mighty few mining magnates. Persons who are referred to as mining magnates are the paid officials of the shareholders, and the shareholders of the mines are an ever-increasing number of South Africans, resident in South Africa and paying their taxes in South Africa. Now I will proceed to deal with the points raised by the hon. member for Kimberley, City (Mr. Humphreys). The hon. member raised the question of the diamond cutting industry, and asked me to report progress on that. I have great pleasure in doing so. Perhaps it will not be out of place here to refer shortly to the new diamond producers’ agreement, which was tabled in this House earlier this Session. That has been made for the purpose of introducing and improving the conditions in respect of the marketing and production of diamonds. I gave notice to cancel the old agreement which expired on the 31st December of last year, and the new agreement came into force on the 1st January. One of the main differences underlying these two agreements is caused by the increasing importance of industrial diamonds. The position of the diamond market at the present time is a very remarkable one. It is quite true that the demand for stones is very great, and the demand is not only for gems but for industrials, and the industrial demand has been quite out of proportion to anything experienced in years gone by. In the Union we did not produce very many industrials, but we did produce a very large quota of gems, and under the agreement we are dividing the gems from the industrials, and the quota which falls to the Union of South Africa of its gem production is 80 per cent. of all the sales which are made by the trading companies. With this increased position which the Union gets in the handling of gem stones, attention had to be given to the opportunities for cutting, and it is quite true that the cutting industry in the Union has also gone through a period of very considerable prosperity. The wages of journeymen reached the high levels which have been referred to by the hon. member for Kimberley, City. Why is it that wages of journeymen have reached that very high level? The reason is that firstly there was this very great demand for gem stones, which apparently people in the world are buying not only for ornament, but as an investment to guard against the depreciation of currency; but at any rate, this largely increased demand for gem stones is apparent. We should get our fair share of that, and arrangements have been made to that end. The number of apprentices and of journeymen has been comparatively small. Well, it was desired to increase the number of apprentices, and therefore in due course the number of journeymen, and we had to see by what means this could be done. I am against direct State action where you can get the industry or trade to take its own development and reform and enlargement into its own hands, and instead of setting up a Government factory in which apprentices could be taken in and trained—which I think would be a mistake—I approached the master cutters and the Journeymen’s Union, for the purpose of seeing whether we could not bring about an agreement for a considerable increase in the number of apprentices. There was a regulation of the Labour Department which laid down a quota of one to four of apprentices to journeymen. Well, in the ordinary course that would have meant the development of the number of cutters in the Union; that would have taken a very long time, and would really not have affected the position for a considerable time, at any rate. So I, in consultation with my colleague, the hon. Minister of Labour, suggested that we might alter that ratio safely from one to four to one to one, provided we took measures which would absolutely prevent any half-trained apprentice being thrown out on the street in a time of depression or slump. Hon. members will recollect that there was an instance of that kind not so long ago, when there was an attempt made to start on a considerable scale a cutting industry at Kimberley. So we have that precedent to bear in mind, and see that we do not have a repetition of that. Now, how can we do that? Hon. members will see that a master cutter in times of depression may find it impossible to lay his hands on £20,000, £30,000 or £40,000 for the purpose of buying stones in order to keep his apprentices engaged on cutting stones for which at the time there may be no market. One cannot compel these people to find money and buy stones which they cannot sell perhaps. So we set about to devise a plan for meeting that position, and the plan which has now been adopted, I am glad to say, is this: It is agreed that when any master cutter finds that owing to a slump he is in that position that he cannot buy Government diamonds for training his apprentices, the Government will supply those diamonds, but not as a gift or as a sale. They are going to be advanced to the Association of Master Cutters to be processed in the different factories in the trade, and when they are processed and the diamonds are cut and polished they are returned to the Government, and in the meantime the Government will pay for the wages of the apprentices engaged on these stones, and also the wages of any journeymen engaged in training. The master cutter undertakes that he will provide the premises, and he will carry all the overhead charges, and he will find the tools, etc. I don’t think it will cost the State very much, because against the expenditure for wages we get the enhanced price between the rough and the cut stone. Now, those stones will not be sold—that is not the intention. We are not going to intervene and throw them on the market and thus reduce the prices—these stones will be put into reserve—they will be put into the bottom of the coffers. Hon. members will realise that as producers of diamonds on a large scale the Government always has a large quantity of diamonds on hand, and there will be no difficulty in supplying these stones.

Will that be done on a commission basis?

No, the stones are advanced for the purpose of keeping the apprentices engaged. The master cutters undertake that they will be properly cut and polished, and after the cutting and polishing they will be returned to the Government. The master cutter gets nothing out of that, except that the trade is kept in being, and there are further potential journeymen who would be profitably employed when the trade gets better.

How do you sell?

I do not propose to sell at all at the present time. I propose to put these cut stones at the bottom of the chest and presumably they will only be sold when all the rough stones are gone, or when some suitable occasion arises, which I cannot anticipate. The market may improve—but the proposal is to put these cut stones into cold storage and to keep them there to be realised at some future time. I do not anticipate that this will involve the Treasury in any Ultimate loss. Now, let me say a few words about the conditions of training. An Apprentice Committee has been established, and the agreement which has been made between the Government and the Master Cutters’ Association involves the signing of other agreements of apprenticeship and recognises the existence of the Apprenticeship Committee, and it will be the duty of the Apprentice Committee on which the master cutters and the men’s union are represented, to make the regulations and to supervise the instruction and to see that the training is sound, and that the different conditions of apprenticeship, including wages, are suitable. I am afraid I cannot hold out any hope of bringing down by any regulation the wages of journeymen. I do not know whether the hon. member for Kimberley (Mr. Humphreys) really did recommend the introduction of legislation to reduce the wages in a particular trade below that which they will command in an open labour market. I don’t think that could be done. The actual cause of the rise is not so much the number of cutters as the demand for stones. And as long as the demand for stones goes on, I do not know why one should say that the wages should have a ceiling fixed. I quite agree with the hon. member that this cannot last, that this is a passing phase, but while it is there I see no reason for any intervention on the part of the Government. I certainly do not intend to intervene. I now pass to the speech of the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel). He dealt with the alluvial diggings. I hope I did not misunderstand the hon. member, but I understood him to imply that I have made promises to the diggers which I had not carried out. I wish he would be precise and definite. I say now that I know of no promises of any kind or sort which I made either at the diggings or in this House, or anywhere else, which I have not carried out. What did I promise? I promised this, that I would do my best to introduce and to get through the House legislation which would prevent an inrush of people into the business of diamond digging. That I have carried out. I never promised that I would take or seek to take powers which would enable me to throw open for prospecting or digging land which was privately held.

I did not say that.

I hope the hon. member will tell me what promise I made that I have not carried out. If it was not on these two lines, then what have I not carried out? If I made a promise, I hope the hon. member will tell me, and I shall get up and reply here and now. I did in that legislation which I originally introduced seek to take powers which would enable me to take away from the diggings indigent diggers who could not make a living there, and put them somewhere else. Parliament in its wisdom, however, eliminated the clause giving me that power. I have no complaints about that. It relieved me of a very great responsibility. But I have not got that power and I do not seek to get it, and I am faced with this position, with this condition of poverty on the diggings which has existed for a very considerable time and may continue for a good time longer. There is only a livelihood to be earned by a considerably less number of diggers than there are now—that is diggers holding certificates. I have been trying to seek out the numbers of those who hold certificates, and I find that there are so many that I frankly cannot see how those who are there can be expected to earn their livelihood on the alluvial fields. Now, what is the policy of the Government in regard to this? And let me say it is a policy which I endorse. It is this, that we should get the production of stones in the Union, to supply to the pool—that we should get the quota which we have today. And it is very desirable that the mines producing diamonds should be reopened. Kimberley depends on this. Pretoria would like to have the places around it—places like Premier Mine—reopened. People would like to see Jagersfontein reopened. I have now by negotiation got a definite undertaking that when the war is finished the Jagersfontein Mine will be re-equipped with up-to-date equipment which is capable of going into production at once, and that the Premier Mine also will be re-equipped with up-to-date equipment and will be able to go into production at once, and that at least one mine of the De Beers Company at Kimberley will also be absolutely re-eqipped and brought up-to-date, prepared to go into production immediately. I claim that in doing that we have gone very far indeed in seeing that advantage is taken of our opportunities to produce stones and to employ our people. I have not quite finished, but at this stage I wish to move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 5th April.