In moving the amendment as printed, to insert the words “ preference shall be given to persons who have rendered military service”, I do not think it is necessary in this House to stress this point very much, as I believe the majority of us are in favour of giving preference to soldiers—otherwise this Bill would not have been before this House. This Bill has been brought here in order to provide work and employment for our returned soldiers and our war workers. I feel that it is only just and right that we should set the example by in this Bill including provision that preference shall be given to soldiers where we are actually providing work in the form of inspectors being appointed. These inspectors will have a very important job of work to do, and they are the men who will frequently come in touch with the employees, and I feel that it is absolutely essential that we have the right type of man there, the man with the correct outlook, the outlook of those with whom he has to deal—a soldier knows them, and he knows better what the soldier needs than anybody else—that man who has been through the stage of soldiering. After all we do want the right sort of psychological outlook here. Many of these men who return will have been through all sorts of terrible and difficult experiences. They will have lived a life which is very different from the life which we here at home live and feel that they will need the help and guidance and sympathy and understanding to which they are entitled. It is in the early stages when they have to get back to the normal civil life that they particularly will want that understanding which will be so necessary for them in starting life again. I feel that the inspectors here will play a tremendous role in dealing with the difficulties which might arise in connection with the re-employment of our men, those men who have offered up so much for us, who have done so much for us—and by men I include women, I am talking of them all as one group—and I definitely feel that we shall never be able to repay those men and women for what they have done for us. I do feel however that we should do all in our power to enable them to enjoy the fruits of their ordinary civil life by making their conditions of employment as comfortable as we possibly can. I move as an amendment to the new proviso inserted by the Committee of the Whole House—

I second.

I am very sorry but I cannot support this amendment of the hon. member, quite apart from the principle which we adopt, namely that the Government is there not to give preference to one class over and above another class, but to treat all people on their merits; and the same applies to appointments in the Civil Service. On our side we certainly cannot relinquish the principle that in appointing officials preference should not be given to returned soldiers. We have no quarrel with the desire on the part of the Government to look after the returned soldier, but I say that we are opposed to giving preference to soldiers over and above civilians, unless the soldier happens to be a better man on merits; in that case we have no objection. But there is another reason why I am opposed to the amendment, and that is that great powers are vested in these inspectors, and for that very reason, they should be people who are able to judge impartially. For that very reason they should not be returned soldiers. They must look at the matter not only from the point of view of the returned soldier, but also from the point of view of the employer. Here we are dealing with two sides to the picture, and for that very reason people who are able to judge impartially should be appointed to these posts, people who are able to look at both sides of the picture. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) wants the people who are appointed to these posts to look after the interests of one side only. No, I say that persons who are able to judge impartially ought to be appointed. Preference should not be given to people merely because they are returned soldiers.

I fully support what was said by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). We are dealing here not only with returned soldiers, but with hundreds and thousands of people who will be thrown out of employment. Employment should be found for those people as well., These inspectors will have to see to it that those people are all given employment. We cannot be accused by that side of not having tried to make a success of this Bill. Why should one section of the population receive preferential treatment? We cannot agree with that. There are many people in this country who did not enlist but who did their duty in connection with production and in other directions. If this amendment is accepted, their claims will be overlooked. But there is something else which I fear. Amongst the returned soldiers there will be not only Europeans but also native and Coloured soldiers. Are they to be given prefence as well? We object most strongly to the proposal by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson), at this stage when the Bill is almost through the House, that preference should be given to returned soldiers. That is what it amounts to. What about all those people in the country who kept the Civil Service going, who kept the State machinery functioning? Are they simply to be overlooked while preference is given to returned soldiers? No, we on this side say that every case should be dealt with on its merits. We want the most capable man to get the post. If that is done, we will have no objection. But we say that the best man should be appointed. If soldiers are to be given preference, what would happen? The soldier would naturally be more sympathetic towards his fellow-soldiers. He would be partial; and that is unfair. I hope therefore that the hon. member for Newcastle will not insist on his amendment at this stage.

I hope that the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) will not press his amendment, not for the reasons advanced by the other side altogether, though they do enter. In the first place it is entirely impracticable. The Labour Department, and myself, of course, must have a free hand to choose the best people for this job. Now, I enter freely into the sentiments expressed by my hon. friend, and I hold them myself, and I will tell him that all Government departments have been told that so far as possible returned soldiers must be employed, but they must not take precedence over competency. All things being equal, a returned soldier will be appointed. In addition I want to point out this, that the Labour Department itself has probably contributed more in service by its personnel at the front than almost any other department. I do not want to make invidious comparisons, but we have a tremendous proportion of our inspectorate and other personnel at the front. When they come back, they will be looking for jobs, and they will automatically get these jobs, provided they are competent for them. There is one thing my hon. friend has overlooked, and that is the duties of these inspectors. They are not actually engaged in placing the men —they will deal with them rather indirectly, because if you see the responsibilities that are thrown on inspectors, the position is that they will not, or will very seldom, connote actual contact with the soldier himself. Of course they have the right. I do not take second place to my hon. friend in the matter of his sentiment, but we must be practical and we have to realise that these inspectors have got to be men who can actually do their jobs. There is another aspect : Is my Department constantly to be cross-examined as to whether they have actually given preference to the soldier? It would put us in an impossible position. So, while I subscribe to his sentiment, its practicability does not emerge, and I must ask him not to press this.

I intend to support the amendment of the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) for the obvious reason that the combatant soldier is by far the best man to be entrusted with any job affecting the rights of a returned soldier. We accept unreservedly what the Minister says, that his Department is well represented at the fighting front and that is all the more reason why this amendment should be accepted, because it does not mean that the hon. member’s amendment would entail an appointment from outside the Minister’s Department to his inspectorate, but it would simply mean that the particular inspector entrusted with this work would be a man who himself had been in the ranks fighting for his country.

So far as possible that will be done.

It ought to be possible and it probably will be possible, but the Minister must not resent the idea that his Department might be constantly cross-examined about giving efficient representation to the returned soldier. I think that is bound to happen, and the Minister must put up with the cross-examination when it takes place; and so far as this matter is concerned, I feel that the Bill we are in the course of passing does not sufficiently stipulate for the representation of the returned soldier in the personnel to be employed in carrying out the objects of the Bill. I welcome the amendment moved by the hon. member for Newcastle; it is a good one, and I hope he will allow it to go to the vote. It is no use these things being stifled by appeals such as are made to leave all things to the Minister. It is far better for this to be expressed in definite terms, and then if it is not carried out the man who is affected, and who is disappointed by the treatment of his case, has the right to maintain that the man who is entrusted with this job must have had military service, as required by the Act.

In a way I am sorry that the Minister has not agreed to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Robertson) because I was going to suggest that it would be more appropriate to insert the words “men and women” instead of “persons”. I put it to the Minister that women should have representation on this board and I hope he will see his way clear to adopt this suggestion.

Do you mean that a woman is not a person?

Amendment put and a division called.

As fewer than ten members (viz.: Messrs. Marwick, Molteno and Neate) voted in favour of the amendment, Mr. Speaker declared it negatived.

Amendment made by the Committee of the Whole House put and agreed to.

Amendments in Clause 9, put and agreed to.

Amendment in Clause 10 put,

I move as an amendment to the amendment—

I second.

Agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, put and agreed to.

Amendments in the Heading to Chapter II, Clause Eleven and the first amendment in Clause 19, put and agreed to.

In Clause 19,

On behalf of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie), I want to move the amendment which appears in his name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I hope it is not necessary to enlarge on the effect and meaning of this amendment. It is self-explanatory. It is to give effect to the principle which we advocate, namely, that in this connection too, there should be differentiation between Europeans and nonEuropeans; that there should be separateness and a dividing line, and that in fixing wages it should be taken into account whether the person is a European or a non-European. This principle has already been discussed on various occasions under this Bill, and we move it here again. Power is given to the Minister to differentiate, but we want it to be laid down specifically that that differentiation should be made. Sub-clause (3) reads—

We do not want to leave it to his discretion to differentiate where he may deem it advisable, but we want it to be laid down that he shall differentiate on the ground of colour. I think the Minister will appreciate the fairness of this amendment. He might perhaps draw this distinction. I do not know whether he is prepared to give such an undertaking, because he has stated on a previous occasion that in the future he is not going to give any undertakings. But even if he were to give an assurance, it would still not lay down the principle; we do not know whether the Minister who succeeds him—who knows, within a few weeks perhaps—will be prepared to observe such an undertaking. Such a provision is necessary in view of the fact that it is becoming increasingly apparent that the principle of a dividing line between white and black is systematically being pushed into the background. We are alarmed not only at his remarks in this House, but at the attitude which is revealed by the newspapers which support the Government in connection with this matter. Nearly all the leading English newspapers in this country are opposed to the principle of separateness; the position is becoming dangerous and alarming, and for that reason we want it to be laid down specifically in this Bill that effect must be given to the principle of separateness.

I should like to second the amendment and express the hope that the Minister will accept it. He knows, as the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) said, that he will not always be there to give effect to this Bill, and an impossible situation may then arise if we do not accept this amendment which is designed to lay down this principle specifically in the Bill. A person who employs Europeans may be forced to employ coloured people amongst them. Take the case of an employer who employs only coloured people, he may be forced to employ Europeans amongst them. Moreover, we must remember that this Bill makes an inroad on the employer’s right to decide whom he is going to employ. Under this Bill the Minister is given the power to tell the employer who he should employ, and in these circumstances we want protection, not only for the employees, but also for the employer who wants to maintain the principle of separateness and who may be placed in a difficult position.

I am afraid I cannot accept the amendment. We have fought the whole principle out in the Committee stage and on the second reading, and I want to make it perfectly clear to the House—I know what is exercising the minds of hon. members there, that in the ordinary way of industry we will be mingling Europeans and coloured people. I have already shown that is not so. The Factories Act lays down that we should have differentiation, and we have established the fact most conclusively that Europeans and coloured people, in the ordinary occupation of industry, have to occupy different rooms, different entrances, different conveniences—everything is separated. But I ask the House not to insist on having such a thing as this put in the Bill, more particularly as the principle laid down now is that we pay for work and not for colour. I hope my friends over there will not press it, and that the House will not agree to it. My hon. friends over there have had quite a good time on this Bill, and they have carried on much to their delight and sometimes to my mortification, and in the main they have done very well. I hope they will rest satisfied.

I hope the Minister will not adopt the attitude that we regard our amendments to this important Bill as “having a good time.” When we move amendments, we do so in all seriousness, because we regard this Bill as an extremely important matter. It affects the position of tens of thousands of people in this country and in moving these amendments we do so in all seriousness. I am afraid the hon. Minister is only too inclined to treat this matter jocularly. His main argument seems to be that this matter is already provided for in the Factories Act. But I see nothing in this clause which limits the question of employment only to industries and trades which fall within the ambit of the Factories Act. This clause is of general application to any type of work. How can the Minister advance the argument that this matter is already dealt with by the Factories Act? In this sub-clause the Minister is empowered to differentiate. He is given far-reaching powers, and we are now raising a matter in regard to which very strong views are held today by all sections of the population, including people who support members on the other side. I refer to the question of separateness between European and nonEuropean in the various spheres of employment in our industries and trades. We notice the tendency which is already evident in the Railways where the Minister of Railways is yielding more and more. The Minister of Railways is in the process of breaking down that dividing line between Europeans and non-Europeans. We are concerned, and not only we on this side, but also people who support members on the other side, about the manner in which the Government is breaking down the dividing line between Europeans and non-Europeans. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) and the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) indicated the practical difficulties which may arise if this principle of separateness is not embodied in the Bill. I hope therefore that the Minister will realise that this is a serious matter, that it is an important principle on which the nation holds strong views, and since he is being given extended powers under this Bill, that he will be prepared to accept this amendment.

I am sorry that the Minister of Labour does not want to accept his amendment. The principle of separateness between Europeans and non-Europeans is a general principle which is accepted by both national sections, English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking. The greater majority of people definitely feel that there must be a dividing line between Europeans and nonEuropeans, as far as employment is concerned, trade unions, residential areas, etc. Unfortunately we still come across people who are not prepared to have that dividing line. We find that that is the case on the Government benches. A few days ago we had a statement from a member on the other side who frankly admitted that he did not see any necessity for such a dividing line. We are compelled therefore to insist from time to time upon provision being made in our legislation for the maintenance of the dividing line. The ideal position would have been for the Government itself to ensure the maintenance of separateness; and in that case legislation would not have been necessary. But unfortunately the position is that there are mixed spheres of employment, mixed trade unions and mixed residential areas, giving rise to a sad state of affairs in our country. The Minister now states that the Factories Act makes provision for a dividing line. But only this year we had the case in Germiston where trouble arose in regard to this very point.

They were separated there.

We accept the statements of the minister of religion and of the female workers. They worked together in the same factory and practically in the same room.

They did not know that there were non-Europeans.

We saw different statements in the newspapers. A year or two ago investigations were made in Natal and it was brought to light that Europeans and non-Europeans had to work together in the same factory. Coloureds and natives worked alongside European women. I think the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) raised the matter in this House. For that reason we on this side insist upon a clear dividing line being drawn between Europeans and nonEuropeans in any legislation which is passed and which deals with working places; because the people concerned are usually the less privileged classes who cannot obtain any other employment and who are then compelled to work side by side with non-Europeans. We have received representations from time to time from people who have asked us to see to it that provision is made for separateness in the various spheres of employment, in trade unions and as far as housing is concerned. We have moved amendments to that effect from time to time, and our proposals have always been rejected. The attitude which the Government adopts is one of not wanting to give offence. I say that the principle to be applied in this country should be that of separateness. We spend a great deal of money in purchasing land for non-Europeans and we give preference to the natives in those areas. We have no objection to preference being given to natives in the native territories. But we must see to it that the less privileged Europeans are accorded their rights in European areas, and a dividing line should be drawn between white and black. The Minister says that the Factories Act does make provision in this respect. If that is so, no harm can be done by accepting this amendment. If that provision already exists, let us make doubly sure.

This Bill is, I think, rather unfortunately called the Soldiers and War Workers Employment Bill; it would more appropriately be called the Volunteers Bill, because it is dealing, not only with soldiers but with soldiers and sailors and airmeh. I am surprised at the Opposition, or rather I am not surprised, because nothing from them ever surprises me. But I feel I ought to say a word or two, because the Opposition, in moving this particular amendment, put themselves forward as advocates of a white South Africa, and they are pleading with the Minister in the interests of the ex-volunteer but they do not want to be concerned with a volunteer who has not a white skint The most extraordinary thing is that this is the same Opposition which right through the war was prepared—I do not say to advocate, but they were prepared—to give tacit approval to acts of sabotage, and they were prepared in this House to move motions and make speeches which were all directed against the sailor and the soldier and the airman who were prepared to fight for their country. Now suddenly we find they are filled—I do not know what they are filled with …

Not the same thing as you.

But they are now concerned with what is going to hapen to the volunteer when he comes back to the Union of South Africa, the volunteer who has risked his life and given his all to defend South Africa and these hon. gentlemen. They want to hold up the Bill and to insert something about the separation of Europeans and non-Europeans. As it so happens, and I say it in sorrow rather than in anger, when the call came in this country and when we were faced with a dangerous situation, when it might have happened that South Africa could have been overrun, there was a considerable response from the non-Europeans in this country. There was a considerable amount of what I might call “anti-response” from the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) and his followers.

And your own people. They were walking all over the place. Go to Muizenberg on a Saturday or Sunday.

The point is this. Here we have a Bill dealing with the returning volunteers, and our South African army is composed, not only of Europeans but of nonEuropeans as well, and the “honourable Opposition”—I use that term deliberately— now wish to insert a particular clause which desires the separation of these two particular races.

And you don’t want it.

I do not want it to be enshrined in an Act of Parliament. It does happen in South Africa in the ordinary work ing of economic circumstances. That is the position at which we have arrived, but the Opposition is determined to enshrine it in some Acts of Parliament. The point I am making is that in a Soldiers and War Workers Employment Bill, in a Bill which is part of the Government’s promise to see that the people who fought for us are—not rewarded, because you can never reward the people who fought for you in a war—but to see that these people are rehabilitated—in such a Bill the people who refused to fight, the people who stultified our recruiting efforts, who gave tacit approval to acts of sabotage, which hindered our war effort, are now coming forward and asking us to place a disability on the people who went forth to fight. I Understand that the non-Europeans up North have held their places with any soldier in the world. I have heard myself from the lips of General Dan Pienaar, that the South African coloured drivers were probably the best drivers any army had in the Western Desert, That is a great deal more than I can say for the Opposition. And they now ask us to enshrine in a Bill—apart from the economic circumstances, because they are there—a provision of this kind. Let us in this House pay a tribute to these men who are prepared to sign on and fight for their country. Some of them have already died for us. Let us at least pay them the tribute to decline to enshrine in this Bill a Clause which refuses them the right to work out their own destiny.

That is not what we want to enshrine.

If this suggested amendment came from a class of the community who have been interested in the war, who had from the very beginning said: “Yes, we have to fight Hitlerism, we must save South Africa and be a united nation”— I could still understand it, but this particular amendment has come from a class of people in this country who have consistently hindered the war effort.

Your people have shouted and done nothing.

At this late stage they are suddenly finding an interest in the returning volunteer. I can assure the hon. member for Gordonia that the returning volunteer is not interested in him.

You are nothing but talk.

Let me assure the hon. member that in his constituency he has probably seen to it that very few men have gone to help, so his interest in the soldiers and war workers is non est. And the soldiers are not interested in him. So the Nationalist Party are wasting their time. But I know that this whole matter will be used as propaganda throughout the country, and those members will say: “We moved this, and we moved that, and the Government turned it down.” May I just give a word of advice to the Nationalist Party: I know they won’t take it, and I hope they won’t take it. I hope that they will continue as they are doing today because it will lead to their complete extinction.

What about Wakkerstroom?

One swallow doesn’t make a summer. I am telling the Nationalist Party that their policy will lead them to complete extinction. Our soldiers know their friends. They know that hon. members over there not only were opposed to the war, but did their best to prevent any recruiting, and that they gave their tacit approval to sabotage.

What about the sabotage in Palestine?

I want to say this, that I am not prepared to vote for anything that will enshrine the colour bar in a Bill dealing with returned soldiers—a class of people for whom we know the Opposition has no time.

It is very clear what the position of the Labour Party is. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) who has just sat down, does not want to compromise himself in connection with coloured persons. We asked him by way of an interjection whether he was merely opposed to the insertion of this provision in this particular Bill, or whether he was opposed to any provision of this nature in any law. After the debate which has been conducted here during the past few days in connection with this question, it must be clear to everyone that the Labour Party has entirely departed from the policy which they adopted twenty years ago. The Labour Party under Col. Creswell and even under the hon. Minister later on, was very clear on one point, namely that they supported the policy of the Nationalist Party in connection with the coloured question. As far as that point is concerned Col. Creswell and even the hon. Minister stood firm.

That is a long time ago.

That was the position even under the hon. Minister not so long ago. Whether or not the hon. member agrees with me, the Labour Party has of recent years departed from its racial policy under the pressure of Communism. And now I want to tell the hon. member that the Labour Party will oppose tooth and nail any suggestion of a colour bar by the Nationalist Party, whether it be in this Bill or in any other law or provision. That is clear. It is clear from their attitude in this House that they have departed from their former policy, and that they are no longer in favour of the maintenance óf the colour bar in this country. In every measure that we propose, those hon. members get up and say that the Bill or measure under discussion is not the proper place for it. It does not suit them to have it laid down in any law. If we were to suggest a general provision in any enactment that the colour bar should be maintained, the Labour Party, together with the Government, would vote against it. The hon. member with his double salary eats out of the hand of the Government. He is the Government’s slave. He eats out of their hand as far as the colour question is concerned too. Let us be clear on this point. Whenever this question is raised in the House, it is stated that the measure under discussion is not the proper place for it. That is the only argument which the Minister advances; but he himself knows that he has changed his policy. He has not got the courage to admit it. Let him get up in this House and tell the country what his policy is in connection with the colour question. Let him say that he agrees with other people, that he is not in favour of separate working places and different wages; he would then be honest, at any rate. If this is not the proper place, which is the proper place? Our policy on this side of the House in connection with this question is crystal clear. It has been stated on various occasions by our leaders that the Nationalist Party wants to give all sections of the population a means of livelihood. The policy of the Government should be to ensure a decent living to all classes of the population, irrespective of their colour, but having regard to the principle of separateness as far as working places and wages are concerned. I make bold to say that there is a large growing opinion in the country in this connection, that there is a feeling in this country on the part of the people, English-speaking as well as Afrikaans-speaking, that we should maintain the policy of the Nationalist Party as far as the colour question is concerned, namely, separateness as far as working places and industries are concerned and differentiation as far as wages are concerned. That is what the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) moved here this morning.

Was that always the policy of the Nationalist Party?

It has been the policy of the Nationalist Party as long as that hon. member has known it and as long as I have known it, that there must be separateness as far as working places are concerned and differentiation in regard to wages. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) surely does not want to suggest that the party to which he belonged for so many years was not in favour of separateness.

Did the old Nationalist Party favour separateness?

The hon. member for Beaufort-West (Mr. Louw) has just handed me a letter which he received from one of the leading citizens of Durban, a member of the City Council of Durban, in which he writes as follows—

There is a growing feeling in this country amongst Afrikaansspeaking people and English-speaking people that this colour question must be solved. I was saying that however confused the Government’s policy is and the policy of the Labour Party in connection with the colour bar, it cannot be said that the Nationalist Party’s attitude is confused. It is clear and explicit. There must be separateness in trades and in working places. There must be separate working places and different wages for the working classes. It is clearly stated in the Social and Economic plan which the Re-united Party published only recently. That has been the policy of the Nationalist Party throughout the time I have known it. We want it to be laid down specifically in this amendment. The argument which is regularly advanced by the other side, as soon as separateness is advocated, as soon as the colour question is discussed, is that the Bill concerned is not the proper place for it. No Bill is ever the right place for it. The reason for that is that hon. members on the other side are greatly impressed by the growing feeling in this country in favour of separateness, of the growing support for the attitude of the Nationalist Party. They are unable to face the problem, and they push it aside whenever they can by saying that the legislation concerned is not the proper place for it. But the people in the country are beginning to realise what is going on and what there is behind that excuse on the part of the Government and of the Labour Party; the people are beginning to realise that that method is employed in order to run away from the problem. You, Mr. Speaker, ruled that this amendment is in order. This Bill is the proper place for it. One need only declare oneself for or against it. The hon. member for Gordonia, in moving this amendment, rendered a great service to the nation.

I am convinced that the greater majority of soldiers are as much in favour of separateness as we on this side are. I am convinced that they are more in favour of separateness than a large section of the S.A.P. members of Parliament. We have this tragic position that the members on the other side persuaded the soldiers to go on active service; the soldiers had to sacrifice everything on the battlefields, and now that they are returning, it is left to the Nationalist Party and to us as Nationalist members of Parliament to defend the interests of the soldiers. It is left to us to advocate the principle of separateness in the various spheres of employment for the soldiers. We are told, however, by the Minister and the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) that they do not want us, by means of legislation, to protect the interests of the European soldiers, who sacrificed their lives. I want to protest against the action on the part of the Government and its supporters towards the soldiers who went on active service. It is a vital principle as far as the people are concerned, and I want to emphasise that I am convinced that no Minister or member of this House would dare to go with me or any Nationalist to the soldiers and to put the matter to them in the same light as it was put here today. If we put the matter before the soldiers, they will realise what the position is and they will demand separate spheres of employment. If they were to hear what has been said by the Minister and by those people who encouraged them to go on active service, they would support the policy of the Nationalist Party 100 per cent. It is high time that we become more realistic in South Africa as far as this matter is concerned. Anyone who keeps his eyes open and who sees what goes on in the Cape Peninsula, for example, must be perturbed. Only yesterday evening I travelled by train from Pinelands together with my hon. friend who is seated next to me. What did we find? All the coaches were packed with natives, and there was only room for six or eight Europeans in one coach. It was a first class coach. The whole train was full of natives and we had great difficulty in getting seats. There must have been a few hunderd natives who were celebrating the holiday, and they made a deafening noise. The position on the train was intolerable for the Europeans. But we had no alternative but to board the train in order to reach our destination. I wish the Minister and members of the S.A.P. could have been with us in the coach. If they had been in the coach, they would not have been smiling now. The Minister would have realised how intolerable the position was. The trouble is that many members on the other side, who are rich people and who ride about in their motor cars, never come into contact with the conditions outside. But the poor soldiers who were on active service for years, who had to leave their occupations, and who will now have to work under these conditions, will be affected. They will be told that the Minister and the Government Party refused to introduce legislation to maintain the principle of separateness. I can give you the assurance that this matter is beginning to make its influence felt. The very fact that a soldier stood in the by-election at Wakkerstroom proves that they are becoming aware of the wrong policy of the Government. The soldiers are in favour of separateness, and I am convinced that this attitude on the part of the Government will lead to its downfall.

I want to make a serious appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment Last Friday I got hold of a copy of “The Star”, and I noticed that a member of the City Council of Johannesburg had recommended, in view of the fact that new trams were not available, that in the future the trams should be placed at the disposal of coloureds and natives so that they could travel together with Europeans. There was great indignation about the proposal, and Afrikaans-speaking as well as English-speaking people were furious; they predicted that there would be great trouble if that were allowed. It is not only the Afrikaansspeaking people who are pleading for separateness, but the English-speaking people as well. The Minister now states that it is laid down in the industrial laws that Europeans and non-Europeans should not work together. I just want to relate a certain experience of mine. I in company with others, went to Durban and searched for a European woman who comes from a good family but whose ill fortune it was to become poor. When we arrived at the house where she lived, we discoverd that she worked in a factory. When we arrived at the factory we found that this European woman was working amongst Asiatic women in a shirt factory. It was a painful sight. We must therefore take every precaution to prevent Europeans and non-Europeans being thrown together in employment. It is an old tradition of the Voortrekkers that there must be separateness. If they had not maintained that principle, the European civilisation would have been wiped out. But there is another factor. We are accustomed to being accused of advocating separateness. We are accused of it. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) stated that the coloured people and the natives came forward when the call came to defend them against Hitlerism. We heard the same thing in the Second War of Independence. At that time Krugerism had to be fought, and British Imperialists put South African natives into the army to fight against the republics. Those people are colour blind during the war, but we refuse to be colour blind. We advocate the principle of separateness and we are grateful to know that not hundreds but thousands of English speaking people who were born in South Africa are beginning to accept that principle. That is necessary for the continued existence of our European civilisation. They share our view that the position is becoming dangerous. We notice what is happening in Cape Town. If this element is given an inch, they take a yard. The position is becoming worse from day to day. If the European civilisation is to continue to exist, it is necessary for us to take action. Once again therefore I make an appeal to the Minister favourably to consider this amendment and to accept it. It would create satisfaction throughout the whole country if he accepted it, and he would earn the congratulations even of his own people.

I know in this House it is difficult to raise any debate above the level of party considerations, but I am going to try. There is on the part of the Opposition an attempt to get recognition of the colour bar in every Bill offering the opportunity introduced here—the idea seeming to be that there is some dictum of God granting superiority to Europeans in whatever country in the world they have set up interests. Speaking as one who belongs to a Christian community, or I presume so, it would be interesting to record what the Christian ethic has to say about this. I know that the text book says that “there is neither Jew nor. Greek, bond nor free, but God hath made men of one blood under heaven.”

You speak for your own party.

The truth of the text cannot be denied. That is the Christian ethic. Now to turn to the matter of economic ethics. There is, I think all will agree, an essential unity in the economic circumstances of the people and you dare not destroy that essential oneness in the interests of one section or of another. Why then should there be this stupid attempt at differentiation; I can only call it “stupid” because it cuts across the convictions and intelligence of our friends, when they try to make out there should be this differentiation between the people who have equally borne the heat and burden of the day. That is the fact. These people they seek to differentiate against volunteered freely; they have spilt their blood freely; they have given their lives freely in what is recognised by most of us to be a common cause. If we accept as a fact that hon. members opposite really believe that Germany ought to win the war, we still have the position that Germany has never hesitated to use the despised non-European in the furtherance of her plans. The Germans are just as guilty, if that is the term to use, of using coloured men for the furtherance of their aims as we in this country are guilty of using them; so hon. members opposite have no argument on that score. I want to appeal to them accordingly in their own interests, in the interests of self-defence, that they give up this stupid attempt to differentiate between one man and another. If they have not any better reason than is contained in the arguments they have advanced, it must be obvious to any thinker that unless the attempted differentiation of interests comes to an end, unless we see that the non-European is given the representation that he is entitled to in return for participation in the common cause, and unless on the other hand we see that there must be for the preservation of our white civilisation in South Africa a real accession of fresh blood, then obviously that civilisation must go under.

Are you for or against differentiation?

If it had not been for the discovery of gold—which was not an unmixed evil, bringing as it has, a considerable influx of fresh European blood—we should have been fifty years further on to being a coloured people in South Africa. That is the natural assumption. There are already 800,000 coloured people in this country as a result of the mixing of the Bantu and the European people. That is in the main a European male problem, a problem that arises mainly out of the state of things that this country had a purely agricultural and pastoral civilisation for a long period. I say without contradiction that but for the discovery of gold in the Transvaal, that position would have been fifty years further advanced, than now. The solution of the problem is to grant every man his right to representation, whatever his colour, and if we wish to ensure the preservation of our European civilisation, to see that we do not knee-halter any attempt that is made to encourage the coming to this country of fresh blood from overseas.

I am surprised at the speech of the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne). I did not think, since we dealt with the question of the colour bar for such a long time, that there would still be people whose views are so obstructed by blinkers that they cannot appreciate the problem. The hon. member stated that the European in South Africa was the cause of the degeneration which has taken place. I can only say this to the hon. member that if we were to adopt the policy which he advocates, we would promote degeneration in this country. We on this side want to do right and justice towards the non-Europeans, but our opinion is that the correct and the best way of doing that is along the lines of separateness, as was explained a little while ago by our hon. Leader. We want to give the non-Europeans their rights in every sphere. We are not opposed to giving them their due rights and privileges, but in their own sphere. We must not forget that the non-Europeans are still centuries behind the Europeans as far as civilisation is concerned; and if we advocated equality between Europeans and non-Europeans in every sphere of employement, we would do a great injustice to both sections. I want to predict that history will repeat itself. If the suggested course is followed, I predict that after the war the soldiers will be faced with the same conditions which they had to face after the previous world war. They had to fight for their rights and for separate spheres of employment. The reply which they got from the Government of the day came in the shape of bullets. Large numbers of them were killed because they defended their rights and insisted on their right of existence. I can see through this thing very clearly. This policy of equality between Europeans and non-Europeans simply means this, that when demobilisation takes place and English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking soldiers are dissatisfied with the employment given to them, nonEuropeans will simply be put into their places. There will again be chaos and shooting. That will be the thanks which the soldiers will get. I hope the Minister will give us a sympathetic hearing and that he will favourably consider this amendment which aims at the maintenance of separateness. The competition between Europeans and non-Europeans is so keen that the Europeans cannot make a living because the nonEuropeans, with their lower standard of living, are able to live much more cheaply. It costs the European much more to build up his family, and if he is placed on the same footing as the non-European as far as employment is concerned, he will be unable to compete. We lower our people morally if we force them to work side by side with nonEuropeans. It is a scandal. Whenever we talk about the native question, the other side of the House agrees with us, but the trouble starts as soon as we talk about the coloured people. Then they all get into their shells. The reason for that is that the party owes the majority of the S.A.P. seats in Cape Town to the non-European vote. If we want to solve the colour question, we must tackle it as a national problem; we must not think of our seats in this House. We must face the facts as they are, otherwise we shall have a coloured race in South Africa in years to come. Our forefathers were a small handful of people in this country, but they kept this race a pure race. In other countries where the circumstances were the same, that was not the case, and in those countries mixed marriages took place. South Africa remained a white man’s country notwithstanding all the hazards with which our people were faced. That is because the Afrikaner has always maintained the principle of separateness while at the same time not trampling upon the rights of the non-Europeans. The Afrikaner co-operated in this sense that he assişted the non-Europeans to remain a strong nation. They were not exterminated as happened in Australia, for example, where the natives were shot and poisoned because the Europeans felt that those natives belonged to a lower race. Our forefathers came here with the Bible in their hands, and they continued to maintain Christian principles. They saw to it that justice was done to the non-Europeans. They allowed the non-Europeans to develop in their own circle. If, however, we take the road which was indicated by the hon. member for Germiston, the result will be bloodshed in South Africa between Europeans and non-Europeans. That is the direction in which things are developing. If those communistic doctrines are allowed to take root in this country, we will later on be faced with such a problem that arms will be taken up. It is high time that hon. members on the other side realise the seriousness of this matter. We in the Free State are still living in heaven as far as this is concerned. When we come to Cape Town, we notice what a mixture there is. Europeans and non-Europeans travel together in the same buses and trains. On Sundays one can hardly move on the Cape Town station. One has to rub shoulders with the dirtiest kaffirs coming from their hovels, kaffirs who are suffering from diseases like venereal diseases and tuberculosis. It is time the Minister of Railways opens his eyes to these things, and I hope that the Minister will seriously consider this matter. We want justice to be done to the soldiers when they return, and it would not be fair to them if there were a mixture between Europeans and non-Europeans.

I am really surprised that a member should get up in this House, as the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne) did, and make cold-blooded statements which fully bear out the statements and predictions which this side of the House made to the people during the last election, and which prove the true aims of that party and of the party on the other side. We found the hon. member for Germiston expressing communistic views. Under the protection of the United Party he stated that the blood of the non-Europeans was red, that the blood of the Europeans was red, and that was all that matters. This is a very serious state of affairs. The Voortrekkers trekked into the country and built up a nation here. Throughout all these years we have fought for that high ideal—the maintenance of the colour bar. The Boer nation kept its race pure ; and now the hon. member accuses the European of being responsible for the coloured race which sprung up in this country. I do not think we should take any notice of that accusation. We know our history, and it is beneath the Afrikaner to take notice of an accusation of that type. But what is actually happening here? The hon. member refused to reply to an interjection by the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) who asked whether he was making a statement of policy on behalf of the Labour Party. There we have the two leaders of the Labour Party on the other side. Let them tell us clearly whether that is the policy which they advocate. I can give them the assurance that if they were to do so, they would never sit in this House as a Party again. We are reminded of what happened in Natal a few months ago. We must not forget that many of the returned soldiers are people in whose veins the blood of the Voortrekkers flow. We do not believe that, because they offered their services to go on active service because of their convictions, they have sunk so low morally that they would be satisfied upon their return with the state of affairs which those hon. members want to create, namely to be compelled to work in the same spheres of employment as non-Europeans. This is a very serious matter. The Minister cannot treat it lightly. We know that this colour question brought the same Government to a fall years ago, and I predict that if they persist with this policy, the colour problem will again bring about their downfall. The Boer nation of South Africa is not prepared, and I cannot see that it will ever be prepared after its history of hundreds of years, to agree with what the hon. member for Germiston stated here, because it must be clear to everyone that if we associated ourselves with that policy, there would only be one prospect in store for us and that is the prospect of a coffee coloured nation.

I was really surprised at the speech of the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne). I was reminded of an occasion when I went to the circus. One of the clowns stood up in the audience and seated himself amongst the natives. To the great amusement of everyone, he put his arms round the neck of a native girl, and when the audience laughed, he said : “What is the difference? She was born at night and I was born during the daytime. We are brother and sister”. It seems to me that that is what the hon. member for Germiston wants.

That is a convincing argument!

The clown was joking, of course, but the hon. member wants to take it up seriously. The other day I travelled by train. There was a European soldier in the same coach. I sat down opposite him. I just want the House to understand what strong views the soldiers hold on the colour bar. A native girl entered the coach and seated herself next to the soldier. He immediately shifted to another seat. He said to me later on: “Cannot you members of Parliament draw a line; why should we be humiliated to the extent of having to travel together with coloured people?” Here we have a member of the Labour Party getting up and suggesting that the soldiers are quite prepared to be treated on the same footing as coloured people. It is undoubtedly unfair towards the soldiers to make such a statement. We have been fighting for years for the maintenance of the colour bar as between Europeans and non-Europeans, and we regard this matter as one of such importance that we cannot allow any opportunity to pass without protesting against any steps which are calculated to wipe out the colour bar. I think the hon. Minister of Labour is doing great harm to his party by adopting this attitude; he is destroying his party, because not even members of the Labour Party will have the courage to say that they agree with the hon. member for Germiston. Yesterday afternoon I was strolling through the streets in Cape Town. I had never actually seen a coloured woman walking alongside a European, but I saw it here. We do not see that type of thing in the Transvaal. We feel embittered when we see things of this kind. We want the European nation, which was placed here by Providence, to continue as a European nation, and if we do not maintain the colour bar, we jeopardise the future of the European race in this country. It is our duty to object, and I want to make an appeal to the Minister of Labour to accept this amendment, because we regard it as a matter of such seriousness that we cannot allow the present state of affairs to continue. It is our duty systematically to plead for the maintenance of the colour bar. The Minister persists with his policy. I want to express the hope that the Minister will accept this amendment. We as a European race are perturbed about our offspring, and I make an appeal to the Minister for the sake of posterity.

If the hon. Minister looks at my amendment, he will see that it is twofold. In the first place it asks that the Minister should in exercising his powers differentiate in respect of the various spheres of employment. That is one portion of the amendment. Hon. members of his party have tried to make out that that is the only portion of the amendment. The other portion of the amendment is in connection with remuneration. We ask that there should be differentiation in these two respects. The hon. Minister and also the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne) and the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) now come along and say that they do not want it to be laid down in any Act of Parliament. What absolute hypocrisy! They agree with us, but they do not want It on the Statute Book. We insist that it be placed on the Statute Book because there are people like the hon. member for Germiston who allege in this House that if it were not for the discovery of gold in South Africa, the Transvaal would today be a coffee coloured province. By that he means that but for the discovery of gold, the Voortrekkers would have inter-married with the natives. I want to ask hon. members on the other side whether they share the view of the hon. member for Germiston. These are the new tendencies which have sprung up in our political life, and against which we want to protect ourselves. We do not want anyone like the hon. member, if he ever came into power, to allow things of this kind to happen. The hon. Minister and his party admit that there should be differentiation. Take the hon. member for Roodepoort (Mr. Allen). He is a man of justice. He is always preaching to us in this House. He is the man who gets up and holds moral lectures to the whole House. Here we now have an hon. member who supports him and who says: “We do not want this in any Act of Parliament.” But nevertheless they do differentiate. On the 28th April a statement was made in this House by the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation in connection with soldiers, and it appears in Hansard. There he explains what they are going to pay to the various classes of soldiers. I ask the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) and the hon. member for Boksburg (Mr. Williams) to judge for themselves whether there is not actually differentiation in this case; and if there is differentiation in this case, why canpot it be incorporated into the Statute Book? We notice that an amount of £5 is paid Europeans, £3 to coloured persons and £2 to natives to cover immediate clothing expenses. The hon. member for Fordsburg spoke of equal sacrifices. He said the coloured and native soldiers suffered as much as anyone else, but nevertheless the Government makes this distinction in the allowance. No. I say it is hypocrisy. They tell us that they are not going to differentiate in the legislation of this country. What difference does it make? If they stand for complete equality, they should say: “We are going to treat everyone alike, because they all made exactly the same sacrifices.” That is why we say that we want to incorporate these two requirements into our legislation; that there should in fact be differentiation. Now I come to the civilian equipment allowance: Europeans £7; members of the Coloured Corps £4; and the natives are not even eligible for this allowance. What does the hon. member for Fordsburg who asked these people to go on active service, say to that; what does the hon. Minister of Lands who, especially in my constituency, said that they would do great things for these people, say to it? Here we have a statement made by the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation to the effect that there will be differentiation. I want to ask the Minister of Lands whether that differentiation has his approval. He is deaf and dumb. But when we want to provide for differentiation in our legislation, he lacks the courage, and this party lacks the courage, to support us. Take the next item—

Here again there is a differentiation in the donations and in the privileges which will be granted, but in this case they refuse to do so. I say they are not being sincere. If the Government wants to treat everyone alike, they should not differentiate in this respect. I want to ask the hon. member for Germiston why he does not move an amendment to that effect. No, they will never do it. They know that the people, both Englishspeaking and Afrikaans-speaking, will turn against them; they know that the European soldiers will turn against them. Then there is a further point in this connection. The hon. Minister told the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) that he already had this power in terms of the Factories Act; he said he had the power ….

He said it was already provided for in that Act.

He stated that he already had this power under the Factories Act. I have gone through the Act, but I find no such provision in it. Regulations can only be issued under the Act in connection with two matters. It is stated here [Translation]—

What do we find in paragraphs (b) and (h)? Paragraph (b) reads as follows [Translation]—

That is only in connection with rest periods. It does not say that there are separate spheres of employment in the factories—

It does not refer to separate spheres of employment. Where the facilities exist he may issue regulations in connection with those facilities. Paragraph (h) reads as follows [Translation]—

That does not mean separate spheres of employment. I want to ask the Minister whether he has issued regulations in connection with this Act. Has he availed himself of his power to issue regulations in terms of this Act in respect of these two cases?

Yes; in fact, only last week I received a deputation on that point.

Did you promulgate regulations? I am not asking whether you received a deputation. I am asking whether you promulgated regulations, or did that deputation ask you to issue such regulations? Can the Minister tell me that?

This was a deputation sent by coloured workers objecting to discrimination.

Did you promulgate regulations prohibiting Europeans and nonEuropeans from working together?

They have separate spheres of employment.

No, the hon.

Minister must be honest with us. He should take the House into his confidence. It would help us if we knew that the Minister issued regulations in respect of these two conditions. That is why it is essential. Why cannot the Minister tell us which regulations he promulgated and when he did so. Has he ever issued any regulations at all? Has any regulation been issued which is applicable to all factories in this country? No. That is why I say it is essential that we should incorporate this provision into the Bill. Hon. members on the other side, especially those who come from the North, do not realise the consequences of allowing Europeans and nonEuropeans to work and live together side by side. Let them go to the factories in the Western Province and see what the conditions are; let them see how these people have to work side by side and how Europeans even have to work under the supervision of coloured persons. This state of affairs cannot continue. In spite of what was said a moment ago by a member of the Labour Party I hope that that is not the policy of the Minister. I hope he realises that this state of affairs is unsound and that an end should come to it. We want to see the European civilisation maintained. I make an appeal to the Dominion Party to support us in this respect. The Dominion Party is aware of the big problem in Durban, where they have to contend with the same state of affairs from day to day. The hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt) as well as other hon. members know what the position is; they know how impossible the position is becoming for Europeans in Natal. Do they want the soldiers to find on their return that the position is worse than ever? This problem has been aggravated by the war. There are factories in Natal where Europeans and Indians work side by side. When the soldiers return there will be a serious reaction if they are compelled to work side by side with Indians. Are the members of the Dominion Party only fighting for the property rights of the Europeans? Are they not concerned about the working conditions? Do they want to perpetuate these conditions? Why do they not get up and support us in this connection? We do not say that the coloured people should not be given employment. The hon. Minister knows that his own Government is differentiating between Europeans and non-Europeans as far as allowances, etc., are concerned. If he wants to maintain the European civilisation, why does he not lay that down by legislation? The accusation that we do not want them to have employment is a false one, but they should work separately in the factories under completely different circumstances, in order to avoid clashes and ill-feeling and intermarriage. We realise that they represent an economic power in this country, but we protest most strongly against the policy of the Government, and we adhere to the attitude which Afrikanerdom has always adopted in our country, and which is embodied in this amendment. I make an appeal to the Minister to make that concession even at this late hour. What will he tell the world if he is told that he and his Government allow discrimination, that they allow the returned soldiers, whatever their colour, to be treated on a different basis, but that they have not got the courage to have it laid down by legislation? In the past the Minister shared our point of view in this respect. Why is he now throwing in the towel? I ask him in all friendliness to accept this amendment.

It was not my intention to take part in the debate this morning, but since the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne) has made such violent, defamatory and crude accusations against Afrikaansspeaking South Africa, I want to reply to him briefly. I want to tell him that the history of a nation does not lie, but distorted history does lie. He stated this morning that if it were not for the discovery of gold there would have been such serious moral violations as a result of the action of our forefathers that we as a nation would eventually have lost our identity. We want to give the hon. member the assurance that the discovery of gold not only brought capitalists to this country, but also that pernicious liberalistic spirit, and it is as a result of that and as a result of the influence of liberalists today, that one has to put up with such insults against the Afrikaans-speaking people, insults which represent a vicious violation of the truth, and a charge against our racial feelings. The hon. member for Germiston referred in his speech to the Christian ethics of our forefathers. Yes, our Christian ethics are based on the Bible, and we honour a Christian national philosophy of life, and that is the purifying and protective influence in our natonal life; that is the purifying and protective influence of the Christian national philosophy of view which is imprinted on our national life. Without that, the hon. member might not today have the honour of representing a European constituency in this House. I want to bring the following to the notice of the House in very clear terms. I notice the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) laughs when I discuss this serious question, but I want to ask whether they are going to put up with the insulting words which a member of the Labour Party used here; does the hon. member for Krugersdorp agree with that policy? Let us give the Minister the assurance that the Afrikaner nation has a distinct national history, which is quite different from that of the Coloureds and Natives in this country. We have a separate line of thought on which our philosophy of life is built up; we want to preserve our identity. I want to protest most seriously against the liberalistic view which has been expressed here, and if that view is endorsed by members of the Labour Party, it proves that the Labour Party has capitulated to the Communistic doctrine. One of the main principles of communism is that there should be no racial distinction, that there should be an equalising process as far as white and black are concerned. If the Labour Party goes so far as to regard every coloured person in this country as a potential European, they are sorely mistaken. We on this side advocate the maintenance and the security of the European civilisation. If we allowed a policy to be followed such as that indicated by the hon. member for Germiston this morning, we could no longer apply the theory of development to our nation, but only the theory of degeneration. The policy which he announced offers no opportunity for the development of our European civilisation. He advocates a policy of equality, in terms of which every native should be regarded as a potential European. We stand for a policy of separateness in terms of which the Coloureds and Natives have to develop along their own lines; in terms of which the Coloureds must develop separately, because in our opinion there is a very wide difference between us. We want to afford them an opportunity of developing, but in their own spheres, in their own way. We stand for the policy of separateness, of complete differentiation, and that is a policy which is based on the old Voortrekker policy. If we reflect on the development in our country, on the European civilisation, we find the silver arrow of the old Voortrekker tradition running right over the pitch black masses. We repudiate with contempt the reflection that but for the development of the gold mines there would have been such a terrible moral downfall, that we would today have been a coffee-coloured nation. If the hon. Minister of Labour and the hon. member, for Krugersdorp want to do something worth while, they ought to get up and reprimand the hon. member. What is more, they ought to suspend him as a member of the Labour Party.

I said the other day that as far as Cape Town is concerned, we who come from the North regard it as a huge location. As far as Natal is concerned, it seems to me that it will be a minor India in the near future, and as far as South Africa as a whole is concerned, if things are allowed to develop as they do under this Government, the whole of South Africa will at some future date be a huge location. It is our duty to warn against that. I have noticed a few things in this House recently. The other day the Minister of Welfare stated: “We do not stand for social equality.” On that occasion he quoted from a statement made by the Prime Minister, in which the latter said: “We stand for parallel social development.” There we have two ministerial statements, both advocating the maintenance of the colour bar. Today the Minister of Labour comes along and says that “we cannot pay for colour.” In other words, he admits that he is opposed to a colour bar. What is the policy of the Government, of the Cabinet? What did the Minister of Justice do recently? He stated that there should no longer be discrimination between Europeans and non-Europeans in public bars. They have to drink side by side. At Wakkerstroom I personally saw an Afrikaner and three English-speaking people walking out of a public house when a non-European came in to get a drink. The position has become acute. Then I come to the Minister of Transport. He issued a regulation to the effect that uniformed soldiers, including coloured soldiers, could travel with Europeans on the trains on an equal footing. If these things are allowed to go on, what will be the outcome? If this policy of the Government, as enunciated by the Minister’ of Labour, is made known in Italy where our soldiers are fighting, I should like to see their reaction to it. If they hear that on their return they will have to work side by side with natives and skollies and that there will be no discrimination, how will they react? Public opinion in this country in connection with this matter is being aroused. What the hon. member for Germiston said shows how unnecessary it is that we should clearly lay down the principle of separation between white and black in our legislation. The hon. member wants equality, but it is laid down in the laws of this country that a kaffir shall not marry a European, nor have intimacy with a European, etc. Today we notice the same tendency which existed in 1922. At that time there was no differentiation between white and black as far as employment was concerned, and that led to the big strike in 1922; it led to a rebellion and to shooting, and if things go on in this way, we shall have the same trouble after this war. We must guard against that while there is yet time.

It is essential to incorporate the principle which is contained in this amendment into the Bill, because we have a Cabinet which to a great extent has become completely colour blind; we have a Cabinet, the members of whom, if not completely colour blind, have become very shortsighted as far as the question of the colour bar is concerned. I refer especially to the attitude of Ministers like the Minister of Posts and the Minister of Labour. It is also essential because we have a Government which has not had the moral courage in the past to take the responsibility for the attitude which they adopt. Now that this important principle is being discussed, this principle which deeply affects the life of our South African nation, we notice that the benches on the other side are becoming empty. What is the reason? It is because there are numerous members on that side who share our views on this matter, but they have not got the courage to get up and to say that they agree with the principles for which we are pleading. I want to express the hope, if the Minister does not accede to the request which is contained in this amendment, if the Minister is unwilling to incorporate this amendment into the Bill, that those hon. members who are leaving the House now and who do not support our request, will be prepared to take the responsibility in their constituencies for this clause which they are helping the Minister to put through the House. This matter affects a vital principle of our nation. No one can deny that in the policy of separation between Europeans and non-Europeans lies the salvation and the continued existence of the European civilisation in South Africa. The principle contained in this amendment should therefore be incorporated into every law of this country. It is not an insult to the coloured population; it only ensures the continued existence of the European civilisation in South Africa, which is also in the interests of the coloured races. Only recently we had the incident in connection with the trade unions. It is not laid down by regulation that there shall be separateness between Europeans and non-Europeans, and we saw what the outcome was. We had Europeans and non-Europeans working side by side, and we saw what the consequences were in Germiston. We know what attitude the Minister of Labour adopted in connection with the Garment Workers’ Union in Germiston and the dismissal of Mrs. Moll and Mrs. Nel. In that case he maintained the principle of equality. In wishing to insert the principle contained in this amendment in the Bill we are not doing an injustice towards the non-Europeans. On the contrary, it is also in the interests of the non-Europeans that this principle should be embodied in the Bill. What do we find when this principle of equality is maintained in connection with the composition of boards of this nature? We find that when members attend a meeting of the board, from the time they go in until they come out, they are uncomfortable and there is a feeling of racial clash. That is a dangerous position. We also find that those very boards are useful means of wiping out completely the feeling of racial distinction in South Africa. It should not therefore be allowed. It is in the interests of the nonEuropeans as much as it is in the interests of the Europeans. That cannot be denied; it is an indisputable fact that that policy of separateness between Europeans and nonEuropeans has never resulted in any injustice towards the non-Europeans. That feeling on the part of the natives is instigated by the people who are advocating a policy of equality. The European population throughout its history has never done an injustice towards the natives as a result of this policy of separateness. Nothing is further from our mind than to do any injustice towards the non-Europeans by means of this principle which we want to be laid down in the Bill. We do not believe in doing an injustice to the non-Europeans, but we believe that it is in the best interests of the non-Europeans that there should be Separation between Europeans and non-Europeans. I say again that since we have Ministers who hold these views on the subject, as shown by their statements, it is necessary that this principle be laid down in the Bill, and that we should not be satisfied with laying it down by way of regulation. I venture to predict that it will not be done by way of regulation. The same arguments which are now being advanced against the incorporation of that amendment in the Bill, will also be used if it is sought to embody this principle in the regulations, and I repeat that if we do not insert this principle, it will only give rise to bitterness and unnecessary racial clashes. We have the example of the North-American States where the principle of equality is laid down in every Act, and what is the result?

It has led to racial clashes between Europeans and non-Europeans, as nowhere else in the world. We need only go to the Southern States of the United States, where the principle of separateness is observed to a certain extent. There we find that racial clashes are restricted to a minimum. Let us follow the example of those Southern States and lay down the principle that we do not want racial mixture, that we want to avoid racial clashes by means of a policy of separation between white and black. I say, that this type of clause which has been moved by the Minister, is conducive to racial mixture. That is what is behind it. By following this policy we are following in the footsteps of the Oceana Islands; we are following in the footsteps of certain places in Africa and certain States in South America. Here we are planting the germ of racial clashes, on a scale hitherto unknown. We shall get a position in this country which will be even more serious than what happened in the States of South America. We must not forget that the non-European outside is keeping his eye on the proceedings in this House. He takes very careful note of these matters, and this type of action on the part of the Government only incites the non-Europeans against the Europeans. If it is laid down by legislation that both sections of the population should be protected and that no recommendation can be made by these boards, taking into account racial differences, it will lead to complete equality and the clashes which will flow from that State of complete equality. It has been stated here that the soldiers are not in favour of this principle which the Minister has inserted in the Bill. That is perfectly true. Even up North, according to reliable reports, there have already been clashes between the European and the non-European soldiers, clashes which are not at all nice and which are very unpleasant. I can mention numerous examples in our own country where the soldiers have developed a spirit of racialism which would surprise the majority of us. In saying that it is also the soldier’s wish that there should be separate spheres for the various races in connection with this matter; I speak earnestly on behalf of the soldiers. That is the desire, not only of the Afrikaans-speaking soldiers, but also of the English-speaking soldiers. I want to make an appeal to the English-speaking members on the other side and especially the Englishspeaking members of Natal. They are now beginning to be perturbed about the Indian question, but when we advocated the same policy of separteness as between Europeans and Indians in the past, they did not support us. At that time they supported their party, and today they are saying that they would prefer a European republic to Indian domination. If the Government and the Minister of Labour continue with this policy, the English-speaking people will in the near future come forward with the same cry as far as the non-Europeans are concerned, but they must be careful that the awakening does not come too late. It is the duty of the English-speaking members of the other side, and not only of Afrikaans-speaking members, to protest against this clause which the Minister of Labour seeks to insert. I want to make a serious appeal to the Minister of Labour, for the sake of harmonious co-operation, for the sake of good relations between the various races in South Africa, to agree to the insertion of this amendment in the Bill. That is the only thing we can do in order to do justice to both national sections in our country, Europeans as well as non-Europeans. That is definitely the only course. I hope the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) will not try to tell a different story to his constituents in the country in regard to this matter, but that he will have the courage to take the responsibility in his constituency for this clause which he is helping the Minister to put through the House. For the sake of co-operation and peace in South Africa, for the sake of the continued existence of the European civilisation in our country, it is necessary to insert this amendment in the Bill.

We must decide once and for all whether we want to continue along the road of separation between Europeans and non-Europeans, whether we want separateness in South Africa, or whether we want the opposite. We know what the experience of the whole world, even of England, was in connection with this matter. As far as England is concerned, I just want to refer to one point. We know that Liverpool is a harbour of England where many ships call which trade on the coast of Africa. Those ships brought many nonEuropeans to the harbour with the result that intimacy between Europeans and non-Europeans took place on a large scale. Many hybrid children were born. England appreciated the danger, and we know that non-European sailors were prohibited from landing. We also know that Northern Rhodesia is applying the principle of separateness. They do not allow nonEuropeans to open shops in European areas. I want to tell hon. members on the other side that in pleading for separateness it does not only affect the Boer nation in South Africa. If affects all of us. The time will still come when we will all realise that, when we will awaken, but the trouble is that it will then be too late and that we will not be able to turn back again. We must take into account the fact that the coloured races in Africa number something like 145,000,000, and that there are only approximately 3,000,000 Europeans. We are not in the same position as England and Northern America where the entire population is practically European. We are only a very small minority in this country, and we can appreciate what our position will be if we do not follow a definite policy of separateness. If we do not put our foot down once and for all in that respect, we will not have a pure European race in this country in fifty years’ time. As a European race we shall have been wiped out, and we shall have a coffee-coloured race in this country. Then it will be too late. We will no longer be able to turn back. The majority of the members on the other side are not in the House today. They do not know what is going on here. They do not know what the Minister is doing, but for the sake of their Party they will come in when the division bells ring and blindly vote on the Minister’s side. They will vote for this clause although they have not got the slightest idea of the dangers involved. They are simply throwing away their own future, and their children, as well as our children, will suffer for it. They think that they are dealing here with something which is of a temporary, nature. But they are going to lay down a principle which can never be repealed. That is the great danger. I want to tell the Minister of Labour in all seriousness that he must remember that his children and my children will have to live in this country. He and I are old, and one of these days we shall no longer be here. But if we accept this principle, we shall be laying down a principle which will be a danger to his son and his daughter; their children will no longer be able to keep the European race pure in South Africa. That is why this matter is so serious. And what do we find now? When we discuss this question of separation between Europeans and non-Europeans, we find that the benches on the other side of the House are empty. I know what goes on in the hearts of our soldiers. In Cairo and in other places where Europeans and non-Europeans have to drink in the same public houses, it has led to clashes. They will not tolerate it. The Minister is now laying down this principle in this Bill; I want to tell him that there will definitely be clashes and we shall be called to account in connection with this matter. I want to warn the Minister again that he must remember that a very big principle is at stake, a principle which does not only affect one section of the community, but one which affects all of us, and which affects the whole future of the European population. If we do not accept this amendment, it means that we shall be adopting a resolution against separateness; that we do not mind Europeans and non-Europeans mixing. I say that we who belong to the established section of the population, do not want to accept that policy. We have always fought for the principle of separation between Europeans and non-Europeans and we shall continue to fight for it. We can only hope that the eyes of members on the other side will also open, and that they will open before it is too late.

I would be neglecting my duty if I only took exception to instead of repudiating with contempt the words of the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne), and we can say to him and we also say it to the party on the other side that if they do not repudiate him we shall be justified in using it against them at an opportune time. He stated something here this morning which is an insult to the Afrikaner nation.

Shame.

It is perhaps not an insult to the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) because it does not affect him, but it affects us as an Afrikaner nation and it affects us as a white nation.

Heil, the President!

You will be crying just now.

The Afrikaners are the only people who have kept themselves absolutely white under all circumstances, and because they kept themselves white they could advance and maintain civilisation in this country. They were capable not only of uplifting the natives and coloureds, but of keeping the light shining in this country continuously, and they are determined to let it shine in the future in spite of the opinions of other people. This is what we desire. We want to ask hon. members on the other side, especially the Afrikaans-speaking members, this: On several occasions we noticed that not a single Afrikaans-speaking member of Parliament representing the Transvaal, the Free State or Natal was in the House during the time the debate was taking place. There are a few present now. We held the fort on this side, and we tried unceasingly, speaker after speaker, to maintain the white civilisation in so far as it concerns this clause; but there was not a single Afrikaansspeaking member from the Transvaal, the Free State or Natal who did that.

You had 34 years in which to put this matter right.

If they endorse the policy which was announced here by the hon. member for Germiston, or which is followed by the hon. the Minister of Labour, that is, of gradually doing away with the dividing line, let them rise and say so. We believe, however, that there are some of them who are not in favour of it. What, however, prevents them from saying it? The hon. member for Losberg (Mr. Wolmarans) got up the other day and, like a man, said what he thought. Subsequent to that he told me that he was opposed to another proposal of the Government but the Whips compelled him to remain silent. There are several members on that side who walked out. We ask those members: If you are men stand up for your convictions and fight with us for the maintenance of the white civilisation; do not betray your nation for the sake of the safety of your seats; do not place your party above your nation. The soldiers who fought overseas for South Africa did not fight for a country composed of a mixed race; they fought in order to maintain the white civilisation.

They fought to protect you.

Because coloureds and natives assisted you in the North by driving lorries and performing other work, do not come here and want to sacrifice the white civilisation for that. Do not sacrifice your white civilisation for those service which the coloureds and the natives rendered you. I say if we have to sacrifice the maintenance of the white civilisation for the services which the coloureds and natives rendered in the North, South Africa will rue the day we entered the war. The hon. member for Witbank (Mr. H. J. Bekker) wants to speak but he has not got the courage to speak against his party. He did not have the courage to do it the other day even when they wanted to do an injustice to Witbank. He has not got the personal courage.

He is a white elephant.

If he wants to assist us to perpetuate, maintain, extend and build on the white civilisation in this country let him stand up and say it. We make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. I do not know whether it will help; I do not believe it will help but it is still our duty to do it, to take this matter into favourable consideration. He is not going to promote the matter which he wants to promote by rejecting this proposal. It is a reasonable request. We want to assist the Minister to make his legislation a success. We have gone out of our way to assist him, but this is a matter for which the Afrikaners have stood for all their lives; it is a matter for which the Afrikaners fought for more than 100 years. We have stood by it consistently from the day we put our foot on shore and we are going to stand for it, namely separation between white and black, separation in spheres of employment and residential areas, distinction in regard to salary scales and separation in every walk of life. We want to make a friendly appeal to the hon. the Minister. He is not impervious to conviction, but we ask that he should not allow himself to be guided too far by the spirit of communism which is today sweeping through the country. He stated the other day that neither he nor any of his people was responsible for any coloureds in this country. We are pleased to hear it, but if he wants to maintain the white civilisation in the country he must provide for it in legislation and especially in legislation such as this, and in all legislation which concerns the three sections we want it to be provided for; and we make an appeal to him to lay it down definitely.

Amendment put and the House divided:

Ayes—30 :

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—70 :

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bell, R, E.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Cilliers, H. J.

Cilliers S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman, H.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Neate, C.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Russell, J. H.

Solomon, B.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, L, S.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Business suspended at 1.2 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

I move—

1. 21. The provisions of this Chaper, in so far as they relate to the issue of any certificate to, or the absorption into civil “occupations, employment or training of persons who have rendered military service with any force or mercantile marine of an ally of the Union, shall apply only in respect of such of those persons as were Union Nationals or were resident in the Union immediately prior to the war.

I second.

Agreed to.

Bill, as amended, adopted.

Third reading on 20th May.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

In view of all the aspects of miners’ phthisis dealt with under this Vote, I wish to avail myself of the thirty minutes’ privilege. The report submitted recently, towards the end of last year, and which may be known as the report of the Stratford Commission, is a particularly important report as far as miners’ phthisis is concerned. It is not the first report brought out in connection with miners’ phthisis, but it contains so many important principles and so much important data, that I think that it demands more than usual the consideration of this House at this stage. The report indicates that there is a large number of people today who are suffering from miners’ phthisis. The number of beneficiaries under the existing Miners’ Phthisis Acts is given as 5,000, but apart from the sufferers from miners’ phthisis themselves, mention is also made of thousands of other dependants. In the minority report no fewer than 18,000 are mentioned as being affected by inadequate provision for miners’ phthisis sufferers. In addition then to those for whom provision has been made under the existing miners’ phthisis acts, there are many others for whom no provision has as yet been made, by reason of the fact that in respect of quite a number of the industries in which miners’ phthisis occurs, no compulsion has been imposed for making provision for employees who eventually might contract miners’ phthisis. In the third place the report gives us an insight into the pitiable plight of quite a number of these miners’ phthisis sufferers. It is evident from the report that the grants, the compensation given under the existing Acts, are inadequate for providing in the needs of the miners’ phthisis sufferers and their dependants and for them to make a decent living. It further appears from the report that this process is continuing. It is stated that the increase in the number is approximately 300 per annum in the scheduled mines, apart from cases having different causes, and this number, of course, does not include the dependants. Then there is the other large and important fact that the position regarding sufferers from tuberculosis, not being phthisis patients as such—I am not including silicotics, but only actual phthisis sufferers—is not satisfactory either. Finally we come to the fact that large numbers of natives are also suffering from miners’ phthisis and that the provision made for them is unsatisfactory, and in this connection I must say that according to the statistics for the past few years, it appears that amongst the miners’ phthisis sufferers there are approximately 1,000 per annum who are purely phthisis sufferers, which is rather a serious state of affairs with a view to the future. These natives are enlisted in various parts of the country and some come to the mines to look for work and after they have been found to suffer from a pulmonary condition, they return to the various reserves and there they constitute the breeding grounds, the centres for the infection of consumption. That is one of the important reasons why tuberculosis is spreading in such an alarming degree amongst natives. In addition to these aspects which are most evident from the report, important principles in connection with miners’ phthisis are raised. There is, for instance, the question which is a matter of principle, whether the mines as such being the employers, are responsible in the first instance, or should be, for providing for those who contract the disease in the industry. The hon. the Minister will recall that the De Villiers Commission of 1920 declared as its considered opinion that the mines, as the employers, are mainly and exclusively responsible for diseases contracted in the industry, while the recent commission does not hold the same view, but considers that if the mines could only be compelled to provide for insurance, their duties would be fulfilled. I do not want to discuss the merits of that question, but I am merely mentioning it as an important principle which is now being raised in this report. The question then also arises as to the effectiveness of the existing provision and the question whether and to what extent the State should make provision for the needs of the miners’ phthisis sufferers for whom adequate provision is not being made today. In view of the difference in principle, that is to say, the view now being held in this report that the mine owners as employers are not solely liable for industrial diseases, I am going to quote the opposite view held by the De Villiers Commission. The De Villiers Commission reported in 1920 and their finding was as follows—

This is an important difference of opinion expressed here in connection with the liability for compensation of occupational disease and that is why I am of opinion that this report is of exceptionally great importance. Now the question arises that, in view of the important information furnished by this report which indicates that the position is very far from satisfactory, and in view of the fact that quite a number of its findings are embodied in recommendations, and whereas it recommends that the Government should pass legislation in order to improve this state of affairs and to make better provision for sufferers from occupational disease and in view of the fact that the Commission even went so far as to assume, in making certain of its calculations, that legislation would be introduced at the commencement of the present session, the serious question arises why the Government has not made use of this session to introduce legislation in connection with miners’ phthisis and to improve the conditions in the mines according to the recommendations of this report. Here we have come to the end of the session, with perhaps one or two weeks before the prorogation, and still there is nothing on the Table of the House. I regard it, therefore, as a very serious matter in the interests of the community in general. Because there are so many thousands of people involved in this matter, it is not only a matter for the mineworkers, but it is a national question and we have every right to say that it is a matter of national importance. And that is why I regard it as an omission on the part of the Government not having introduced legislation now or as early as possible in order to improve conditions. I have already stated that most unsatisfactory conditions are disclosed by the report of the Stratford Commission. We find that there is a large number of mineworkers who are suffering from miners’ phthisis, but still a larger number than shown, because of the fact that they have contracted phthisis in industries which are not compelled to furnish returns. I have already stated that there are 5,000 who are suffering from miners’ phthisis and are receiving compensation; but that the estimate is that there is a total of 18,000 who are dependent upon miners’ phthisis compensation; and whereas this position is existing today that one industry is responsible for 18,000 people who suffer want, and this industry being the one that can be considered to be the most prosperous in the country, then this report reveals an exceptionally serious state of affairs. There is quite a number of mineworkers for whom no provision is being made because there is no legislation providing for them. Provision is not made for all workers who contract any form of miners’ phthisis. In the past the expression “miners’ phthisis” has been used thus, in connection with tuberculotics as well as silicotics. Now the position has arisen that this disease can also be contracted in the asbestos mines. The workers in the asbestos mines contract a kind of miners’ phthisis which is called asbestosis. The workers in the iron mines contract a form of miners’ phthisis called psiderosis. The position is therefore more serious than indicated by the number given in the report. I think that in the minority report it is stated that there are also sufferers from miners’ phthisis not mentioned in the report. I do not know how many there are. The number in the other industries is, of course, not as large as the number included in the figure of 18,000. I said just now that the process was continuing. According to the estimate of the Commission regarding the increase of miner’s phthisis, we find that in the scheduled mines 275 to 300 new cases occur every year. At least 275 cases occur every year, apart from the dependants. No mention is made of the number contracting miners’ phthisis in other circumstances, nor of the number of natives contracting the disease. It must be admitted that during the past few years there has been an improvement, although there has also been a setback. For 1927 the incidence of miners’ phthisis is given as 19 per 1,000 underground Workers. This number decreased to 7 per 1,000 in 1937. Since then there has been an increase in the number of persons contracting miner’s phthisis and in the year 1940-’41 the figure was approximately 10 per 1,000. There has thus been a setback, there has been an increase instead of a decrease. The Minister will recall that some time ago he was interviewed by a deputation and that the statement was made that the regulations which from the beginning were most effective in preventing the disease, were not being carried out lately. That is not a matter on which I can judge, but for the Minister it is a matter of the utmost importance that he should be in a position to inform the House that those regulations are being carried out in every detail. As far as the natives are concerned, the position is very difficult. In the majority report it is estimated that approximately 2,000 natives contracted miners’ phthisis in the scheduled mines every year and that during the last year at least 1,000 of them suffered from tuberculosis— which is a most serious state of affairs. The position is so serious that the Commission really blames the Government for the fact that provision has not been made yet. In paragraph 31 we find, inter alia, the following—

This is the state of affairs disclosed and it is very strongly expressed, if one takes into account the personnel of the Commission that brought out the report. They found that a number of these people were living below the bread-line. There is hardly one of us who has not at some or other time in his life met a miners’ phthisis sufferer and if there is a phthisis sufferer who is a tragic example of a sufferer, then it is the miners’ phthisis sufferer who is in the advanced stages of the disease. That is why we maintain that every Government is under a special obligation and that the Minister of Mines is under an obligation to pass the necessary legislation in connection with the matter. Further it is also pointed out that the position of the sufferer from tuberculosis is unsatisfactory because in the past he has only received a lump sum of money and possibly one other amount afterwards, with the result that he had no means of making a living for the rest of his life. That is a permanent blame on a Government who has the knowledge regarding those conditions and who has had quite a few months to study the report, for having done nothing more than making this report public. The question will arise and the Minister will be obliged to state not only to this House but to the general public outside, why this delay has been taking place. I have also referred to the Lansdown Report and I would like to bring to the notice of the House some figures taken from the report of this Commission. This report draws the attention to the profits on the working of the gold mines over a period of a number of years. I have made a few extracts and the first is that as from the year 1924 the nett profit on the working of the gold mines was never less than £10 million. In the year 1924 the profits on the working was £14 million, the contribution to the State was £2.8 million and the nett profit was £11.8 million. In 1931 the profit on the working was £13.7 million; the contribution to the State was £2.6 million and the nett profit £11.1 million. In 1933 the profit on the working was £31 million; the contribution to the State was £14.9 million and the nett profit £10.6 million. In 1940 the profit on the working was £47½ million; the contribution to the State was £26.7 million and the nett profit was £20.8 million. The Minister will without any doubt be called upon to give this House and also to the public a most clear explanation of the reasons why the Government decided not to proceed with this legislation now, which in my opinion holds out quite a lot for the mine-workers in the future. There can be no doubt as to the responsibility of the State to introduce the necessary legislation. I would have liked to have gone into the details of this question in order to show what the views of the Commission itself are in respect of legislation. But it is so selfevident that the State, where it receives grants to a certain extent and has in the past assumed obligations in respect of legislation relating to miners’ phthisis and at a later date assumed certain obligations in connection with legislation relating to industrial disease, and in view of the fact that in future the State will have to concern itself more and more with impoverishment and unemployment, will accept the fact that the responsibility for introducing this legislation does rest with it. In my opnion there can thus be no execuse for this delay. If we look at the report of the Commission, we find that emphasis is laid upon this responsibility of the State. It recommends as follows—

Then the Commission goes on to say that provision is also made by certain other funds for miners’ phthisis sufferers and their dependants. I will deal with that later. The fact is reported to the State that in the past adequate provision was not made with the result that other funds had to be established in order to assist these people to make a living. The report of the Commission therefore amounts to this that the State has omitted to provide for a full levy on the industry in order to provide in all the needs of these people. And now I wish to deal with the other provision, the amplification of the deficiencies in the report, amplifications which can only be effected by means of legislation which will implement the existing miners’ phthisis legislation. In paragraph 33 the existing deficiencies are indicated. For sufferers from silicosis and tuberculosis contracted in the scheduled mines provision has been made in the existing tariffs under the principal Act administered by the Department of Mines. Then there is a special group of silicotics in connection with excavation work which is not regarded as mining work and they are dealt with under the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1941 which is now being administered by the Department of Labour. A third group of sufferers from silicosis and tuberculosis who are not connected with the scheduled mines and who are not compensated, receive absolutely no compensation whatsoever. Then there is another group of miners’ phthisis sufferers who contract disease in asbestos mines and who do not receive any compensation either. Finally there is the inequitable state of affairs dealt with in paragraph 7 and then we come to another group of miners’ phthisis sufferers who are employed in the iron ore mines. We come to the conclusion, therefore, that there is quite a number of groups of miners’ phthisis sufferers for whom no provision has yet been made and who, owing to the omission of the Government to do something, have no hope of receiving any compensation under the existing legislation. Paragraph 94 provides for the general compensation of all persons who contract a disabling disease, be it tuberculosis, silicosis, asbestosis or any other form of pneumonoconiosis resulting from the inhalation of mineral dust in the course of their employment. The Commission is of opinion that all these persons should in future be entitled to compensation on a fixed scale. And now I wish briefly to draw attention to a number of important findings of the Commission which will benefit the mine-workers and will lead to a better adjustment of the relationship between the mines and the workers and which will in future be to the benefit of the whole country, if the Government gives effect to this recommendation. The first recommendation is the establishment of a National Silicosis Board which should function as the main body and should act in close co-operation with the Office of the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. That is recommended in paragraph 95 of the report. In the second place a National Silicosis Insurance Register is recommended. It is recommended that every employer engaged in an industry producing mineral dust should be registered in this Register and further that every employee should be registered so that if the Miners’ Phthisis Bureau determines that a certain pulmonary condition is existing in the worker it could be defintely ascertained for what period an employee has been working in a certain mine. That is essential in view of the basis suggested for new compensation. It should be known in which mine the employee contracted the disease. I therefore regard the recommendation for the establishment of a National Silicosis Register as a most important recommendation. Thirdly, the Commission proceeds to recommend the establishment of a National Fund to replace the existing funds. In connection with registration the report continues in paragraph 96—

The Commission goes further and recommends a Re-employment Board. In view of the great need existing today for providing employment for certain miners’ phthisis sufferers, the report even goes so far as to recommend a Re-employment Board. The next recommendation is initial and periodical medical examination of registered mineworkers. That is made in paragraph 100. A Still more important finding is that the payments which have been made in a lump sum in the past, should now be replaced by pensions. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to paragraph 61 (3). Finally I pome to this important fact that as of right every employee certified to be suffering from a compensatable disease of the lungs should be entitled to compensaron. They say that all European and coloured employees in Scheduled mines and in mines or industries which have been registered with the National Silicosis Insurance Commissioner should be entitled as of right, and not as a matter of charity, to the benefits set out in paragraph 105. This basis is that every mine worker is entitled to be compensated for total loss of earning capacity. The other recommendations will be dealt with later, but I want to put this question now: there is reason for this assumption that the omission of the Government to introduce this essential legislation is due to the fact that the Government is waiting for the enquiry by the general social welfare council. It is possible that the Government is waiting for those findings. It is also possible, as has been suggested time and time again, that the Government is afraid to step in and make provision for the workers who suffer want on account of the authority and influence of the Chamber of Mines in South Africa. In this instance it is the duty of the Government to tell us for what reasons it has failed as yet to introduce the necessary legislation and for what reasons it is delaying the making of provisions for those persons who have contracted diseases in the mines for a long time, in an industry which is prosperous; and why it is not giving effect to the recommendation that these diseases should be compensated for from the funds provided by the national income by means of a National Insurance Scheme. A very strong impression exists today that the Rand is ruling South Africa. The Rand is providing no fewer than five Ministers in South Africa today and there is no doubt that the Chamber of Mines is the mouthpiece of the Rand and if the Government wishes to remove this suspicion once and for all, this suspicion which has been existing for years now, namely that the Chamber of Mines rules South Africa, then they should act differently from the way they have been acting in connection with this particularly important matter of legislation relating to miners’ phthisis sufferers. [Time limit.]

May I have the privilege of speaking for half-an-hour. I want to discuss with the Minister of Mines this report for which we have been waiting so long. Recently, during this Session, the Minister wanted to know whether I accepted the Majority Report or the Minority Report. I tried to tell the Minister then that he could not now throw on my shoulders the responsibility of accepting either of these reports, for the following reasons. This Commission was appointed by the Minister personally without his consulting anyone concerned, without giving the mineworkers representation on the commission—and surely they should have been represented without his consulting any other organisation concerned with this important issue, miners’ phthisis. The Minister took it upon himself to appoint a Commission. The Commission brought out two reports, a Majority Report and a Minority Report. The Minister now demands to know whether I accept the Majority or the Minority Report, and I am going to give him this answer, that I accept neither of them. I shall be very sorry for the Minister, and for the mineworkers, if he introduces legislation based on either of these two reports. Yes, I shall be sorry for the Minister, and even more sorry for the people concerned. We all understood at the time that the task of this Commission was to investigate the whole question of miners’ phthisis. This Commission went very far into the roots and the basis of workmen’s compensation and industrial occupation compensation in this country, and when they came to the roots, they cut them off, the one after the other, and I want to draw the attention of the Minister and of the House to a very important paragraph. The famous Judge de Villiers laid down the foundation in South Africa as far as workmen’s compensation is concerned. The famous Judge de Villiers laid down the following conditions, and you will see that this Commission in its report agrees with him entirely. The famous Judge de Villiers—I call him famous because any recommendation made by him was usually accepted with open arms and with glory by the rank and file of the workers—Judge de Villiers when he went into this position, into the foundation of our workmen’s compensation, and into the industrial compensation in this country, made the following remarks—

This is very important—this is the foundation. In the De Villiers report the judge, after stating—

Goes on to say further on—

This-Commission, however, tries to destroy that foundation, and it is no good my hon. friend trying to bowl over the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) on this point. This is what I wish to draw the attention of the House to, because the present Commission said (paragraph 7)—

This Commission undermined the foundation laid down by Judge de Villiers and said they wanted to supersede this foundation altogether. Is this House going to accept this position; are the gold mines and are the workers on the mines going to accept this interference with the foundation of the workman’s position in this country? The Miners’ Phthisis Commission went on to state that they disagreed entirely with the foundation laid for the workers. Then we come to another paragraph regarding which we cannot allow any opportunity to pass of voicing our feelings strongly against it. We are concerned about the potential compensation to be paid by the mines. We know that Certain companies are trying to get out of it; when they go into liquidation all of a sudden their liability is automatically transferred on to the shoulders of the other scheduled mines; but this Commission goes further and in Chapter 3, paragraph 22, it states—

Was that the object of appointing this Commission? I think the Minister himself must have been very shocked when he read this. What does it mean? It amounts to this, that the mines which accepted liability under Clause 41 of the Miners’ Phthisis Act, where under they have to pay the levy imposed on them by the Miners’ Phthisis Board from year to year, to meet the potential expenses according to the amount of dust found underground on these mines, that they would have to pay this when they closed down are—that is what the Commission wished to say—not to have their liability transferred to new mines—although our men have contracted the disease in the mines that have closed down—but that those companies must be now exempted and that the responsibility at present resting on their shoulders must not be imposed on them any longer. I do not think the Minister will ever accept that recommendation. May I suggest to the Minister here that when he is going to consider legislation, that he should not leave that amount of 7s. 6d. per day to remain a potential liability, but in order to forestall the shrewdness of certain companies desirous of escaping their responsibilities, that the average levy of 7s. 6d. shall from now on be paid regularly day by day after every shift has been worked, by the companies concerned, into a consolidated fund, so whenever these clever companies try to get away from it, whenever they notify the Minister they are going to close down within a short period, there will be no outstanding liability, for the funds will have been paid in to meet the potential cases of miners’ phthisis that these mines were the cause of. I suggest to the Minister that if he does not do that it simply means that those clever mines will get away with it, and eventually the position will be that the State will have to meet those liabilities, though all the time those mines have been in existence they will not have paid the requisite amounts into the fund, but the potential liability will have remained, and when they close down the potential liability is removed so that the others would have to share the burden. There is only one way out. In addition to Clause 41 to say that that average levy must be paid regularly …

The hon. member cannot advocate legislation in Committee of Supply.

No, I just indicated this legislation. I thought you would pull me up on that, Sir. I think it is for the benefit of the Minister and of the House to keep that in mind when new legislation is drafted. In the section dealing with the conditions governing the award of pensions, the commission have made a recommendation which no reasonable person can possibly agree with. Fortunately the minority commission in their report disagree with the recommendation in the first paragraph of the chapter I have referred to. In this respect I agree with the minority report where they differ from the majority report. What does this paragraph mean? It states—

After a man has sustained a shock resulting from the news that he has contracted miners’ phthisis, after his family have suffered this shock, he is compelled under this recommendation to look for employment. He has not the freedom to say that he does not feel strong enough to earn a few shillings more while he is earning a pension. The choice is not left to the unfortunate sufferer, but according to this commission it is the duty of such a man after he has got this shock of knowing that he is a miners’ phthisis sufferer, to look for employment, and if you read on you will find they make it worse—

In ninety-nine cases out of a hundred such employment will be offered to that poor fellow far away from his home and his wife and children. As he is a miners’ phthisis sufferer if he refuses the employment they say: “Well, you refused to accept the employment we offered you.” I think that the Minister is too decent, I think he is too far seeing ever to contemplate introducing legislation based on such a stupid recommendation as this. It is inhuman. It is something that we in this House will not tolerate. I hope the Minister will not tolerate it either. That is why I told the Minister on a previous occasion that though there is a little that is good in the commission’s report, the bad portion of it is so bad that it completely wipes out the little good that is recommended in it here and there. That is as far as this report is concerned. But I do not want to confine myself just to this report. All I can say is that I hope the Minister will do his best to introduce legislation, not based on this report but on the evidence submitted by the Mining Unions Joint Committee, by the miners themselves and by myself. I still believe that the soundest case that was made out was contained in the memorandum that I submitted to the commission. My name is riot there, but it is my memorandum. I do not mind them refusing to say whom I represented, but I admit I gave evidence, and I will say that I made out the soundest case. Every contingency has been met in my memorandum, and I would ask the Minister before considering anything of that sort, to ask for this memorandum of the Joint Committee of the union and my own. If he will consider legislation based on these recommendations, I think he will be able to find something that will guide him in that important task. In regard to the minority report, they do recommend some slight benefits, but they are very small. Under this system, however, we have to be thankful for any little crumb that is thrown to us, remembering always to fight for more. This applies to paragraphs 7 and 10 in their conclusions. I agree also that there is a little in the eleventh paragraph of their conclusions, while I agree with their recommendation in paragraph 14—

The same applies to paragraph 6 of their conclusions. That is what I have to say about these two, reports. I say that there is very little of importance in the minority report; but I hope that the Minister will never introduce legislation based on the scale of benefits in paragraph 105 of the majority report. There is another point I want to discuss with the Minister. Today he is the Minister in charge of a department which controls the wealthiest industry in this country. I want to ask him whether he used his influence on that industry to try to get them to meet the present Government and future governments in regard to the question of employment. Did he have anything to say to the mining industry at a time when every nerve was strained in the Government organisation to create employment for men who had been to the front and were unemployed through no fault of their own? Has he ever approached the mining industry and asked them whether they are going to play the game with the country and with the Government. I am fully justified, I think, in making this remark because at the very same time this House was dealing with social security and the question of finding employment for people, the mining industry came forward and told the Government that they were going to close down certain mines. That was before they had ever asked the Government whether there was any way of meeting them to enable them to keep on employing these fellows who were working in those mines. If that was not a threat and an act of intimidation towards this Government on the part of the mining industry, an indication that the industry was standing ready to stab the Government in the back, I don’t know what it was. I want the Minister to tell the House whether the mining industry at any time informed him that the mines would be ready after the war to find employment for an extra number of men. I suggested that to the industry in the form of a letter, but so far I have only had an acknowledgment of the letter, and not a word of agreement or disagreement with what I suggested. I repeat what I have said before, that 5,000 Europeans were sacked and natives were put in their places, for the simple reason that the natives were prepared to do the job, which was drill-sharpening, at 2s. 6d. per day, a job which used to be done by white men at £1 1s. a day. I suggest to the mining industry that they must get those five thousand men back, or otherwise they must pay these natives the white man’s rate of a guinea a day. If they do that we will then see how long they will keep the natives on the job. I will fight for this until the mining industry is prepared to give the men back what they took away in 1922. If the Chamber of Mines is not prepared to do that, I want the Government to realise that the mining industry is not playing the game. The mining industry has always adhered to the policy that the farming industry and every other industry and everybody in this country shall be for the benefit of the mining industry. So far that has been the selfish policy of the mining industry. I want to appeal to the Minister, who I know full well is sympathetic, to have a conference with these people. If the mines are not prepared to listen to him, they are not prepared to listen to their best friend. I suggest the Minister should have a conference with these people and ask them how far they are going to meet the country and abandon their selfish policy of only employing people who are economical. If all the industries said that, they would be selfish and place their own interests before the interests of the country. If the mining industry will do what I suggest then I say it will be a new page in their history, and the first time in the history of South Africa that the mining industry has placed the interests of South Africa before their own. If the industry is not prepared to meet the Government and create employment then it is for the other industries and the Government to realise the position. The Chamber of Mines has always run to the Government when they required anything. If they want labour they have come to the Government and they have got what they wanted every time. When the Chamber of Mines have wanted cheap electricity they go to the Government and say, you must nationalise this in order to create cheap electricity and the Government every time falls for that.

I think the hon. member is getting away from the vote.

This is a question of mining policy, Sir. I want to ask the Minister another question. There is the ten year old claim which the mine workers recently put to the mining industry. The industry is trying to boycott that ten year old plan which is known as a plan for an increase of wages for the mine workers. We know that question is being discussed under the Chairmanship of the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Justice, and I think a few kind words from the Minister of Mines would have a good effect. We know what his views were when he sat on these benches, Sir, and pleaded for that money. Let me ask the House not to run away with the idea that the mine workers are earning wonderfully high wages. That is not correct. From the mining engineer’s report I can show that the great bulk of the men in our mines earn from nineteen shillings to £1 1s. a day. I know this is not the time to discuss mine workers’ wages but I want to appeal to the Minister, and also to whisper to the industry, that they must play the game with these men. The mine workers on the Witwatersrand are practically the only section in the Union who never received any increase in wages since the war started in 1939. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words in connection with a very important matter, although I hardly know under what head I can bring this matter forward. It is the rumoured intention to close down certain mines on the Witwatersrand, one undertaking in particular, known as the Langlaagte Consolidated, which embraces three or more mines, and if the closing down of that group of mines does take effect it is going to be a very serious matter indeed, and not only for Johannesburg but for the whole of the Witwatersrand. These mines employ a large number of white people who have been living in that locality for thirty years or more; they have their homes there and their families have been raised on these mines. If the mines are closed down these people will have to move away. I have seen the results of mining operation being closed down in the United States of America, where I have been on several occasions. On account of the low price of copper a large number of mines had to close down, and when one realises, as I do, the effect of that, one thinks of what is likely to happen if a similar thing happened on the Witwatersrand. We know that the mining industry is a decaying industry from the moment it starts operations. That is something we have to look to, but I hope the time is far off when we shall see some of our greatest producers close down. One would like to know from the Minister what is the Government’s intention in connection with this very important matter. On behalf of my constituents I want to be able to go back and state what the Government’s intentions are in regard to prolonging the life of these low-producing mines, so that, if necessary, these people can make preparations. I hope the mines will not be allowed to close down but go on working for many years. I think that can be brought about if an arrangement can be made between the Government and the Chamber of Mines, I would like the Minister to give us some information so that we know just where we stand. In regard to phthisis, I was one of the first to approach the Minister when these two reports came out, to know what he intended to do and the Minister quite fairly said that the matter was of such far reaching importance that he did not wish to be rushed. To a certain extent I agreed with him. There are some things in the report which are good and some not so good, and I want to say to the Minister that I hope, in framing his proposals which he promised to bring up next year, he will take all interested parties into consideration and get the opinions not only of the mine workers but also of mine managers and others, so that he will come forward with proposals which will be as satisfactory to all parties as possible. That may be asking for quite a lot but I hope it will be possible to get a general agreement, and I hope also that the Minister’s promise to bring his proposals before the House next year will be carried out. The mine workers have been anticipating some benefit during this year and I believe they have been very patient. I have told them the importance of the matter and that they will probably benefit to a greater extent, if they have a little more patience. I don’t know if I am in order in mentioning concession stores, but I want to suggest to the Minister that in granting future licences he should give preference to returned soldiers as there are many mine workers in this war fighting for their country and on their return to civil life would be quite capable of running concession stores on the mines. The Minister with all his faults has done a little for the miners—he has reduced the miners’ hours from bank to bank to 48½ hours whereas it was 51 hours. The Minister shakes his head. Well, if he has not done so—I’m sure he would have done so if it had been a matter for him to deal with. I have mentioned these various points of miners’ phthisis and the closing down of the mines and I shall be glad if the Minister will give us the necessary information.

I want to address a few remarks to the Minister on the subject of the coal position—those precious black diamonds which make the wheels of industry go round. I think we have all been very much perturbed by the unusually large demands that have been made on our coal reserves in this country in the past year or so. We know that there has been a tremendous increase in our exports to the Middle East through Delagoa Bay and Durban. Unfortunately no figures have been made available, but one has some inkling of what the position is by reason of the manner in which our whole traffic position has been endangered as a result of putting all the rolling stock—making it available for the export of our coal through Delagoa Bay and Durban. We know that agricultural products have not been given priority in this matter. All priority as far as rolling stock is concerned has been given to coal export especially to the Middle East, and as a result agricultural products have been allowed to lie rotting at stations; there has not been sufficient conveyance for them and the whole traffic has been dislocated.

Did you ever hear that there was a war on?

I’m afraid that is an excuse which is rather worn out. We know that this country is doing all it can for the war, but that is no excuse why you should ruin your country, why you should endanger the economic future of your country. If you have a limited supply of precious metal which is essential for the future economic welfare of the country, then it is no excuse to say that there is a war on, and to say we are prepared to endanger our future economic prosperity.

No, let Hitler take the lot.

The main point I want to make is that although we are not aware of what the increase in export is, I think one would not be erring on the liberal side if one were to say that the export in the last year was probably three times the normal export of coal.

It would help the war if it were four times.

Or even five times.

It seems that this is an auction sale, and these gentlemen who are so prepared to put up their bids, can do it in another place. It is not becoming to the dignity of this House to turn it into an auction mart—an auction mart in which the current coin is the cheap sentiment of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow).

We should send him away.

The position is this, that the Natal production of coal is chiefly coking coal. We know that they are in a much better position to supply coal which can be used for coking than the reserves in other parts of the Union. The coal reserves in the Transvaal are not so good for that purpose. We also know that the Natal trade is chiefly dependent on export. I think the Minister will agree that practically half the production of Natal coal in normal times goes for export. I don’t know whether the Minister wants the figures for that. I can give him the figures of the report of the Mineral Sources of South Africa, but I think he will accent the figure as being about half.

I won’t say half, but for argument’s sake let us say that.

The report of his own Department says that about half goes for the shipping trade, the balance is taken by the Railways, industries and domestic consumers. Now my question is this. Those are the figures in the piping times of peace. But what is happening today? As far as the Natal output is concerned, has that half been increased, or has it been maintained or reduced? When you take into consideration that the whole export has probably been increased three times, then I think it is a reasonable assumption to take it that also the proportion of the Natal output which goes for export has been increased to the same extent. Now this is a very serious matter. I want to refer the Minister to the address by Professor Tromp before the Associated Scientific and Technical Societies of South Africa where he deals with the question of coking coal. And there he says this—

He confirms the fears of Dr. Meyer. Now if we have a total reserve of only 100 million tons in Natal, and in peace times we deplete that reserve at the rate of 1¼ million tons per year, then I wonder what the position is today with this tremendous increase in export. What are we doing to conserve that precious product—coking coal—which we have in Natal? We know it is the life blood of our iron and steel industry—it is an asset which we are allowing to be Wasted away without bringing any permanent benefit to the country as a whole. This is a thing which has filled the minds of people who know something about the matter with great fear and perturbation for some time. I have referred to Dr. Meyer. He made some very pertinent remarks, but not only these two gentlemen have spoken about it, but in the third preliminary report of the Commission for Industrial and Agricultural Requirements, they thought it fit to attach a special annexure; I shall just give a brief summary of the recommendation here. It is to this effect, that all the coke and coal should be preserved for the production of coke. What I want to know from the Minister is, what has the Government been doing to carry this out, to see that coking coal is used for the purpose for which it is particularly suited and that it is not allowed to be wasted by export, or by being used as ordinary fuel. What is the position? Because it seems to me that where you have the coal industry of Natal in the hands of private individuals and where you have the position that they must do the best they can, and where they are so dependent on the export market, it would be inequitable to tell them: “We are going to take away your best market from you,” unless the Government is prepared to do something more and see that coking coal is used for the purpose for which it is most needed while the owners are not robbed of their markets. It is a matter of such importance, that the Government will have to consider whether it will not be better, as a long range policy, to buy out these owners of coal mines in Natal which have this coking coal and see that these reserves are preserved for the future development of our industries.

I would be neglecting my duty if I did not carry out the instruction given to me by the mineworkers, and that is in the first place that I should make an attack on that blue blood imperialist, the Minister of Mines.

A person whom you support.

This person, the Minister of Mines who was so concerned about the British connection that he considered it his duty to form a new party in order to maintain that connection, now interviews Quislings from the Rand to discuss with them matters affecting the mineworkers.

Hit him hard.

I want to tell him that the present executive of the Mineworkers Union with their secretary have done more in this war to save the British Commonwealth of Nations than what the hon. Minister has done, and he interviews people who do their utmost to harm those mineworkers. I should also like to say that the mineworkers are bitterly disappointed because the hon. the Minister did not introduce miners’ phthisis legislation this year. They have already waited more than two years for that miners’ phthisis legislation, and this unnecessary delay will mean that they will have to wait another two years. By that time another 1,068 victims will have died. Those are figures given to me by the hon. the Minister himself in reply to a question. The mineworkers are tired; they are sick of the promises of this Minister of Mines. This is what they say amongst other things of him. I am quoting now from a newspaper which is published on the Rand—

Stallard manages to retain the confidence of his chief, and it is in the best interests of the country that we once again support the demand for the instant dismissal of the most reactionary Minister of Mines this country has ever been cursed with. His latest actions have been such that even United Party M.P.’s have had to join in organised protests against his dilatoriness, and his complete disregard of the needs of the thousands of workers for whom his department legislates. The recent V.F.P. native strike while not exclusively the fault of the Department of Mines provided further evidence of Stallard’s unsuitability for ministerial responsibility. Information has emerged which indicates that Col. Stallard was responsible as Minister of Mines for asking Gen. Smuts, as Minister of Defence, to call out the Native Military Corps. There is a solution. It is the only solution which will satisfy the people of South Africa. Col. Stallard must go.

They say that there is just one solution for all the difficulties of the mining industry so far as it concerns the workers, and that is “Col. Stallard must go.”

And you are sitting with him in the same coalition.

The hon. member has sat with funnier people. The hon. the Minister says that he is very sympathetically inclined towards the mine-workers, but the mine-workers say that they cannot exist on sympathy. They are no longer satisfied with that. The time has arrived that the slow pace of the Department of Mines should be accelerated very much. The hon. the Minister says that he is not responsible for the state of affairs which exists there. Who then is responsible? I believe the Minister when he says that he is not responsible, but who then is responsible? And why is he not responsible? Is he too inefficient? The mine-workers say that he is inefficent. He has no experience of practical mining. Now I should like to come back to the question of ventilation in the mines, a matter in regard to which I joined issue with the hon. the Minister previously. The hon. Minister says that Regulation 58 (2) (b) and other regulations have been carried out to his apparent satisfaction. I also accept that. Any junior official can deceive him, because he has no practical experience, and he personally does not experience the suffering which the mineworkers suffering from miners’ phthisis experience. In regard to the Miners’ Phthisis Bureau, I should like to say that the mine-workers have no faith or confidence in it. I have a dozen sworn statements here from people who went to the Miners’ Phthisis Bureau under assumed names, after they had been turned down under their own names, in order to obtain red tickets. I can read them but I do not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily. It seems to me that the gamblers in human lives find it cheaper to pay compensation than to provide for proper ventilation. It is cheaper for them to exploit the widows and orphans than to stamp out miners’ phthisis, because in a period of ten years the industry has evaded paying compensation in one way or another in 1,346 out of 1,787 cases. I do not know whether the House is aware of it, but 1,346 of the 1,787 victims did not receive compensation. Does the House realise what pain and suffering those people undergo? That is the manner in which they are treated, and if it continues in that way I see no future for South Africa. I should like to say a few words in connection with the inspectors of the mines, the protectors of the gold mines. I want to examine them closely to see what action is taken and how the mine-owners are protected at the expense of the workers. In nine out of ten cases when they visit a mine the management is telephoned in advance. As far as possible everything for that day is put right and the regulations are carried out as far as possible. I may say that all the regulations cannot be carried out. The inspector who is accompanied by one of the mine-captains has a superficial look-round and then certifies that there is no contravention on the part of the management. He has to justify his existence, however, and then he goes across to the mineworkers themselves, and owing to the lack of water pressure he perhaps finds one or two old holes that have not been properly sprayed; there is perhaps one without a cover, and then the mine-worker is fined. [Time limit.]

I think that everyone in this House realises that gold mining still remains the basis of our activities, and it is therefore the stimulating factor for all secondary industries. May I then ask the Minister, in view of the prospective decline in gold mining, what policy is contemplated to lengthen the life of the mines …

I asked that last year; you won’t get an answer.

As a further, warning, I should like to read from a statement made by the President of the Transvaal Chamber of Mines just recently—

Let me say we are very much concerned about the future of the industry as we fear that a large number of low grade mines because of the high cost of production may cease operations. When, on examing the reports of the Witwatersrand Mine Wages Commission, I find that out of an output of approximately £115,000,000 a year, about 61 per cent. was absorbed by salaries, wages and stores, and that in addition the Treasury benefited to the extent of 24 per cent. exclusive of the amount derived from the taxation of salaries, and when we find further that 80 per cent. of the total of £30,000,000 expended on stores and equipment was for articles produced in South Africa, then we begin to realise the value of the industry to the country. We are therefore very anxious to keep the industry up to full productive capacity for as long as possible, or for at least until such time as it can be replaced by other industries. I would therefore like to ask the following questions: First, when a mine becomes unprofitable, or rather I should say unpayable—because it may still be profitable to the State—would the Minister advocate subsidisation if it is considered to be in the interests of the employees, and secondary industries, and therefore in the interests of the community as a whole? Secondly, would the hon. Minister also recommend transferring to the State, the present burden imposed on the existing mines of providing compensation funds for silicotics produced by mines no longer in existence? Then should a mine close down, what provision will be made to absorb those employees into other occupations of a similar nature? We must remember that these men are skilled in mining, and it will be very difficult for them to go to other occupations that are not of the same nature. Unskilled labourers can very easily be absorbed, but we cannot expect the skilled gold miner to take up unskilled work.

What about the returned soldiers first?

There are miners amongst them as well. Then I would also like to ask the Minister if he will recommend when drafting amended legislation, that provision should be made to retire the employees on pension before they have contracted the disease. I realise it will be a difficult proposition, but it can be done. Last but not least, I wish to ask the Minister to recommend that funds be made available from the Compensation Fund to augment the present cost of living allowances paid by the Chamber of Mines to phthisis beneficiaries. We appreciate the measure of relief that is granted, but we are also aware that the allowances paid are insufficient for the requisite purchasing power. I would appreciate very much if I could have replies to these questions.

Seldom before in this House have we had the spectacle of an hon. member making such a definite charge, viz. that the Government is controlled by the Chamber of Mines, as we had today on the part of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg). When he spoke and when the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers) spoke I watched the Minister and noticed that he closed his eyes. I wonder whether he sent up a silent prayer to be delivered from his friends. But the Minister need not yet pray when those hon. members speak here in the House, for they do not go any further than talking. When it comes to actions and when they have to vote, they know how to find the exit very quickly. The hon. member for Krugersdorp said inter alia that the Minister of Mines whose Vote we are discussing now, controls the soundest and most flourishing industry in the country. This may be true as far as the gold mines are concerned. But when we come to another part of the industry which falls under the control of the Minister of Mines, viz. the diggings, we surely cannot maintain that this is one of the largest and most flourishing communities in this country. When we look at this Vote on the Estimates we notice that provision is made therein for a paltry sum of £8,600, this being the amount which will be spent in the interests of the diggings. We have heard much in the country and in this House especially during the present session about the wonderful schemes which are envisaged, about the so-called heaven on earth which we shall have after this war. I should like to ask the Minister whether this section of the population which ekes out a living by digging for diamonds, will also participate in that heaven on earth or whether they will have to go to the other place. It does not seem to us that their prospects are very good, if only £8,600 is to be spent on all the services in connection with the diggers. We have this community, and nobody will deny that they do not form a considerable section of the community and perhaps also a very useful section of the community, ánd we now want to know from the Minister what his policy is in regard to these people. What does he propose doing? Is his policy going to be to destroy the diggings so that we shall no longer have any diggings in this countryë or does he admit that the diggers’ community is a useful one and that conditions should be created for them which will enable them to find a decent living in their own fatherland? We shall be glad if the Minister will announce his policy and will tell us what his intentions are in regard to these people, for if we today visit the diggings in our country we can come to but one conclusion and that is that these poor people are being left to their own devices, and we are under the impression that the policy is being followed to watch and see whether these people will not go down in their own misery, so that we may get rid of them and their industry in that manner. That is the impression one receives when visiting the diggings in our country. In expectation of the reply which the Minister will give us, I shall not go any further into that aspect of the matter, but I do want to deal with a few of the difficulties with which the diggers are faced. The first one is that the diggers all over the country find that not sufficient good diamondiferous ground is being proclaimed. We know that our prospectors and diggers from the early days were the people who first of all discovered the diamond mines and the alluvial diggings. In the past they were the men who discovered the mines and the diggings. They were the people who worked and exploited that ground in the first instance. In the course of time, however, the mines and afterwards also the diggings went over into the possession of companies. Still later we even found the development that the State became the competitor of the diggers because the State started large scale diggings in Namaqualand. We therefore find the position that the large companies and the Government are competing against that small and weak community, the diggers. That is the reason why I now ask whether in consequence of the competition those people have to contend with, the time has not arrived for the State to realise and fulfil its duty as far as that section of the population is concerned, by doing something for them which will compensate them for the difficulties they experience on account of the competition from two sides to which I referred. We know that we passed diamond legislation in this country and the old Nationalist Government also passed legislation in regard to diamonds, and I want to mention one aspect of this legislation because it is being abused throughout the country. It is being abused by person and companies possessing diamondiferous ground. You know that the law lays down that ground may not be proclaimed before it has not first of all been prospected and declared to contain sufficient diamonds. What is happening now? We now find companies which own the ground and start prospecting. But how do they do their prospecting? They know where the diamonds are to be found and there they do not prospect. High up against the hills and on the ridges where no diamonds are to be found they do their prospecting. [Time limit.]

I want to say a word or two on behalf of the diggers in my area. They are always asking me when the Minister is going to throw open more ground for them. They have told me that there is ground in the Taungs area which is very rich. I suppose in this matter I ought to make an appeal to the Minister of Native Affairs as well because the natives are concerned in this area. I think the natives are favourable to this idea of this land being thrown open to diggers because they say they will get work there. I do not suggest that the Minister should throw open this area to all and sundry and bring a lot of people there who may find later on that they cannot exist, but the Minister might throw it open to some reliable men who could start prospecting, and if it is proved that the ground holds a lot of diamonds then it could be thrown open to those diggers who cannot exist on the present fields. I want to press this point on the Minister.

Who is going to get the profits?

What profits?

The profits made from the diamonds.

Mr. Chairman, if the diggers take up this ground and give employment to the natives, why does the Minister ask who is going to get the profits? The Government gets the taxes, the taxes which the Nationalist Party put on the diggers.

Should not the natives share in the profits?

These are not private lands. I don’t know what the native representatives will say about this.

[Inaudible.]

If the natives say they are willing for this land to be thrown open, and they want the diggers there so as to give them employment, the Minister could make representation as to the share he wants. I bring the matter forward because the diggers themselves tell me this is rich ground. The diggers in my area want these areas to be thrown open, and that is why I make this strong appeal to the Minister.

In connection with the Report of the Miners’ Phthisis Commission I should like to hear what the Minister’s opinion is in regard to some far-reaching principles dealt with in that report. In paragaph 79 the question of tuberculosis is dealt with in detail. In the past we had disputes about the question whether miners suffering from tuberculosis only should be considered as entitled to full compensation like other miners’ phthisis sufferers. The view was held that tuberculotics could not be treated as sufferers from an occupational disease. The latest commission, the Stratford Commission, however, practically solved this difficulty in that their finding is that the disease should be treated as an occupational disease. I shall therefore be glad if the Minister will tell us whether he is going to accept the view expressed by that Commission. Their recommendation is to be found in paragraph 79—

The question therefore—the reply to which the Commission is giving here—is whether tuberculotics should be treated on the same basis as ordinary silicosis sufferers and whether they should receive compensation on the same conditions as other silicotics. In the past compensation was given. They could receive a certain amount from the fund but they were not entitled to compensation for being ordinary consumptives. I now want to ask the Minister whether he will accept this finding of the Statford Commission as contained in paragraph 73 of the report, viz., that all sufferers of compensatable diseases of the lungs should be registered so that they may be examined continually and be advised as to new spheres of employment which they will have to enter into if they are found unfit for certain types of employment. This is an important finding contained in paragraph 73. In paragraph 76 another important recommendation is made, viz., that sufferers from silicosis who have been certified as such but who are unfit owing to other conditions—they may have heart trouble or some other disease—the question now arises whether they shall also for such disease be entitled to compensation under the Miners’ Phthisis Act. In paragraph 76 a recommendation is made to the effect that they should be treated the same as silicosis sufferers. I shall now read the Commission’s recommendation—

The question is whether they, if they become unemployed due to some other cause than silicosis, will be entitled to compensation from the compensation fund. A further important principle is dealt with in paragraph 95, where the Commission recommends that consumptives, sufferers from silicosis, will be entitled to full compensation after five years’ service, except in the case of sufferers from tuberculosis. In the latter case the persons concerned will be entitled to compensation after only one year’s service. This important recommendation is made in paragraph 95. I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to it—

This is certainly a most important finding and we should like to receive a reply from the Minister whether he is prepared to accept this principle. Then there is a further matter which already for a long time has engaged the attention of the miners and that is the substitution of monthly pensions for the payment of a lump sum. This matter is dealt with in paragraph 102 and I should like to ask the Minister whether he accepts that finding—

This is a very important finding. A further important recommendation is to be found in paragraph 78, where the Commission advocates the establishment of an isurance fund for unemployment benefits if miners should become unfit to work; an insurance fund for pensions to be paid to workers other than silicotics. I want to read briefly what is said in paragraph 78, viz.—

These questions and findings are of such a far-reaching effect that I shall be glad if the Minister will reply to them, thereby giving an answer to the House and the interests concerned.

I want to say a few words on the question of the costs of the commission that was appointed to investigate Miners’ Phthisis. It has occurred quite a few times that we have appointed commissions that have cost quite a lot of money and yet we do not implement the recommendations of these commissions. It is my duty therefore to ask the Minister whether he intends to implement the recommendations contained in this latest report. It is an important report in that it contains a Minority and a Majority Report. The Minister once challenged the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) to say which report he accepted. Well, if neither is acceptable then it is the Minister’s duty to draft a Bill, lay it on the Table, refer it to a Select Committee and then pass it. If that had been done at the beginning of the session we should at least have done something, but now we have allowed the session to pass without doing anything. We originally thought that this session would end in April, but it was dragged on and I think in the circumstances time could have been found for this Bill. One cannot sufficiently emphasise the urgency of action being taken. I also want to stress the necessity of adequate arrangements being made for leave for miners, to give them facilities to get away from their homes into healthier environments. We know that there is a fund in existence, on which they can draw when going on leave, but people rarely realise what it costs a man to take his wife and family away from the Rand to a seaside resort. There was an idea at one time of having a permanent excursion fare for all workers to go on leave. That was never carried into effect. I trust the Minister will go into that and see whether arrangements can be made with the Railways to carry this out. If concessions are made to these miners in regard to their railway fare it will help them a lot. It will contribute towards improving their health, and it will generally lead to greater satisfaction among the workers on the mines. We hear a lot about compensation for phthisis, silicosis and other diseases incidental to mining. The question of compensation, important though it may be, is not half as important as the question of making an attempt to prevent he incidence of disease— to prevent the disease occurring. Science is advancing. We read in the papers every day of new cures and inventions and I am just wondering whether we are giving the necessary attention to this very important question—whether we are giving the necessary attention to the investigations which should be made to try and prevent the occurrence of these diseases. Another important matter was raised by the hon. member for Krugersdorp, and I want to associate myself with his remarks where he said that the Government should ask the mines what their postwar plans are. The industry is one which is consistently being criticised. It is condemned by many people and we are told that the wages they pay are too small. I think the time has arrived when we should hear from the mining industry what their views are in regard to post-war reconstruction; what they contemplate doing to meet a possible emergency condition of unemployment. People on the Platteland think that miners are drawing very high wages—they think that a pound, a guinea and £1 10s. per day is a lot of money, but they do not realise that a miner’s cost of living under present conditions is very high. The middle class and the working class people on the Witwatersrand find it extremely difficult today to make ends meet. My submission is that if the hon. Minister in consultation with the Minister of Economic Development, would do something to stop the continuous rise in the cost of living he would do a lot towards helping those men who are working in the mining industry today. Finally, I should like to refer to an important matter which was just casually touched on by the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers). It is a matter of principle, and it is the question of a deputation which recently met the Minister of Mines from a union in opposition to the recognised trade union in South Africa. My hon. friends in the Opposition will immediately say I am going to attack or have attacked that organisation, but it is not a question of who the people are. The principle is there. It is a trades union in opposition to an existing union. My submission is that this constituted a direct attack against trades unionism in South Africa. If we allow everybody to start opposition trade unions in an industry, what will happen to trade unionism in South Africa; what will happen to workers’ organisations in South Africa? To what extent will they be disrupted and to what extent will they be again exploited by unscrupulous employers of labour. If an industry has a recognised union, if that union has a closed shop principle as such, and is recognised by that industry, recognised and registered by the Labour Department, then no Minister of the Crown has the right to meet any union in opposition to such a registered union. It is against trade union principles and it is against the principles of democracy. As a matter of fact, it is distasteful to democracy in South Africa, and I sincerely hope the Minister will give an explanation to this House and the country on the circumstances surrounding that deputation. I am not concerned with who the people were; I do not know their names; I am only concerned with the principle underlying trade unionism in South Africa. I submit these few points to the hon. the Minister for his consideration. The question of the report which has been laid on the Table for some considerable time and the recommendations contained in that report have been very well emphasised this afternoon. I can only say the country is looking forward to some action by the Minister, and while, as we are towards the end of the session, there may be little hope of anything being done this session, we can at least express the hope that when we meet again it will not be necessary again to urge on the Minister the necessity for the introduction of legislation but that he will forestall us by placing on the Table a completed Bill.

When we discuss this whole question of mining in this House today, it is fully realised how important this industry is to the country as a whole, and from the point of view of the importance of the mining industry to the economic structure of this country, I wish to make the following remarks. In this country the gold mining industry is mainly a low grade mining industry, and it is impossible for this industry in South Africa to bear high costs, to pay considerable wage scales as in other countries. It is for the reason we have cheap labour in this country to a considerable extent that the industry has been able to carry on low grade ore production as it has up to now. This is a point, Sir, that has all along been well realised by all people who have been well informed about the mining position in this country, and whenever conditions have arisen where the costs of the mines have gone up unduly the Government has intervened and appointed commissions of enquiries, and committees and Select Committees to make investigation into the best means of reducing such costs. If we go back as far as the year 1918, a Select Committee of this House was appointed which reported shortly afterwards to the effect that it was not in favour of direct financial assistance being given to the gold mines. If the Minister would be so good as to go back into the reasons given by that committee, I think it would be as well to consider those today, seeing the Government is considering once again giving direct financial assistance to the gold mines of South Africa. As a result of increasing costs and increasing difficulties to the industry, a commission was appointed the year afterwards in 1919. That commission made several recommendations with reference to the costs of production in the industry. One of the most important recommendations made by that commission was that natives should be made available for the mining industry from a larger portion of Africa; and it stressed in particular the importance of native labour to the successful continuance of the mining industry. The Government of that time was not deeply interested in the prospects of the mining industry, and as the gold price fell from 130s. in 1920 to no less than 95s. in December of the following year, the problems confronting the industry were so bad that the strike at the beginning of the next year became unavoidable. If we consider that costs are again going up and that we are again towards the end of the war, we should try to avoid another blot in the history of South Africa like the strike of 1922. That strike resulted in an enormous reduction of the wages paid to the white labourers or to the mine-workers. The actual reductions were from £495 per annum in 1921 to no less than £370 in 1923 and £375 in 1930. Providence came to the assistance of this country, and the industry was extremely fortunate that world financial conditions changed and changed in a way entirely unforeseen, so that the price of gold increased considerably since 1930. The result is that today ore which was never dreamed of as being payable is capable of being worked. Nevertheless the principles that were laid down as long ago as the investigation that led to the report of the Low Grade Ore Commission in 1932 still hold good today. The Low Grade Ore Commission, when it investigated the industry in 1932 estimated that in 1943 (that was last year) the production of gold in this country would amount to only £20,000,000. The actual production amounted to no less than £107.5 millions. As I have already said, this enormous increase in the price of gold, which has made it possible for this country to expand the operations of the mining industry and of the mines to the extent it has done, was unforeseen, but nevertheless the conditions laid down by that commission in 1932 still hold good, and the two points they mainly stressed, the two points of the greatest importance in the continuance of the mining industry and the prolongation of its life, were (a) that there should be an adequate supply of native labour under all conditions to the mines; and (b) that ordinarily the cost position was so important to the gold mining industry that a mere reduction of 2s. per ton in the cost per ton milled would be equivalent to a prolongation of the life of the mines by 33 per cent. If these factors were important in 1932 when the mining industry was subject to many limitations, they are much more important today, so that the President of the Chamber of Mines in his address in March last said—

The shortage of native labour, he added, has resulted in decreased production. It dropped last year from 118.6 million tons to 107.5 million tons, a reduction of over 11 millions in the output of the gold mines in one year, and which the President of the Chamber of Mines himself states is due very largely to the inadequacy of the labour supply; and as he himself stressed, the Government allows these natives even in the native territories to be kept away from the mines by people who are interested, and whatever their creed might be, to slow down the production of the mines, and I feel the time is ripe when the Government and the Mines Department should go into this thing and see that this nonsense is stopped.

What do you suggest?

Doing away with the native representatives.

I know of one case where the natives in the Northern Transvaal were incited to open rebellion, and when documents were produced to show who was the responsible person, the Government refused to take action. [Time limit.]

The position of the Wit Deep and the Van Ryn Deep brings the whole question of low-grade mining to a head, and I trust that the Minister will not view the problem of these two mines in isolation. I submit that the time has now arrived for a national policy based upon broad and comprehensive view of the gold mining industry as a whole, and its place in our national economy. Only in the light of such a policy can we decide whether it is worth while trying to prolong the lives of a couple of decrepit mines in the last stages of exhaustion. A few weeks ago in Another Place the hon. Minister said we were facing something of a crisis. He said we must make up our minds whether we wanted to maintain and extend our gold mining activities, or whether we wanted to continue a policy of industrialisation. He confronted Industrialists with an apparently insoluble dilemma. According to the Minister, industrial development, by competing for the available supply of native labour, would kill our gold mining activities upon which our industries are dependent for their very existence. If the Minister is right, then those of us who look forward to an industrial expansion which would gradually replace our waning gold production, have been feeding on dreams; and the third interim report of the Van Eck Commission, which many of us regarded as an epochmaking document, is merely a piece of escapist fiction. If the Minister is right, then the gold mining interests will continue to enjoy an undisputed ascendancy in the economic affairs of this country; industry will be reduced to a mere satellite existence and our man-power resources will be subject to a native policy chiefly designed to safeguard the supplies of cheap migrant labour for the mines. According to the Minister, there is no way of escape from the tyranny of low-grade mining. If everything must be subordinated to prolonging the life of the gold mining industry, then the lowest grade ore will determine the scope and character of our economic development; it will establish the wage level and set the pace of our industrial progress. I wonder if the Minister clearly visualises the economic consequences of low-grade mining. These are, in logical sequence, a manufacturing industry reduced to a narrow and wholly subsidiary sphere of operations, overcrowded and overstocked native reserves kept as reservoirs of cheap labour, a denuded, impoverished and eroded soil, an excessively large farming community barely able to keep themselves at subsistence level, a low national income per head of the population, and in the end, we shall be left with nothing but a series of mine dumps, fitting symbols of a vanished prosperity. That is the picture, which confronts us. If the Minister is right, then how can the Government look to industrial enterprise for a substantial increase in the national income? The Minister is an admirable and disinterested champion of the gold mining industry, but I fear he does not enjoy the wholehearted support of the very interests he is trying to serve. How does the Minister explain the fact that some of the leading mining houses are now entering the industrial field on a large scale? These mining houses are not likely to promote an industrial development which would imperil their existing interests in the field of gold mining. They, apparently, do not regard the dilemma, which the Minister poses, as either real or insoluble; and personally I agree with them, I believe it is possible, and indeed essential, to resolve the apparent conflict of interests between industry and gold mining, and establish a helpful relationship between them. I believe both industry and gold mining can contribute towards this end. One the one hand, industry must set its house in order; it cannot forever expect to enjoy a sheltered existence behind high protective tariffs which merely put a premium on inefficiency; industry must rationalise or perish; it must organise itself in larger productive units to enable it to withstand overseas competition; and in this way it will reduce the burden of indirect subsidisation which the mines have to bear. On the other hand, the mines will have to adjust themselves to a higher wage level by raising their grade. The crucial question is, to what extent can the mines afford to raise their grade without seriously impairing their efficiency or reducing the scope of their operations. The present insistence upon low-grade mining is based on the assumption that the life of the gold mining industry, as a whole, is severely limited. But if we take into consideration the new areas in the Far West, and also in the Free State, then our whole perspective alters.

It is true that raising working costs will render large quantities of existing ore unpayable; a few mines will be hard hit and will have to close down. But this loss will be more than compensated for by the opening up of vast quantities of ore in the new areas. Judging by such mines as Western Reefs and the Blyvoors, these new areas are very rich. And surely, if the supply of native labour is severely limited, as the Minister contends, then it is more sensible to transfer the labour force from such low grade mines as the Wit Deep and the Van Ryn Deep to the new areas, where an equivalent amount of labour would lead to a far greater increase in the national wealth. On the other hand, if it be deemed possible and desirable to maintain such low grade mines, then they must be subsidised by the State out of the revenues derived from the richer mines. My main contention, however, is this, that if we take into account the new areas, then even on the basis of higher grade mining, gold production can proceed on an undiminished scale for at least two or three generations, which is as far ahead as we dare contemplate. May I point out, Mr. Chairman, that if the mines were to raise their grade by only one eighth of a dwt. it would enable them to pay something like £3,000,000 a year more to their employees. If the mines were to adjust them selves to a higher wage level, they need not regard industrial development as a threat; on the contrary, gold mining would be a help and not a hindrance to the process of industrialisation, and the gold mines, instead of being the preserve of a privileged and limited class of exploiters and speculators, would be a national benefactor and a great progressive force.

I want to make use of this opportunity to thank the Minister for the privileges granted by him to the Reform Movement. It was a most remarkable thing to hear the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg), the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers) and the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) all condemning that movement; they abused it, scoffed at it and called it this, that and the other thing. I can, however, assure them that if they only knew how much that movement is doing for the miners, they would not use such language. They ought to be grateful for what that body has achieved for the miners. They sent a deputation to Cape Town and I want to thank the Minister for the courtesy he has shown to them. We do hope that he will also give them his attention in future if they should make representation to him. I want to point out that this movement is mainly there to look after the interests of the Afrikaans-speaking miners. When we go to the Mineworkers’ Union we find that although the large majority of its members are Afrikaans-speaking, not even the minutes of its meeting are kept in Afrikaans. That is something we cannot allow in this enlightened era. I do not want to dwell any longer on this point, for I only intended to make use of this opportunity to let the Minister know that there are people who are grateful for his attitude towards the Reform Movement. I now want to raise another matter which affects my own constituency. I again refer to a question on which I have had several discussions with the Minister, but I should like to have it recorded formally. This is the question of the 250 diggers around Bloemhof who recently were so to say forced to leave their homes as the result of the deproclaiming of their ground. Approximately one thousand people are affected thereby and this is therefore not a matter which we can ignore. Amongst these people there are about forty families of soldiers and fifteen of wounded soldiers, so that also from that point of view we must consider this as an important matter deserving consideration by Parliament. I should like to point out that this land has been deproclaimed during war time. Whilst some of these people were serving at the front, their families were virtually ejected from their houses. The diggers themselves, on the other hand, assure me that the ground has not even been worked out for 50 per cent. I cannot guarantee that figure. A deputation gave me this assurance and they submitted proofs which looked convincing. They hold the view that although the diggings have been a source of revenue for the Government during all these years, the Government receiving considerable revenue from licence fees and taxation, now that there is a war on and diamonds command good prices, the ground is deproclaimed and they are virtually being ejected from their homes. We have to protest against it. Then there are one or two other matters which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister in this connection. I have done my best to explain the point of view of the Minister to the diggers and the Minister can take my word for it that what he told me, I transmitted to the diggers to the best of my ability. What they would like to see now, if the deproclamation cannot be withdrawn, is that a responsible official or the Minister himself should pay a visit to the diggings to investigate matters on the spot. Such an official will then be able to come into personal touch with the diggers who can submit their grievances, difficulties and solutions to him. The diggings are on the main railway line and on the main road and to pay them a visit will therefore not cause much inconvenience and would take the Minister not longer than a day. He might also at the same time arrange to get in touch with the Municipality of Bloemhof to discuss the matter with them. On behalf of the diggers I ask him to take this matter into reconsideration, and if he feels that he cannot do so, to go there personally to see what is happening. Furthermore, I would like to ask the Minister, when he goes there, to consider whether the Government should not survey the land at State expense and divide it into holdings for the diggers who have remained there. Such a survey should be made at Government expense. The Bloemhof Municipality has been approached in this connection, but they say straightforwardly that they have not got the funds. If this is not done by the Government, the position will remain as it is. We should like the Minister to interfere in this matter. A survey will have to be made and that will cost a lot of money. The houses are scattered all over the place. The buildings will have to be registered in the names of the persons concerned and transfer duties will have to be paid. The people there are very poor and they cannot afford to pay. Is it not possible to find a solution in order to assist these people? I also want to request the Minister that he Should not, as far as my area is concerned, deproclaim any more land during war time. The people will have to move and as no houses can be obtained this will only cause inconvenience during war time. As far as the places are concerned which have already been deproclaimed, I wish to ask him whether he cannot use his influence with the Minister of Lands so that the people can be placed on holdings. They are farmers. I also wish to point out that the diggers of Bloemhof are contemplating at present to send another deputation to the Minister. I have told them that this is practically useless, but they stated that they want to come. I then told them that if they want to come, I shall take them to the Minister. That is my duty as their representative. In spite of all the socalled solutions, they are at present not yet convinced that the right steps were taken. I hope the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to this matter. I appeal to him to do so in the interests of the approximately 1,000 people there; some of them were soldiers and the others are diggers. If this problem is not solved, it will mean a serious set-back for Bloemhof. There are about 200 children who will be practically driven on to the streets because they will not be able to receive a proper education, and a considerable number of families will find themselves in difficulties.

A number of very important questions have been raised during this debate, and I think I had better deal with them at once. In the first instance we have had several speeches from hon. members with regard to the question of miners’ phthisis legislation and the report of the commission. Let me say again that I share the opinion of all those who have spoken as to the outstanding importance of this question, the very important character of the report which has been made, and the critical nature of some of the recommendations which have been made, and let me also say that I fully associate myself in recognising the difficulty there is in accepting all or some of the recommendations which have been made. What I have been faced with since this report was made, was first of all with digesting the actual recommendations made and comparing them with existing! legislation, and secondly with a consideration of the administrative problems which would be raised by adopting or rejecting one or other of the different clauses and recommendations. They have involved very intricate questions, and although the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) has been quite unsparing in blaming me for delay in introducing legislation I venture to say that if the hon. member had been in my place, it would not have taken him six months or a year, but much longer before he could have thought of introducing legislation. As the committee knows this is not a subject which is novel to me—it is one with which I have been concerned for many a year, for a longer period than many members of this House can remember—it is a question which has had my attention for a long time. I am hoping that the amended Bill which I shall introduce next year will be one which will materially improve the position of phthisis sufferers. I am not going into the question of whether I accept or reject one or other particular recommendation. To do that would be to foreshadow portions of the Bill without dealing with other portions, which I am certain would give rise to a fresh crop of doubt and uncertainty and criticism without helping the real problem forward. I am therefore going to reiterate the statement I have made before that, recognising the importance of this question and its intricacy, I am now concerned with considering every detail from every point of view, and I am also consulting everyone without regard to their individuality or their representative or unrepresentative character; I am consulting all, who, I think, may be able to assist me in throwing light on this problem. And after that I propose to put my Bill into print and to publish it and in due course to introduce it into this House, if I am spared to do so, in spite of the threats against me, during the next Session.

Which report do you accept?

It would not be advisable for me to go into either one or the other of the recommendations and therefore I cannot follow the hon. member for Ceres. May I say that I am the richer for the speeches made by the hon. member for Ceres and the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg). I shall consider everything they have said as well as what other members have said during this debate, and I appreciate the attention they have given to it. I am very much indebted to the hon. member for Krugersdorp for the very emphatic way in which he spoke on certain aspects. I am not going to say whether I accept or not what he has said, but I do express my appreciation of the fact that he has, on certain aspects of the matter, spoken very boldly, and I know the angle from which he speaks. I shall pay attention to what both those hon. members and others have said on the subject. Now I think I may pass from that aspect without further words. I do intend to do this. I do intend to introduce legislation which will extend the principle of compensation to some pulmonary diseases which are caused in other occupations than that of gold mining. I think that extension to dust-producing mines, other than gold mines, is called for, and that it would place this matter on a sounder scientific basis if that were done. So far I am intending to go.

Are you going to increase the existing scale?

I am intending to better the present position. I am not so sanguine as to hope that I shall entirely satisfy the ambitions and standards of the hon. member for Krugersdorp and others who have spoken, but I do intend to put in the terms of the Bill something which will be a substantial improvement on the present position. Now the question of tuberculosis was raised. May I say this that there is considerable difficulty over the question of tuberculosis, because tuberculosis is produced not only in mining or gold mining or any form of mining, but it is produced very widely not only in other industries but among people who have no trade or occupation whatever, and among people who do nothing at all. And therefore to classify it as an industrial disease raises almost insuperable difficulties, but as hon. members know tuberculosis under existing legislation is a disease which gives rise to compensation on a different footing, and therefore I could not accept the whole of what the hon. member for Ceres said on that matter. I am not aware of any regulations not being carried out that were calculated to prevent the spread of silicosis. As far as my information goes these regulations are carried out strictly. Possibly the hon. member was referring to certain experiments, which are made from time to time on the authority of the Phthisis Prevention Committee’s recommendation for testing whether or not improvements can be introduced from time to time. The nonsupply or restricted supply of water under certain conditions, which was raised last year is an illustration of that, but that was done on the recommendation of the Phthisis Prevention Committee, which was a very representative committee, and since its introduction there has been no further criticism.

Will you believe me if I say that Regulation 58 (2) (b) is contravened more often than the Ten Commandments.

I must look at that particular regulation. I don’t carry it in my head. Now the hon. member for Ceres suggested that the reason for my delay was that I was waiting for social security legislation of a general character to be introduced by one of my colleagues. Let me say that there is no foundation in that, for my delay—if you call it delay—is due to the reasons which I have given and no other. With regard to outstanding liability, the hon. member for Krugersdorp raised that question and he said that he was in favour of the outstanding liability of any mine not being left over, so that payment might be imperilled, as I gathered him to imply, when a mine closed down. That is not the position at present. There is ample security for the outstanding liabilities being met, but I have gone further and under the administrative arrangements which I have made, the outstanding liability of the whole of the mines will be wiped out, I believe, in ten years or less.

The commission reported against it, that it should not be put on the shoulders of existing mines.

That is the question of the dead mines. There are two questions involved in this position, the outstanding liability of the existing mines, the liability they have for this compensation which is not paid in cash at the present time, but for which security is provided; and the question whether it is ethically right or wrong in making existing mines pay for disease created in miners who worked in those mines, mines which are now dead. That is a different question. The Majority Report states that it was quite unjust that those mines should be so charged and recommended that that charge should fall on the State. It is a very important question that has been raised, and I am not going to indicate the answer which will have to be given when the Bill is introduced. But I only point out that is a question quite distinct from the responsibility for putting up all the money for the outstanding liability of the mines in existence at the present time, and for which ample provision is made; and which liability will be wiped out completely. I hope, in ten years. Then I was asked as to what the industry proposed to do as a whole for expanding and giving more employment when peace came about and demobilisation occurred, and in the post-war period. That is a question of very great interest and importance, and intimately linked with the general question raised by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Friedman), as to his proposal for the industry raising the grade of ore they are going to mine, and so reducing the volume of their activities. There we have in these two proposals, both of which if I am right in thinking from the silence of the Committee, received a certain amount of sympathy, things which though they are very important are contradictory the one to the other. If you really want to expand the mining industry and to give greater employment in the mining industry now or hereafter …

May I rise to a point of personal explanation. May I point out it was the essence of my contention that if we take the new areas into account the gold production would proceed on an undiminished scale and there would be no need to reduce the scope of its operations.

At best the hon. member thinks the industry might carry on on an undiminished scale, but that does not meet the claim for expansion. The question is, what is the industry going to do to expand, not to be static, to employ more people. The hon. member is confronting us with a proposal that we should raise the grade being worked on the mines, but that would put out of existence a great deal of the low grade ore and possibly some of the low grade mines. He suggests that we should compensate ourselves for shutting down some of the mines on the Witwatersrand by opening some other mines on the West Rand. I hope the Committee will recognise the complete impossibility of reconciling those two suggestions. As long as I am responsible for the Ministry of Mines, I shall do everything in my power to maintain the gold mining industry in its present scope on the Witwatersrand, as well as to expand it elsewhere; and I do not believe that the policy advocated by the hon. member for Hillbrow of raising the grade of the ore and gradually confining gold mining only to the high grade ore, and so releasing labour for the purpose of building up secondary industries—I do not believe that would lead to anything but cataclysmic disaster for South Africa.

You will have to subsidise the working of some of these mines.

Let me deal with subsidisation. I believe it to be bad policy to spend public money on bolstering up mines or other undertakings which cannot stand on their own feet.

What about the £1,800,000 you have just given by way of subsidy?

That is not a subsidy. The gold realisation charges are part of the price of the product, and now the State is giving back a portion of what they had annexed in order to meet the war expenditure.

It amounted to a subsidy.

Will the hon. member tell me, Mr. Chairman, that if a levy was raised on beef or mutton or anything of that sort, and that if a portion of that levy was refunded to the people who paid it, that that could be described as a State subsidy? Of course it is not; and what is true in respect of these levies is true in respect of gold levies, and the realisation charges are no more a State subsidy to mining than the return of part of the levy on butter or on other agricultural commodities would be a subsidy to the farmers. Let us deal with things as they are and face up to realities. Do not pretend that is a State subsidy; it is nothing of the kind. It is part of the price of the product of the gold mines themselves, and it might have been perfectly right and proper—and in ordinary circumstances it would have been so—never to have taken it away from them; but under war conditions we have to raise revenue, and this was part of the revenue raised under extraordinary conditions for meeting the cost of the war.

They might just as well give back some of the taxation, and that is part of the subsidy.

There is a good deal in that argument, and that is one of the reasons I am opposed to State subsidies. I say that it is Heath Robinson politics to tax a person to a point where he cannot carry on at a profit, and then give him back some of the taxation. I am responsible for seeing that in so far as possible we produce the utmost, and exploit to the utmost, our mineral resources, and in order to do that it has to be done at a profit. I have no idea of getting industries started with the idea of other people paying part of the costs. I believe in profitable industries, which will on their own bottom maintain the people engaged in them.

Cheap labour.

No, not necessarily cheap or expensive wages, but dealing with it on the fair, ordinary basis you deal with ordinary business. The idea that you can benefit the State by keeping a hopeless proposition going by making other people pay for it is economically unsound, and I will have nothing to do with it. I hope that in future we may be able to maintain the gold mining industry, not only on its present basis but that we may be able to expand; and though I have nothing whatever to do with the investments, those who go in for gold mining, or have their plans in preparation—I am saying what is well known—those engaged in mining all over the country will endorse that they are prepared to find the capital for propositions which will be allowed to pay, but not for those which will not be allowed to pay. Therefore if conditions are created or arise from one cause or another where the mine will not pay, that mine will close down. Let me remind the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) that although he spoke in language he perhaps really did not mean, that something would have to be done to keep the mines going even if it did not pay—let me remind him that every mine has to come to an end, and when you have exhausted the mineral contents it has to go and there is no redemption for it. Some of the mines are approaching that stage. I am not able to say what the position is at Langlaagte, but it is one of the old mines and I believe there is some ore there which, if costs are kept down, could be worked at a profit, but if costs are not brought down, it will be in a precarious position. With regard to the Van Ryn Deep and the Witwatersrand Mine, I will tell the Committee what I have done in respect of them. I have had deputations from the municipalities concerned and from various public bodies, begging that something might be done, and painting in very gloomy colours—not much exaggerated, I think—the very unfortunate results which will happen to the citzens of Benoni and Germiston and so on if these mines close down. I know that the closure of a mine will involve this, I have decided to appoint a commission under the Gold Law to consider the question and to take evidence and report to the Governor General as to the circumstances which lead or are said to lead to the closing of the mines, and the possibilities of taking alternative action. I am asking, too, for a report on the cost structure of the mines in that connection. I hope that the report of the commission will lead to our obtaining a better grip of what is involved in carrying on a mine at a profit, and what is involved in costs going beyond a certain amount. This commission will sit at once under the chairmanship of the Government Mining Engineer, as provided by the Gold Law, and I hope we shall get reports on both these mines before very long. Of course war conditions have raised the working costs, and have raised them to an extent which one cannot state at the present time represents the limit. We have to close down or to restrict very sharply development work which in the ordinary course would take place; that is not merely in reference to the development of mines but in respect to the development of ore in existing mines. The Government has been doing what it can to keep the industry supplied with essential stores, and it has done a good deal in that respect, but it has been done very often at a very greatly increased cost, and the increased cost is responsible for a good deal of the increased working cost, and the native labour position has, of course, accentuated that. With regard to the native labour position, let me say that the increase which has been given in the wage should be, I hope, a substantial inducement to as large a proportion of the native population as in the past, perhaps even a larger proportion, taking advantage of the work that is given on the mines. I believe now that the wages now being paid to the native workers in the gold mining industry will compare very favourably indeed with the wages they get in any other occupation, whether in the towns or in the country. Because the natives in towns are exposed to a number of expenditures, to a good deal of temptation to expend, not altogether in a prudent manner, which the workers on the mines are sheltered from. I cannot deal with the concession stores in the way the hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) desires me to act, because my action is entirely governed by Statute and I can do no more than just act upon it. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) raised the very important question of coal. May I say this to the hon. member, that I have for several years now been extremely exercised over the problem which he has raised, and to make no bones about it. I am still very gravely concerned over this problem. I have been, and am still investigating it, and trying to take counsel with my Department and others for the purpose of rectifying the position. At the moment I have got to recognise that there is a war on, and I may tell the hon. member and the Committee that I place the real demand for carrying on and winning this war before everything, and therefore the industry is doing what it can, with the assistance of the Railways, to incease the amount of coal which is required for the war effort. We are doing that, it is true, and in these circumstances a certain amount of coking coal has to be included in the war effort. That I admit, but I am hoping, when the war is over, we will be able to take steps to conserve the use of coking coal for coking purposes. The importance of that I fully recognise and I am making an investigation at the present moment which will lead to practical steps being taken.

The war comes in handy at times for covering up a lot of sins.

That is the sort of remark which I do not think it is worth while replying to. One way in which I am dealing with the situation is prospecting for more coking coal. That is proceeding with a certain amount of success; we are finding, as a matter of fact, more coking coal. Last year quite a considerable amount was discovered. The hon. member for West Rand (Mr. Bodenstein) was very anxious that gold mining should be extended and further opportunities for employment given. May I say that the opportunities for employment in the gold mining industry will be realised when the shaft sinking in the Free State justifies the bore-hole results which have already been found. We cannot sink shafts at the present time, that is a job which has got to wait for post-war time. But we have the drills and there is no reason why boreholes should not be put down and that form of prospecting is going ahead. It is not confined to the Free State; there are other fields too, and I am hoping that shaft-sinking will follow as soon as war conditions permit it, and that will give a considerable amount of employment. There are a number of vacancies in the Government training schools for apprentice miners now, and if any hon. member knows of suitable young men who wish to come in and be trained there, now is a favourable opportunity. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) raised the question of the alluvial diggers and asked me what policy was being pursued in that respect. I thought I had dealt with this fairly thoroughly when the estimates have come up in several past years. I am afraid this is only a repetition.

Is you policy still the same?

Yes, the policy is still the same. I wish to keep the number of those who hold certificates down to figure which is commensurate with the possibility of their earning a decent living. It is not the job of the Mines Department to make or find diamondiferous ground; our duty is to see that the ground is dealt with on proper lines. The owners of ground under the existing law have the right to prospect their own land, and many of them are undertaking it while some refuse to do so. As finds are made the ground will be thrown open and be proclaimed. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) asked me to throw open the Taungs native reserve, or a portion of it, for prospecting. Well, Mr. Chairman, it is not in my power to do so. The ground there belongs to the Governor-General in his capacity as trustee for the native trust, and the throwing open or not of that ground for white exploitation lies with the Minister of Native Affairs and not with the Minister of Mines. I have been in touch with my colleague and I am fully in agreement with him that the minerals in the Native Reserve have to be worked for the benefit, primarily, of the natives themselves, and how he proposes to work this is a matter which I ask the hon. member to apply to my colleague to say. It is not a matter which I myself can deal with.

What about De Beers’ farms?

I don’t suppose I have any more influence than the hon. member or anybody else, but I have suggested to De Beers Company that they should try and find some of their land which might be thrown open for digging, and they did set aside three farms. One of them has been prospected without a discovery being made and the other two are under prospecting operations. I should have been informed if a discovery had been made.

When was that thrown open?

Nothing has been thrown open but they are prospecting there as an owner can do. An owner, under the law, has the right to prospect his own ground, I have asked them to prospect and if a discovery is made, they will declare it and I shall be prepared in due course to proclaim that as a digging. After all, the diggers outlook is a gloomy one, I still think. I am constantly asked to issue fresh certificates to alluvial diggers, and I can only say that I regard their future with pity, I am very sorry for them and I am afraid that they are being tempted into a walk of life which offers the poorest opportunity possible. The cream of our alluvial diggings has probably, though one cannot tell, been already skimmed off. I am carrying out the policy which I promised, and that is to conserve as far as possible for the oldtime existing alluvial digger, such ground as there is and such ground as we may be able to discover and throw open. There is no competition from the State. The hon. member for Kuruman seems to think the State was competing with alluvial diggers, but there is ample market for all the stones that can be produced at the present moment, and the arrangements which we have made for the marketing of diamonds are such as to prevent the finding of diamonds by one to act to the detriment of the diamonds found by somebody else. We maintain that by our method of realisation we keep an even price and, as far as the circumstances will allow, an even demand. The hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) raised the question to which I am very pleased to reply. He said I had received a deputation from mine workers who are not members of the Mine Workers’ Union. The position is this, that when I am contemplating legislation, when any Minister is contemplating legislation, he must inform himself and I have to inform myself, from every quarter, and from every person whom I think will be able, or who may be able, or who himself thinks he is able to give me useful information. It is not a question of recognising a Trade Union. Neither Trade Unions or Owners Associations have any monopoly of information on what is useful to go into a Bill and what is not. It is no question of recognition of any particular Union but purely a question of the Minister informing himself to the best of his ability and taking advantage of every opportunity for acquiring the necessary knowledge. I did so, and I propose to do so on every occasion in future, and I will not permit anybody to dictate to me as to whom I am to see and whom I am not to see who I think may be able to give me information. This is no question of the control of the industry or anything of the kind, it is the simple question of being able to acquire information which may be useful to the State and to Parliament, and I am prepared to stand by that and act in the future as I have done in the past. The hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) was very concerned about the increase in working costs on the mines, and thought we might usefully go back and consider the facts described in the Low Grade Ore Commission Report. I think so too, and I am glad to welcome the constructive speeches which have been made by various members of the Committee upon this very important matter. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) drew my attention to the question of Bloemhof Town Lands. I have lately been responsible for the issue of a proclamation deproclaiming the town lands of Bloemhof as alluvial diamond diggings. I did that in pursuance of the law because it was reported to me that those town lands had ceased to be payable propositions, their diamond contents had been exhausted and no-one was working there. I think there was only one claim, or perhaps two, in existence. The conditions there had become deplorable. There has been a commission of enquiry, not appointed by me, but I think by the provincial administration, and they considered the condition of the people who were living there so very deplorable and so entirely unsanitary, that they reflected on the control of these diggings. The report came to me and I went into the matter, and I am bound to admit that the control was entirely faulty. Why? Because people had come into these town lands and squatted there and built houses there, not for the purpose of winning diamonds or for anything connected with diamonds, but simply that they might get cheap houses free from municipal control; a number of persons had gone there and squatted without any right or legal title. It is quite undesirable that such a state of affairs should exist. I have no machinery as Minister of Mines for handling a township proposition. These people were settled on the town lands of Bloemhof. It was apparent to me that the proper course was to deproclaim these as diggings and leave the people who were there to the ordinary administration of the municipality and of the provincial government, which I have done. And let me say in answer to the hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) that there is no reason to suppose that people who are living in these houses would be driven forth. I know of no reason to justify that. I wrote to the Administrator of the Transvaal pointing out the conditions and I know he recognises that it is quite within the powers of the Town Council of Bloemhof, if they so desire, to allow these people still to live there. They can let them live there or eject them, but they are a public body and they can bring them under the terms of the existing law, and I have no doubt that they will deal with the position in a fair manner, but to leave this ground as an alluvial diamond field would be something of a scandal, and would place me in a position which I could not justify, and would impose on me duties for which I haven’t got the staff or the machinery. And therefore this former alluvial digging has been deproclaimed.

What about you paying a visit there?

Oh, I’ve been there myself. I didn’t do this without making myself personally acquainted with the matter. I have been to some of the houses. If I thought there was any advantage in repeating my visit, I would willingly go again, but I don’t think there is and the ground now having been deproclaimed, I could not reproclaim it, I could not cancel the deproclamation, and then reproclaim it. I cannot reproclaim unless there is a fresh discovery of diamonds there, and from the information at my disposal, I do not think it would be a workable proposition. So I think the hon. member for Christiana may be comforted, and may comfort those he represents by referring them to the Town Council of Bloemhof, who probably will be only too glad to welcome these people as citizens and offer them favourable conditions to obtain legal title to the ground on which they are living, and the Administrator of the Transvaal, I am sure, will assist in any way he can.

Some months ago there was a disastrous explosion on the Northfield Colliery which involved the lost of a number of lives, and this occurrence was made the subject of the ordinary statutory enquiry, but there doesn’t seem to have been the usual publication of the result of that enquiry. I wonder whether the Minister could tell us what the findings were and what steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of the kind of explosion which caused the loss of life and what compensation has been paid to the dependants of the miners and natives who were killed.

May I reply at once? The report on this enquiry was published in the ordinary course from day to day in the daily press. It is not printed and published as a Government Blue Book, because it was a public enquiry. I have a copy of it, as I informed another hon. member, and if the hon. member wants to see that copy in my office he is welcome to do so. The result was that it was found that the explosion took place through the firing of fire damp which apparently killed the two white miners who were in that part of the colliery, but it was due to the neglect of several mining regulations, and there was no more to be said. The mining regulations were complete and if they had been observed there is no reason to suppose that anything untoward would have happened. The compensation paid of course is a matter for the Northfield Colliery, and I have no personal information as to what compensation they have paid.

I have listened with surprise to the remarks of the hon. the Minister of Mines in regard to the subsidy of £1,800,000 to the gold mines. The standpoint adopted by the Minister that this is not a subsidy, strengthens my contention that it is unsound to appoint as Minister of Mines a person who is not able to take an unprejudiced view of matters of this nature. I want to say this. I do not think there is anybody in this House who has ever questioned the honesty of the present Minister. That is quite clear, but one cannot get away from the fact that the Minister cannot forget that before becoming Minister of Mines, he was for many years the advocate of the mines and listening to him this afternoon I was under the impression that he still imagines living in days gone by when he had to plead for and promote the interests of the mines, whereas he should today rise in this House not to look after the interests of the mines but in his capacity as Minister first of all to further the interests of the State and the interests of the community as as whole. I maintain that the Minister should get rid of the idea that he is still the spokesman of the mines. That was the case long ago but today he stands here in a different capacity. Ás far as this question of a subsidy is concerned, did the Minister know what the Prime Minister said when he announced it in this House? The Prime Minister clearly indicated that as a result of the enquiry that took place and as a result of the recommendation that was made, the mines will have to pay higher wages to their native mine-workers, and because the Government was of the opinion that the mines cannot afford to pay this, the Government decided to hand over to the mines from State funds, namely, from this fund which has been created in connection with the sale of gold, part of the money in that fund. Did the Minister furthermore forget that during all those years when the Bank of England walked off with all these profits, the mines never laid any claim to a subsidy? I want to ask the Minister whether during those years the gold mines ever claimed to be entitled to part of this money? Never. Only after this matter was raised here in this House and the Government realised that something was wrong, did the Government take steps to see that part of those profits should flow into the coffers of the State. Never at any time did the gold mines adopt the attitude that they were entitled to part of those profits made by the Bank of England, and the position still remains the same. Now they are talking about a subsidy. Is the Minister unaware of the fact that by a mere stroke of the pen the gold mines actually received a subsidy of about 100 per cent.? The Government depreciated our £ by about 100 per cent. What else is that but a subsidy to the gold mines? So much so that the dividends paid by the gold mines, in spite of the fact that no increase of production worth mentioning took place, also rose by about 100 per cent. Whereas in the past before the State depreciated the £, the dividends paid out by the gold mines amounted to approximately £9 million or £10 million annually, they now amount to somewhere near £18 million per annum—purely as the result of certain steps taken by the State. This is indirectly an enormous subsidy which is being given to the mines by that side. The Minister should therefore not maintain that the mines are not receiving a subsidy from the State. They do get a subsidy and that is what we object to, namely, that an industry which definitely is the most flourishing in our country and which as a result of the depreciation of our currency is already receiving that enormous subsidy, should draw a further extra subsidy, namely, this amount of £1,800,000 per annum. As far as these points are concerned I had to differ from the Minister, but I now come to another matter about which I am in full agreement with him, and that is the stand he took against the so-called democratic doctrine propounded by the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy).

His remarks were grist to your mill.

Order, order!

Is it not possible to get rid of this thunderstorm now and again?

Are you afraid of a thunderstorm? I thought you came from the Transvaal.

I am not scared by a thunderstorm, but when the thunder claps one cannot hear one’s own voice. If my friend over there has such a thunderous voice that one cannot hear one’s own voice any more, he should keep quiet.

I thought you all liked some thunder.

Order ! Order !

Order!

I maintain that this idea of the hon. member that those people have no right to submit their point of view and that the Minister should have refused to receive them, is the exact opposite of democracy. The hon. member apparently has not the slightest idea of what is meant by the term democracy. The hon. the Minister was quite right. In his capacity of Minister he must hear what the viewpoints and ideas of all sections of the population are. In that respect I agree with him one hundred per cent. Now I should like to know the following. The people who came to see him submitted very important proposals to him in regard to miners’ phthisis and I should like to hear from him whether he will give his serious attention to these matters and not to pigeonhole the proposals. I want to know whether the Minister will introduce without delay legislation which will not only give effect to the recommendations submitted to him but also to proposals coming from other sources, whether from the workers themselves or from other quarters, whether from political parties which are actually promoting the interests of persons suffering from miners’ phthisis or from other persons. I do not want to go into details, but I often think of the people in the ante-primary and even in the primary stages and their widows and children for whom under the existing Miners’ Phthisis Act no sufficient or proper provision is made. As far as the sufferers in the ante-primary stage are concerned the position is most unsatisfactory because such people are not yet entitled to a fixed pension and the same applies to their widows if the miners should die. I wish to express the hope that when the Minister introduces legislation—I hope early next year—that special provision will be made for the miners in the primary and ante-primary stages and also for their widows, quite apart from other changes which may be required in respect of miners’ phthisis sufferers in general. I furthermore want to express the hope that the hon. the Minister will consider giving miners working underground the opportunity to come out before they develop miners’ phthisis. The Minister knows quite well that once they develop miners’ phthisis their health very soon deteriorates and that is the end of them. Representations have been made again and again to the Minister in regard to the sufferers from miners’ phthisis who belong to the best section of our European population and who spend their best days in the service of the mines. Working in the mines to keep the gold industry going and supplying wealth to the country as a whole, they ruin their health and for that reason steps should be taken to prevent them getting miners’ phthisis. The man who has worked underground for fifteen years for Instance should be allowed to come out and obtain other employment so that he will not lose his health altogether. Prevent miners’ phthisis so that these people do not become physical wrecks who will be useless as citizens and breadwinners and will no longer be an asset to the country.

When I was interrupted by the time limit, I was busy trying to show how the miners are subject to victimisation when underground and how they are being victimised by inspectors whilst the mine managements are being protected by the inspectors. Last year the mine managements paid £33 in fines, but the miners paid £1,054. In 1942 about £50 was paid by the mine managements and £1,227 by the miners. Apart from this, natives were prosecuted and they paid £663 in fines during 1942 and £425 during 1943. It is a deplorable condition that miners are being forced to deliver the goods and to contravene the regulations in order to be able to make a living, and are prosecuted whilst the mine managements are being protected. In 1939 59,000,000 tons of ore were produced by 18,400 miners and 242,000 natives but in 1943 15,000 miners with 225,000 natives produced 61,000,000 tons of ore and this they did with worn-out machinery, with inferior material and for less payment. Of course there were more accidents too in 1943. The accident figure rose from 42 per 1,000 in 1939 to 63 per 1,000 in 1943. Many more persons lost their lives and they had to work much harder whereas their remuneration remained practically the same. The mineworkers feel that the welfare officers also do not protect them against the inspectorate and the mine managers. I want the Minister to realise fully that this is what is happening down in the mines. If a miner earns £1 1s. some people seem to think that they are making a fortune down in the mines and that they enjoy the finest existence on earth. The Minister has told us that he has received no complaint about the Bedeaux system. I do not want to go fully into this matter again. I only want to say that Bedeaux died a Judas death and I hope the same will happen to many of his henchmen. The miners dare not complain. When a miner complains and stands up for his rights, he is blacklisted, as they call it in the mines. The Minister will perhaps say that I should bring proof of that. Well, here stands one of them. I walked the streets for five months because I was marked down as an agitator and because I stood up for the rights of the miners. I would not dare to rise in my seat here and say what I did say, if I expected to become one day again dependent on a position down in the mines, for I shall never again obtain employment there. When I spoke here last time, the Minister called me a soapbox orator. I can well understand that the Minister dislikes soapbox orators, for we ousted him from the Transvaal. He represents the big vested interests and I can quite well understand that the Minister dislikes us. The Minister denied being prejudiced, after I had said that partiality existed. I did not say that he was partial but that partiality was rife. He challenged me to prove that he had ever been partial in favour of the Chamber of Mines. I went to the trouble of looking for data in Hansard and I find that as far as the Minister of Mines’ parliamentary career is concerned, he already at the start thereof pleaded in favour of the Chamber of Mines. He opposed the miners obtaining Dingaans Day as a holiday. He opposed them when they asked for higher compensation in respect of miners’ phthisis. We do not believe that he has now changed his views. He declares that the mines have all his sympathy but the miners can no longer live on sympathy. The sooner we get a more sympathetic Minister who will really do something for the miners, the better it will be for the industrial peace in this country.

I want to remind the hon. member who has just spoken, of the fact that his own leader, the leader of his own party, is a member of the Cabinet, together with the Minister of Mines. He should ask his leader to have a talk with his colleague in regard to an improvement of conditions. He should not come and complain here in this House. After all his own leader is sitting in the same Cabinet. I should like to raise a point which so far has not yet been discussed, and that is the position in regard to the exploitation of mineral ores and minerals and metals. During the course of this debate we heard about mines becoming exhausted, and we all feel that the future gives cause for concern. This side of the House always held the view that in view of the fact that the mines will become exhausted and in view of the fact that we possess large resources in our country in mineral ores and base metals, steps should be taken in regard to the development and exploitation of this other wealth. Under the present Minister of Mines a Bill was passed in 1942 in regard to base metals. Under Section 2 of the Act provision is made that enquiries shall be instituted in connection with the exploitation of ores and metals, and under Section 3 of the Act provision is made that in case an owner of such land does not prospect himself, the Minister will have certain rights to entrust other persons with the prospecting, in order to effect the exploitation of minerals and ores. In Section 7 of the Act provision is made for the establishment of State mines. That happened in 1942. I think that after this effluxion of time we are now entitled to ask the Minister to make a statement in this House in regard to the present position. What has been done in regard to the development of base metals and mineral ores? Has anything been done in terms of the Act of 1942 especially in regard to the three points mentioned by me? We furthermore want to know whether the Minister can give us an idea of the production figures concerning hase metals and minerals such as chrome, asbestos, corundum, etc., during the past year. Can he furthermore give us an idea of the increase in the use of our own minerals in our own industries? Can he give us an idea in regard to our export of these products? Our export figures are not being published at present, but I cannot see that it will give any useful information to the enemy if the Minister gives this information to the House, and I should like to have that information. Our base metals and minerals are a source of potential wealth and we should like to know what is being done in view of the fact that the gold mines, as the Minister admitted, are gradually becoming exhausted. During the same year another Bill was passed here, viz., Act No. 46 of 1942, dealing with the prospecting for and exploitation of mineral oils. We hear a lot of stories and we read in the newspapers that boring operations are in progress here and there, amongst other places also in my own constituency. It is quite a time ago that those Acts came on the Statute Book and especially in view of the fact that there is a shortage of oil in our country and also in view of the fact, as the Minister himself will admit, that serious concern is felt in regard to the world supply of oils after the war, it is of the u†Most importance for South Africa when oil can be found here. We should therefore like the Minister to make use of this opportunity to tell us how much progress has been made in connection with this matter and whether anything has been done, whether boring operations have been undertaken and if so, what the prospects are and whether there are any indications that oil will be found. Not only this House, but the country in general will appreciate to receive information in respect hereto. I therefore ask the Minister to give us a statement in connection with base minerals and the boring for oil.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say a word or two, first on behalf of the mine workers, and secondly on behalf of the industry itself. First, with regard to the Miners’ Phthisis Commission, there can be no doubt the workers generally in the industry on the Reef have been looking forward with keen anticipation to some scheme being introduced by the Minister to afford adequate compensation. I listened to the Minister’s reply and I have not been able to see any scheme envisaged in the particulars he has given the House. I took the opportunity over the week-end to study this report and after going through it for about three hours, I came to the conclusion that it would have been of great benefit to the Minister if the report had been unanimous. The fact that there is a majority and a minority report must add considerably to the Minister’s difficulties. The report is a very comprehensive document, and makes very important recommendations, some of them, as the Minister will appreciate, involving matters of pure principle, but I think it may justly be claimed that all of them are designed to improve the lot of sufferers in the industry generally. Therefore I am entitled to express the hope that the Minister will evolve some scheme, if not this Session, at the least during the recess, in which the main recommendations of the Commission may be put into effect next Session. If it is any guidance to him I may say I have had the privilege of meeting one of the leaders of the Underground Officials’ Association, and in the course of conversation he informed me, quite unreservedly, that his Association and the Joint Unions generally, were fully in favour of the majority report. That may be of some assistance to the Minister. The main point I wanted to make was that if the Minister could formulate a scheme during the recess, after discussing it with interested bodies, then I think there should emerge a measure which would meet the requirements not only of the workers but of the industry itself, and perhaps curtail the necessity for much discussion here. I would like to go back to the question of the industry itself. The Minister is well aware that in my constituency one of the mines has lately given notice to close down, and the same thing applies to a mine not far from my district, the Van Ryn Deep. The Minister has been waited upon by a couple of deputations and in both cases I think he has given exactly the same reply, namely, that he will give the matter his careful consideration and explore every channel with a view to keeping these mines going. The whole thing must depend upon economic fundamentals. If there is not sufficient gold in the ore to justify its being extracted, then you get down to economic fundamentals at once, and there is nothing much you can do about it. We have heard a lot of criticism about the mining industry employing a large body of cheap native labour. Whatever opinions may be on the subject of wages, I must say I do not like low wages more than anybody else and would prefer a minimum wage for white and black of two or three pounds a week at least, but that is beside the point; we are up against economic difficulties and I quite realise these difficulties. I would like the Minister to go thoroughly into this matter, and if necessary again appoint a commission to go thoroughly into low grade mining on the Reef. If he cannot do that I ask him to consider whether mines such as I have mentioned cannot be run by some form of judicial management. I hope the Minister will take these points into consideration.

Today we have witnessed a remarkable scene in this House, but as the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) already told the Minister, he need not worry about the attack which was launched against him by the Labour Party. Not so very long ago the Parliamentary Leader of the Labour Party, the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) stated at a meeting—and we know that the Labourites are supporting the Government and keeping it on the cushions, although they made this attack on the Minister—that he would rather destroy his own party than lift the Government out of the saddle. This is just cheap talk and is not meant in earnest. I made an interjection here and the Minister declared that it was not worth replying to, namely, that the war is being used to cover many missteps. When we want to discuss such missteps we are simply told that there is a war on. I shall try to raise something here in connection with which the war cannot be used as an excuse for the step taken by the Minister, and I think the Minister owes the House an explanation in regard to this matter. I want to say something about an appointment to the Diamond Board made by the Minister. By way of questions I tried to elicit certain information from the Minister, and with reference to those questions I want to broach the matter here so that the Minister will not be at a disadvantage. In the past the objection was often made and quite rightly too, that the Government and Cabinet Ministers were making political appointments. This was bad enough, as a matter of fact so bad that Governments coming after this one will be compelled to do the same as this Government has done and also give preference to their political supporters. But I now want to refer to an appointment which is not merely a political appointment, but where the Minister simply appointed one of his personal friends. That is going too far. I should like to read out the particulars. On 11th February, 1944, I asked the Minister of Mines the following question—

I should like to draw attention to the reply given by the Minister. I hope the Minister did not try to give a reply just because he had to reply. He replied: “Yes, Mr. H. F. Hope was appointed as from 1st October, 1943.” To the question what his qualifications are, the reply was—

Furthermore the Minister told me that he receives £2,000 per annum plus travelling and subsistence allowance at the rate of 30s. per day when engaged on the business of the Board. The Minister also replied that the Diamond Board met six times. We then went somewhat further to obtain information from the Minister. We should remember here that the Minister replied that he had appointed that person on the grounds of his character and ability. On 22nd February I asked the Minister—

To this the Minister replied—

In other words, he knows nothing about that person, but still he appoints him at a salary of £2,000 per annum on account of his “character and ability.” I believe that the Minister does know something more about him. The Minister has very frequently played chess with him, and he won and his reward was that he would get this appointment. The Minister cannot tell us what he did before. He is unable to give any information about him, but in spite of that he got the appointment. I then asked further information—

The reply was that this person never held such appointment. I thereupon asked—

The reply was: 82. Then came the following question—

The reply hereto was—

That is the question and reply I have already read out, viz. that the person was appointed on the strength of his character and ability. Not one of these 82 people who had 15 years’ experience in their department had, according to the Minister, the character and ability which Mr. Hope possessed. I do not hope the Minister will force the House to discuss this appointment in extenso. He can avoid that by telling us the reasons for making this appointment. I am now not preferring to the person’s character but to his ability. I maintain that the Minister did not want to tell me what his qualifications are because he possesses no qualifications justifying this appointment. I maintain that the Minister on purpose gave an evasive reply because he cannot justify this appointment. I put a serious question to the Minister; I did not expect to receive the feeble reply that the man was appointed by reason of his character and ability. Perhaps that person is capable, but why should he be appointed over the heads of these other persons. He has never had any experience of the diamond industry. If I were to tell the House what positions he occupied two or three years before being appointed to this post, the House would agree with me that the Minister cannot possibly justify this appointment. I maintain that the Minister appointed this man just because he was a personal friend. They became personal friends over a game of chess and for that reason he received this appointment. If the Minister can give us valid reasons for appointing Mr. Hope I shall even be prepared to apologise for what I have said. But I still maintain that there is no justification for this appointment. This is a person with whom the Minister has perhaps played chess frequently—and perhaps consumed a glass of beer at the same time—and the Minister has given that evasive reply because he could not justify the appointment [Laughter.] It is easy to laugh about this matter and to make it appear a joke. This is is a serious business. In the Minister’s own department there are 82 persons who have had 15 years’ experience of that department behind them. Why must the Minister appoint a person who used to be a newspaper reporter and who was thrown out of his job, thereafter was employed at the Information Bureau and also left there. I hope the Minister will give us a satisfactory explanation why this person should have been appointed. I put another question to the Minister, reading—

The Minister replied thereto that all appointments date from 1st January, 1943, the date upon which the Agreement came into force, with the exception of the appointment of Mr. Hope, which dates from October, 1943. The Minister then went on to give me the names. I now want to ask the Minister whether he makes all the appointments to the Board. Have the other members all been appointed by the Government or who appoints them? If the Government does not appoint them all, then I just want to ask the Minister to tell us which of these persons have been appointed by the Government and which he has appointed himself personally. I hope the Minister will give us a, satisfactory reply in regard to this Mr. Hope. I can assure him that I have received letters from many parts of the Union—not from Afrikaansspeaking persons who support this side of the House but from persons who differ widely from us politically—in which they ask that the Minister should give more details in connection with these appointments. I can assure him that that appointment is going to do him untold harm. There are many persons in this country who always thought that the Minister would be far above doing such things, and we were shocked by the actions of the Minister. Of course it is very nice to help a friend, but when one is a Cabinet Minister, you expect that even one’s friends must recede into the background and that you will act in the best interests of the people.

The hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) did the same when he was a Minister, didn’t he?

I do not care …. [Time limit.]

I am very glad I can say a few words on the Vote of the Minister of Mines. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) already spoke about the alluvial diggings. I also want to confine myself to the alluvial diggings. The Minister has already replied briefly to what was said by the hon. member for Kuruman and I hope he will have the patience to listen to me too and also to reply to the points I wish to, raise. There are four points I should like to put forward. In the first instance I want to request that the State make more diamondiferous ground available for the diggers; in the second place I want to ask the Government to grant the diggers a subsidy in respect of native wages such as is now being given to the mines. Thirdly I want to ask that the Government make provision that the diggers will always receive a reasonable price for their diamonds and fourthly I want to make a very earnest appeal to the Minister now to abolish the 10 per cent. export duty on alluvial diamonds. I want to refer briefly again to questions which I have already put to the Minister during the Session. I asked the Minister whether the alluvial diggings are an asset to the State. The Minister’s reply was that they are an asset to the State. I agree with him, but unfortunately people do not always recognise that they are an asset to the State. The second question which I asked the Minister was: In what manner are the diamonds sold which come from the Government diggings? To that the Minister replied that it would not be in the best interests of the country to divulge the manner in which diamonds are being sold. A further question I put to the Minister was how much diamonds the State diggings had already yielded, how many of them had been sold and what the amount received therefor was. In want to dwell for a moment on these points. I want to point out in the first instance that the alluvial diggings, have always been a considerable asset to the State, that they are still such an asset and that they may be an asset also in the future. The State has contributed nothing to the discovery of any diggings. All the discoveries were the result of personal initiative and enterprise, and in prospecting for alluvial diggings, these people discovered the mines. One mine after another was discovered because these people at their own expense were looking for alluvial diamonds. Therefore not only the alluvial diggings are an asset to the State but also the diamond mines. The Namaqualand diamond fields were also discovered as the result of prospecting for alluvial diamonds. When one remembers the advantages the State derived from the alluvial diggings in the past, ons has to admit that the State has benefited greatly thereby. To my regret I heard from the hon. the Minister that to all appearances there seems to be no future any longer for the alluvial diggings. I am sorry to hear that. I held the view that the Minister of Mines was very sympathetically inclined towards the diggers. I was also most grateful when the Minister paid a visit to the alluvial diggings and in discussions I had with him he gave me the impression that he is sympathetically inclined towards the diggers. This House has now been sitting for almost four months, but so far nothing has been done on the part of the Government to give evidence of that sympathy which the Minister has towards the alluvial diggers. I want to quote a few figures in order to show the direct advantages the State has already received from the diggings. Through the 10 per cent. export duty the alluvial diggings have already yielded almost £5,000,000 for the Treasury. The diggings of Lichtenburg alone have yielded about £15 million in diamonds. So far all the alluvial diggings have yielded £51 million. One should remember that diamonds are largely an article of export. Lately a few diamond cutting works have been established in our country but in the past diamonds were mostly exported. It is a luxury article. The article is exported and the money comes into the country and with that money we can still further develop our country. When one remembers the advantages the State has derived from the diggings and at the same time realises that there are still many diggings which may be discovered, then one asks oneself why there is this unsympathetic attitude towards the alluvial diggings. In the past the alluvial diggings were a haven of refuge especially for farmers during times pf depression, when the farming population was sorely tried by locusts and droughts. In those days many farmers sought refuge on the alluvial diggings where they stayed until they could go back to their farms and make a living there. During the period of 1914-’18 large numbers of natives went to the diggings where they were able to make a living with the assistance of the diggers. The diggers actually made it possible for them to live. If it had not been for the alluvial diggers, those people would have been a burden on the State. For those reasons I wanted to submit these few points to the notice of the Minister so that he may take them into consideration and may now transform into deeds the sympathetic attitude he has shown towards the diggers. I still want to say a few word in connection with the agreement the Government concluded with the Diamond Producers Association. Today a very good price is being paid for diamonds and there is a brisk demand for diamonds. Even in the Speech from the Throne we heard that there is a great demand for our diamonds.

The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) challenged my statement that the return of the gold realisation charges was not a State subsidy. In support of that he cited the previous method by which the gold mining industry had to pay for the realisation of gold. The position is this, Mr. Chairman. If the realisation of gold fell really upon the gold mines then they would have to pay it, and it would be a fair working charge, and if a corresponding sum was paid back to them, that would amount to a subsidy from somebody. But the position is not that. When the war broke out the full amount of 168s. was paid by the British Government for our gold, without any realisation charges at all, so the amount received by us in South Africa for the gold was the full amount of 168s. But the South African Government took the realisation charge which had theretofore prevailed as an accession to the revenue for the purpose of the war. Therefore if we are taking out of the gold mines something which was not spent on gold realisation, and something which had been remitted to us, and which therefore represented completely a portion of the price of gold, its return to the mines could not properly be described as a subsidy from the State; it was a return from what had been a levy on the mines. Then the hon. member said the alteration in the price of gold had been a great subsidy to the gold mining industry. The alteration in the price of gold when South Africa went off the gold standard was of course an enormous advantage to the gold mining industry, to everybody connected with that industry, and therefore to everybody connected with the country. It was a tremendous advantage to us. It was not a subsidy which was made, it is not a State subsidy. It was part of the policy in the development of the country that we should go off the gold standard, and that our currency should be severed from gold. That step incidentally hâd this beneficial effect; but it is not properly described as a subsidy, and therefore the argument based thereon in my opinion falls to the ground. He asked that I should give full consideration to the recommendations made to me by the deputation referred to. Of course I shall. I do not ask people to come and see me without paying attention to what they say. I shall give the same amount of attention to the views of the deputation as to all the other views that have been furnished me.

I laid special emphasis on certain suggestions.

As I have already told the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) and the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals), I am not going to commit myself to any of these points in connection with projected legislation. If I were to do so it would create quite an impossible position. My position is that I am prepared to receive—I have received and am going to receive—and consider every suggestion for the improvement of this position and when that is done, the resultant decisions will be committed in the form of a Bill, by next session, unless I am bitterly disappointed. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) asked me what would be the effect of the Base Metal Act passed under my auspices in 1942. I may say the Act has been of considerable utility. Under it we have been able to conduct a large number of investigations which otherwise we would not have been able to do. There has been a State prospecting scheme in the search for tungsten which at the time was in great demand for war purposes. The terms of the Act rendered this investigation possible, and as a result we have opened up considerable tungsten ore on both sides af the Orange River, particularly running mainly from Upington down to near Ookiep near the mouth of the Orange River. We have also conducted, and are proposing to conduct, a number of investigations into a number of base metals. This year I am particularly going into the resources of tin; and we hope to deal with vanadium and other minerals. The hon. member asked for particulars of production. I have here a list of our items of production, but there is no good reading out a list of figures which may mean very little. The production of mercury which was not produced in South Africa at all before the war, was undertaken under the auspices of the State, under the small mines assistance scheme. We fathered the private exploitation of cinnabar and the Monarch Cinnabar Company has now succeeded in turning out not only the whole of South Africa’s requirements of mercury, but we have a surplus …

Good old Zoutpansberg.

Yes, it comes from the Murchison Range. Asbestos is in considerable demand. We have increased the production of asbestos, but not to a large extent. In copper there has been some increase. But there has been a falling off in quite a large number of minerals, in particular, I am sorry to say, manganese and chrome, a large falling off, and after this year there will be a falling off in tungsten. I think a word of explanation is necessary and it is this. During the war the Allied Nations have let us know that they want supplies of this metal or of that metal, and that they want a mineral quickly and in large quantities; and then suddenly the demand eases off, and in some cases ceases. This is largely explained by the availability of transportation facilities from time to time, which is also a war consideration. In one way and another that caused a considerable falling off in the exportation of some of these minerals and in the production. The production of manganese and chrome has fallen off. I should like to give the hon. member some further figures if he desires them; but in general let me say that the main benefit of this Act has been the number of mineral investigations which it has enabled us to carry through. Oil! Oil prospecting is going on at the present time. We have started boring; one borehole has been completed without good results; we got very poor core from it. Another borehole is down a considerable distance, but the core is good. That does not mean, of course, it is even likely to produce oil. The boreholes are being sunk at the present time, about ten of them for the purpose of testing the formation of the rock underground with a view to seeing whether it would hold or is likely to produce oil; and perhaps in another year I shall be able to tell the House whether my advisers consider that we should continue or not continue, or what the position is. I have not anything more to report in that respect than I have told the House. That is my information up to date. Then the hon. member for Mossel Bay. (Dr. van Nierop) raised the question of an appointment I had made. I do not know where he has got hold of this fairy story about Mr. Hope and I playing a game of chess. Let me tell him that I have never played a game of chess with this gentleman or any other game; and as to this being a political appointment, or an appointment of friendship, it is untrue. I do not know his politics; certainly he is not a member of my party. As for friendship, I know him, that is all. I will tell the hon. gentleman and the Committee the circumstances of his appointment arid the reasons for it having been made. I am entirely satisfied it was the best appointment I could make. As this question is linked with the point that was raised by the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) as to how we sell diamonds, I may to some extent in this answer trespass on that. It is this. The hon. member for Mossel Bay should know if he had read the Diamond Producers Agreement, how the arrangements are made by the State for controlling the marketing of diamonds. The board is elected by the producers, and the diamond producers in South Africa are the Government, the Administrator of South West Africa, the Consolidated Diamond Mines of South West Africa, and the De Beers Company; and they nominate a certain number of representatives who sit upon this board, which is the Diamond Board. This board is not strictly appointed in accordance with the Diamond Control Act, because that portion of the Diamond Control Act has never been put into force by this Government or by past Governments; it has never been put into force by any Government at any time because it has been found to be inpracticable to put all its conditions into force. Under the Diamond Control Act the board is required to consist of people who, whilst they know something about diamonds and the marketing of diamonds and the business of diamonds, have no connection with the production of diamonds or with the business of buying and selling diamonds in any way. As a matter of fact, I find it impossible to discover people who satisfy the legal qualification of knowing something about this business, and who at the same time, are not really engaged in the business, and to abstain from appointing people who are really engaged in the business is really impossible. My investigations lead me to suppose there is nobody in South Africa really qualified in that respect, knowing the business and at present having no part in the business at all. The two nominees of the Government on the board are the chairman, Mr. Jooste, who has been reappointed by me; he was appointed from time to time by past Governments; when he joined the board his knowledge of diamonds was certainly no more than Mr. Hope’s or that of many other members of this board who have been appointed from time to time. The other member is Mr. Granger. Mr. Granger is the diamond expert; he is our valuator, and he has been the valuator of our stones for a long time. I appointed him to the board too. He had not been on the board until I made the appointment. He is the one representative the Government has ever had on the Control Board who has a thorough knowledge of the business of diamonds. I have been able to appoint him by retaining his services for the Government wholly and completely. I had to make another appointment. There was a vacancy; I waited a long time, and then I came to the conclusion that I had better appoint a youngish man with character and ability who would learn the business and was prepared to take up a short term appointment. The appointments on the Diamond Board are liable to sudden death. This particular appointment is liable to come to an end when the war ends, and there is no guarantee of reappointment. Nobody is going to throw up a good and lucrative appointment he may have for the purpose of taking an appointment of that kind.

Mr. Hope hadn’t any appointment at the time.

Oh, yes, he had; it was not a permanent one, and he was willing to give that up, and I was very glad to find that he was willing.

What was his appointment?

I have not the slightest doubt the appointment I made was not only in the public interest, but we were very fortunate indeed to get a gentleman of his ability and character and promise who was prepared to take up an appointment of that kind.

What was his salary?

Actually the amount of £2,000 is fixed by the Producers Agreement and in not fixed by me or by the Government. It is fixed by this agreement. The friendship story which the hon. member has got hold of is a myth from start to finish. Now, as to how we sell diamonds, may I carry this a little bit further in answer to the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick). Diamonds are sold under the scheme of which the Diamond Producers Association is a part. Diamonds which belong to the different producers are sold to the Diamonds Association and the board of that association sells them to a trading company. The trading company buys, not only from the Association, but also certain stones from the diamond corporation, and then markets them throughout the world. The arrangement is useful in the sense that it secures the assembly of the bulk of the diamonds produced all over the world in one centre, and from there enabled the demands of the world to be met. The price at which diamonds are sold is fixed really by the diamond trading company itself; the grading of the diamonds is done by the Producers Association to maintain the offices for sorting diamonds in Kimberley and also in London. The diamonds fall into two categories, gems and industrials, and the changes in the classification which were made in the agreement which I negotiated last year were advisable because the demand for industrials has been very considerable and is considerably increasing. One of the functions of the Diamond Board is to determine the demand of the world from time to time in both gems and industrials, and they settle from time to time the line of demarkation. The whole of the producers in South Africa have the right to sell all the industrials that they produce under this agreement and they get a quota of the diamond trade which is now 80 per cent. This agreement, I think, is a vast improvement on the agreement which has hitherto prevailed and from which I hope the country which is benefiting now will continue to reap increased benefits in the future.

In view of the importance of this Vote and in view of the late hour I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he will now be prepared to accept a motion that we report progress and ask leave to sit again. I move—

Agreed to.

HOUSE RESUMED :