I move—

Agreed to.

Recommendation, as amended, put and agreed to.

Recommendation No. (4) put and agreed to.

On Paragraph (5), viz.—

Soil Erosion.

1. (a) Your Committee notes with satisfaction from the Annual Report of the Irrigation Commission for 1942-’43 that the Commission on its tours of inspection visited many areas where soil erosion is prevalent and took the opportunity thus afforded of enquiring into the incidence of soil erosion in those areas. In its report the Commission makes certain recommendations in regard to making the public and in particular the younger generation “soil erosion conscious” by means of school curricula and conducted tours for children in areas in which soil erosion is prevalent and where remedial measures are being undertaken.
2. (b) The Committee supports the contention of the Irrigation Commission that “money spent on saving soil is money safely and soundly invested in an undertaking that is bound to show excellent and handsome returns”.
3. (c) The Committee is of opinion that the question of soil erosion is a subject to which the Irrigation Commission should devote special attention when engaged upon its inspection of irrigation schemes and when investigating irrigation projects should, when necessary, submit recommendations to the Government in regard to this particular aspect in connection with irrigation matters.

The Select Committee has made a recommendation on the annual report of the Irrigation Commission. The recommendation in itself is not of much value in respect of soil erosion, but hon. members as well as many other people in the country who are interested in irrigation and soil improvement feel that the Irrigation Department should play a much bigger role in regard to soil erosion in this country. The position in the past has been that the Irrigation Depar†Ment has built numerous irrigation schemes, knowing full well that the life of these schemes will be a very short one, and that in a very brief period, especially in regard to storage works, they would become silted up through soil erosion. Before the present Minister took over the portfolio the Irrigation Department was in the past very loth to take any steps to combat soil erosion. The Lake Arthur Storage Scheme is a scheme which silted up very quickly after having cost the State an enormous amount of money, the Irrigation Department did nothing in regard to the prevention of soil erosion in the catchment area of this dam. Fortunately the department has taken charge of the catchment area now above that dam, and they are now doing a considerable amount of work to combat soil erosion, and it is hoped that it will have, the effect of prolonging the life of that storage dam. The point I wish to make, however, is that this work should have been done before the construction of the irrigation works was undertaken. The soil erosion work should have been undertaken and completed before the storage dam was built. If that had been done, it is possible that the life of that dam would have been extended for very many more years. We feel that in view of its bearing on the future of this country and of the welfare of our nation the undertaking of measures to combat soil erosion is of the greatest importance, and that the various departments which are affected by it and are interested in it should co-operate and co-ordinate the efforts along lines that would produce practical results. Many of our most important state departments are interested in this matter in a practical way, not only the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Lands and Irrigation, but also the Native Affairs Department and the Social Welfare Department as well as the Depar†Ment of Public Health. This country and the House have been roused over many questions relating to social security, health, increased foodstuffs and various other problems that we have got to face, and I maintain that without any doubt the basis of all these problems is the problem of the preservation of our soil and the prevention of soil erosion. Unless we can do something worth while, those problems instead of being solved are bound to get worse. We feel that the Department of Lands and Irrigation should largely deal with this question of soil erosion, and I would even go so far as to say, Mr. Chairman, that a Cabinet Committee should be set up on which the Ministers of these various departments should function. We have got a Cabinet Committee for food, and they undoubtedly are doing valuable work so far as the food of the people is concerned; but I do not think they have ever considered soil erosion and its relation to the production of foodstuffs. It is the policy of the Govern ment to provide cheap food for the people of this country, but we can never get cheap food for the country unless we conserve our soil and prevent soil erosion. The process of soil erosion is going on throughout the year, and year after year and day by day, and I may say too that the process is being accelerated as time goes on. Unless we tackle the problem in the near future it will become almost insoluble, and I hope that the Minister will try to induce the Government to inaugurate a scheme whereunder the Minister and the various departments who are directly interested will be able to co-ordinate their efforts and co-operate in dealing with this problem. The Native Affairs Department is vitally interested, especially in the Transkei, which at one time was the most wonderful area of the Eastern Province. That beautiful land has deteriorated to such an extent that it is impossible for it to sustain the native population there. That has been entirely due to erosion and deterioration of our soil. It will be necessary for legislation to be introduced, for the House to give the Government powers not only to deal with soil erosion, but to control and regulate grazing in order to prevent over-stocking and in respect of all the other factors contributing to the evil of soil erosion. I hope that the Minister will try and bring this matter prominently to the notice of the Government, and that something more will be done that has been done in the past. In the past the matter has been left almost entirely to the Agricultural Department, and various experiments are being carried out, but it will take years before anything practical can be achieved as a result. We cannot afford to delay, something must be done in the near future. I hope that during the session next year the Government will come forward with some national policy in regard to soil erosion, and that something worth while will be done to organise a programme and to achieve results in the near future.

The wider problem of soil erosion and irrigation adumbrated by the hon. member is one which affects every section of the population, and I wish to refer to one aspect, namely, drought. I should like to draw attention to this problem which is becoming the most serious in South Africa. I am not referring to the soil erosion problem that was touched on by the hon. member; everyone knows about that. But I should like to mention the manner in which this Government and for that matter all previous governments since Union, have failed to tackle the subject; the Departments of State are cluttered with reports of commissions set up from time to time at great expense, and which in many cases have made most radical recommendations. I remember reading many years ago the report of the Drought Commission of 1923. There bave been reports on the subject before that, and it seems to me that the policy of the Government and of preceding governments bas been to appoint a commission, to collect all possible information as to how to tackle the problem, then to pigeon-hole the report and to appoint another commission. I submit that if the Minister of Lands will take the trouble, as I am sure he is willing to do, to collect those reports of various commissions which have dealt with the problem of drought and soil erosion in South Africa, and if he would make up his mind to have legislation give effect to their recommendations, there would be no need for any further enquiry into the matter, and it would be possible for the hon. gentleman to deal with this matter next Session. I can remember one vital recommendation made in the Drought Commission Report of 1923; it had reference to the forecasting of droughts and the establishment of observation stations outside South Africa, from whose reports we would be able to form an opinion in advance as to whether a drought could be expected. One would be interested to know from the Minister what, if anything, has been done to give effect to these recommendations. The Prime Minister in one of his speeches dealt with that particular point. Various other suggestions have been made from time to time and they are still being canvassed today, without any information being available that the Government is doing anything tangible to give effect to them. I submit that the Minister, either himself or through a reliable official, might take the trouble to get all the reports together, have the recommendations in them tabulated, and form decisions which would provide a basis for legislation during the coming session.

Paragraph put and agreed to.

HOUSE RESUMED:

Report considered and adopted.

When this matter was dealt with in Select Committee it was considered very fully, and eventually, with the casting vote of the Chairman, the hon. member for Klip River (Mr. Friend), it was decided to make this recommendation to the House. But there was considerable doubt among members of the Select Committee whether it was advisable to let such a farm for only three years. I therefore want to move the following amendment—

It appears that this is a valuable farm in the Malmesbury District and that it has been let from year to year with the result that it has deteriorated enormously and that the Department wants to let the farm for three years at a nominal rental of £30 per year. We say that no one in the Western Province can develop the farm on that basis, if it is let for only three years at a time. Let me read what appears in the report of the Chairman of the Land Board who enquired into this position—

The Minister of Lands now recommends that this farm should be let for a period of three years at a nominal rental of £30 per year. It really is not the type of farm which should be let. It is the type of farm which should rather be allotted or sold.

As the Land Board says it is a valuable “boland” farm with vineyards, apricot trees, guava trees and other trees. There isn’t a great deal of agricultural land. The improvements which have to be made to the farm to work it properly are of a kind which will not immediately show any return. The man has to plant vineyards and keep the farm in proper condition before he will get any return for his labour, and before that happens he will have to leave the farm again. We, who have grown up in these parts of the Western Province, know that such a transaction cannot be profitable to the Government. A farm like that costs a lot of money to work up before it can become a profitable proposition out of which one can get a return. During the first few years the profits to be made are practically nil, because the vines have to be planted and fertilised and it is only after three years that one can expect anything in the nature of a crop. We estimate, especially in the Malmesbury district, that it is only after five years that one can expect to get one-third of the crop. It is generally accepted in the Western Province that a farm of that kind comes into its own and gives a full return only after seven years. You not only have vines there, but fruit trees as well and the information we have is that many of these trees have deteriorated to such an extent that new trees will have to be planted, and I would therefore ask the Minister to make the lease for at least five years if he wants this farm to be an asset to the country. In that way the farm will eventually be able to return a profit; but as it is now there is no great improvement on the conditions under which the farm used to be let for a year at a time. All we are doing here is to allow the soil to be exhausted as the result of such a lease. But if the tenant knows that he can stay there for five years, he will do something. For four years at least he will have some revenue— not a big income, but something. The State will lose nothing on it if this is done, and I therefore hope that the Minister will accept this amendment.

I want to support the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie). I must admit that I don’t know this farm, and I have only read what has been said about it. Nor do I know the people who have rented it, but I know the type of farm it is. I am a Land Bank valuator and I often come across similar farms. This is a dry land farm, and its value lies mainly in vines and fruit trees. I should like to draw the Minister’s attention to something which is not sufficiently realised in connection with these farms. The main value of these dry land farms is not the land but the improvements made on that land. At the moment of course the values are out of all proportion, but before the war we used to value more or less as follows: Vine land was valued at £20, £30 and even £40. That was the valuation of lands suitable for vines, but on which there were no vines yet. But with vines on the land the value would be £60. In other words the value of the improvements often is twice as much as the original land. A farm which is suitable for vines or fruit trees has no value at all if there are no improvements on it. It is usually a type of land on which a man will find it difficult to make a living unless he has improvements made. That is the one chance of getting full value out of the farm let in that way. The tenant is not going to develop it properly, not even after five years, and the Department is going to lose on that farm. What often happens is this, we have to fertilise our vines and our orchards fairly early. If a man has a lease for a certain period he is not going to fertilise his vines for the last few years because he is not going to get any benefit from that fertilisation for four or five years. It is quite easy to ruin a farm by overcultivation even in one year. And that as a matter of fact is what we do in regard to vines which we intend to destroy. Once a vine has had a knock— once something has gone wrong with it you do not usually get it right again. You may just as well cut it down, it is finished. I do not think that this is a type of farm which is suitable for settlement purposes, because the part on which grain can be raised is enough only for the tenant’s domestic use. I think the Department would do better to get rid of it.

Why don’t you move that?

It will always be a burden on the Department. I therefore move—

With leave of the Committee. I wish to withdraw my amendment.

Agreed to.

Amendment withdrawn.

I accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer).

Recommendation, as amended, put and agreed to.

Recommendation No. 49 put and agreed to.

HOUSE RESUMED :

Report considered and adopted.

I move—

I do not intend detaining the Minister very long but I asked him on the second reading to state his general policy in regard to the construction of new railway lines. I pointed out that a few years ago a report was published in connection with the linking up of dead-ends. The Minister on that occasion stated his policy, but since the second reading of this Bill something else has come to my notice and I want to say straight out that I do not feel too happy about it because I understand that this railway line is not one which the public have been demanding for years, but I have been told that the local people in the neighbourhood of Witbank only got to know about ten months ago that the Administration intended building this line. I want to state here why I am concerned about the Minister’s policy. It appears to me that this line is being built on representations by the Allied countries in the interests of the war effort.

What’s wrong with that?

I should like to quote from the General Manager’s Bulletin No. 298 of April last. In view of the fact that various parts of the country can lay claim to new railway lines such as a connection from Calvinia to Klaver, which is a dead-end, and in view of the fact that it is stated that there is no money to build such a line, I feel alarmed at the fact that this particular line is being built. Apparently the Minister is prepared to build a line immediately the Allies appeal to him. An hon. member asked what was wrong with that. Let me quote from the report of the General Manager—

And now the thought arises in my mind: And after the war? What is going to be the position of that line when coal is no longer exported. If the hon. member still has any doubt about the matter let me read what the report goes on to say—

Hon. members will see therefore that representations were made to the Administration. Coal had to be supplied and as a result of that appeal the line is now to be built. I said on the second reading that we had no objection to our own industry being expanded, but I want to know whether the Minister will give us an assurance that this line will pay after the war, because there are many other parts which can lay claim to a line and to railway connection, such as the line from Calvinia to Klaver. I should therefore like to have an assurance from the Minister that the line will be a payable proposition after the war.

I would just like to say a word about the remarks which have come from the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman). This line was not asked for by the Allied Governments but by the Anglo-American Corporation as representing very large coal interests. These coal interests are not confined to the Anglo-American Corporation, they are generally held by a number of colliery companies, and because the guarantee was given that any loss incurred on this line would be covered for twenty-five years—which I think will take us a long time past the peace time—the Government thought it very good business to install the line. It is quite true that we are sending today very much more coal abroad, exporting much more coal than we have done in the past. We do so for two reasons. The one reason is, of course, that this Government is supporting the war, it is fighting the war, and will do all it can to make every contribution it can to the Allied cause. That is a matter of policy. But there is a further consideration—that we have never been so dependent for the bare necessities of life and the bare necessities of industry coming from abroad as we are today, and but for the fact that we give the Allies something we would not get anything from the Allies. Why is it that the hon. member and the people of this country can live in comparative comfort, short of very little, as compared to what people in other parts of the world are faced with today? It is because we get shipping, we get goods—true, restricted, but we still get them. And why do we get them—because we do what we can to supply the Allies with what, we can supply them, and therefore they are willing to supply us, and for that reason there is complete justification for our helping in any way we can this coal export policy which we are now undertaking. I don’t think I need say much more about that point, and I think that was the principal point which the hon. member raised. The question of branch lines, of course, I explained on the second reading debate and also in Committee. Branch lines should be branches. The idea that a branch line should curve round and come back to the root is not good practice, we are establishing this as a branch line, and whether it goes further, and what further developments there are in connection with it, will depend on what developments we find taking place along that line.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

The attitude of this side of the House in respect of, this tax has been emphasised on several occasions. We are opposed to this tax and we are going to vote against it because it is a tax not on profits but on transactions themselves. It is a tax on pure land transactions and the Minister, on the other hand, is apparently opposed to taxing pure share transactions. We are not prepared to vote in favour of any increased taxation on land transactions. If the Minister insists on taxing transactions, let him tax share transactions to the same extent as land transactions. The Minister expects to get round about £1,000,000 from this tax. We are opposed to this tax which is not a tax on profits.

The Committee is now discussing the details of the Bill and not the principles.

I merely want to point out that the effect of this tax is going to raise the prices of land throughout the country even higher than they are today. Even now there is a very unsound rise in the price of land.

I want to bring to the Minister’s notice a case with which I am personally dealing at the moment, a type of case which we may not possibly have had in mind during the previous stages. This is the case of a man who has died. This man had bequeathed his property in such a manner that everything could be sold and divided among the children, but the children and the mother decided among themselves to sell the land and everything else, but not the house they had in town. It was agreed that the mother should continue to live in the house. We are handling the estate now, and we find that we have to pay transfer duties.

My amendment to Clause 5 will cover that.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—56 :

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Bumside, D. C.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

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.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Solomon, B.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

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.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—28 :

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie. J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

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

Clause 1 accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I merely want to say that we are opposed to this Clause and that we are going to vote against it.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—58 :

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Dut Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyer, J. H.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

McLean, J.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Solomon, B.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

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.

Williams, H, J.

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

Noes—29 :

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bol†Man, F. H.

Brink, W. D.

Conraide, 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.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels. C. J. O.

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

Clause 2 accordingly agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I want to move the amendment standing in my name reading as follows—

The object of this is to pave the way for an amendment which I want to move to Clause 5. I intend moving an amendment to make concessions in cases where transfer duties are payable on property from an estate. This does not apply in all the Provinces. In view of the provisions of the law dealing with the administering of estates it is necessary to give more time in such cases for the payment of transfer duties, and in order to make it possible to deal with these cases where property is obtained from an estate, it is necessary to make this provisional amendment in Clause 3. I therefore move this amendment and I shall explain it further in connection with Clause 5.

We welcome the amendment which the Minister has proposed under which property from an estate which has become subject to administration before the 25th February is exempt from this war levy. But we would like to know from the Minister of Finance why he has gone only half-way. The Minister admits that it would be unfair to impose a higher tax on a transaction if it has actually been made before 25th February. What we are now asking the Minister is this: Why doesn’t he give this time margin in the case of all the transactions made before the 25th February? Can the Minister give us the assurance that he has given sufficient time between the 25th February and the 15th March for the payment of transfer duties on transactions entered into before the 25th February? Can the Minister give us an assurance that that is so? If not, does the Minister intend imposing this tax on transactions before the 25th February? Is that fair? Since when have we been imposing taxes in this country with retrospective effect? Does the Minister tax transactions concluded before the 25th February? If the Minister says that that is what he wants to do, very well; in that case the country will know that he is imposing retrospective taxes. If that is not his intention, then he should answer a further question: Is the margin of time between the 25th February and the 15th March adequate to give everyone the opportunity for paying that tax? Has there been enough time? And if the Minister cannot give that assurance, then we ask him, from the point of view of fair play, to give an extension until the 25th August in respect of bona fide transactions made before the 25th February. I therefore want to move the following amendment—

I am moving this merely to make sure that nobody is going to be affected by this tax if the transaction has been entered into before the 25th February, 1944.

It seems to me that as soon as one makes one concession one is expected to make another one. Where ordinary transactions were concerned—ordinary sale transactions, people could at least have made a deposit before the 15th March. We, therefore, met them by fixing this date of the 15th March and that was generally accepted at the time as a reasonable concession. Since that time it is true that two cases have come to my notice where people have not paid before the 15th March, but in both those cases there had been neglect. However, in the matter of estates, the position may be different. In those cases it would be practically impossible before the appointment of an executor, before there has been any distribution, to make a deposit, apart altogether from the payment of transfer duties. We therefore felt that it would be reasonable in the matter of estates to grant this further concession. It is, therefore, for that reason, where estates are concerned that we allow this further period of six months. That is the period laid down in the Act for the submission of accounts in the winding up of estates. There have been cases of estates where it has been found impossible to make a deposit before the 15th March because matters had not progressed far enough, and that is why we are proposing this concession in regard to estates. But as far as these other cases are concerned we have already made this fair concession, a concession which is fairly generally accepted, and I hope, therefore, that my hon. friend will not press his amendment further. There is a difference between estate transactions and ordinary sale transactions.

May I ask the Minister if cases are brought to the notice of the Depar†M ent, showing that it would be unreasonable or unfair to claim these additional transfer duties, whether anything will be left to the discretion of the commissioner? I brought one case to his notice; it was the case of a native who had bought land. That transaction still has to be approved by the GovernorGeneral. There is, of course, no sale until such time as such approval is given. If approval is given, then the date of the sale is the date on which the Deed of Sale was signed. It seems to me that it would be reasonable to leave it to the discretion of the commissioner to grant exemption in a case of that kind. There is another point I want to put to the Minister. The purchaser who is responsible for the payment of transfer duties has six months in which to pay. Thereafter he has to pay a 12 per cent. fine. Does that lapse now entirely, or will there be an opportunity for the paying of the fine as well as the surcharge, or has this surcharge to be paid apart from the transfer duties?

Under this Act such cases will not be left to the discretion of the commissioner, but if there are such cases, really hard cases, I shall be glad if they are brought to my notice. It is always possible in a case of that kind to make an ex gratia repayment, or if necessary, afterwards to amend the law if it is found that there are a specific group of such cases.

I would be willing to consider such cases if they are brought to my notice. In regard to the second question, the position is that the transfer duties are duties which are paid in the Provinces. Consequently the fine also goes to the Provinces. In those circumstances the fines continue, but in regard to the surcharge there will be no fine. In regard to the fine on transfer duties, however, no change will be made.

The Minister has given us to understand that cases of that kind may be brought to his notice. The cases that I have in mind are those which have not been handled by attorneys. But the people who are suffering as a result of this position, are people who live far away from town, and who only come to town once or twice every month. Those people will be the sufferers. That was what I was afraid of, but I am glad to hear that such matters may be brought to the notice of the Department. The case to which I refer is one where land had to be sold but where the wife had a usufruct for life. The children decided amongst themselves that the farm was to be sold but their mother was to get the house in town. Now the Deeds Office has decided that transfer duty has to be paid on the house. The land has not been inherited by the wife. I should like the Minister, in a case of that type, to meet the person concerned— I am referring to the type of case where the land passes to the surviving spouse, and I would ask the Minister to provide that in that case no transfer duties should be payable.

I should be glad if the hon. member would bring the case to my notice in writing, so that I may go into it.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Finance put and agreed to and amendment proposed by Mr. Werth put and negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I move—

1. (c) which is made before the twenty-fifth day of August, 1944, in respect of the acquisition of property by inheritance, if the liability therefor arose before the fixed date;

and to omit sub-section (2) and to substitute the following new sub-section:

1. (2) For the purposes of paragraph (b) or (c) of sub-section (1) any payment of transfer duty made on or after the fifteenth day of March, 1944, or the twenty-fifth day of August, 1944, as the case may be, out of any deposit for the purposes of that payment, made before whichever of these dates may be relevant in the case concerned, shall to the extent to which the payment has been made out of the deposit, be deemed to be a payment made on the date of the deposit.

I want to move a further amendment to Clause 5 to which I referred earlier. Let me repeat very shortly what I said before. These are cases of settlers to whom land was allotted by the Government, and the transfer duties had to be paid by the settler. I am convinced that the Minister will agree that this particular tax should not be demanded of a settler of that type. I was chairman of a commission some time ago which travelled right through this country and we took the evidence from the settlers in all the districts of the Union. It is a peculiar thing that there are hundreds of settlers who have never paid their transfer duties, sometimes through ignorance and sometimes because their attention was never drawn to the fact that they had to pay them. They only pay transfer duties when they apply for the Crown grants. In that case they already have to pay a 12 per cent. fine and by that time their transfer duties have almost doubled themselves. The position would therefore be that a settler who got his land ten or fifteen years ago, and who had exercised the option of purchase, and had not paid transfer duties, would now have to pay this fine. I think that a settler in that case should certainly not fall under this law. There can be no question of fraud. There can be no change of dates because the lease has been registered. These transactions have naturally been entered into by these people before that time— they were entered into by them at a time when they exercised their option of purchase, but they did not pay transfer duties at the time. I hope the Minister will accept this reasonable amendment. It is rather striking that transfer duties are paid by settlers only in two Provinces, viz.: in the Transvaal and the Free State. Here, in the Cape Province, settlers do not have to pay transfer duties. In the Transvaal they have to pay them, and this would therefore constitute a double fine on those people in the Free State and the Transvaal. I therefore move—

1. (c) where transfer duty is payable by a settler in respect of a holding allotted to him by the Government.

We discussed this matter very fully in Committee of Ways and Means, and the Committee then voted against such a proposal. My view, generally, is this. I am of the opinion that in regard to this Bill there should be liability for the surcharge where there is liability for transfer duties. Once we start exempting certain transactions, on which transfer duties are payable, from the surcharge, we shall have a lot of trouble. It is perfectly true, as the hon. member has said, that in two of the Provinces settlers don’t have to pay transfer duties, whereas in the other Provinces they have to do so, but it is also true on the other hand that there are certain transactions, in respect of estates, for instance, where transfer duties are payable in the Cape Province and not in the Transvaal. That is due to the fact that the legislation in regard to transfer duties differs in the four Provinces. I cannot possibly eliminate the diversity. We are dealing here with purely temporary legislation, and this legislation being temporary, I feel that we cannot get away from the principle that where transfer duties have to be paid, the surcharge must also be paid. I am afraid that if I depart from that principle I shall be faced with all kinds of difficulties. I am sorry therefore that for the same reasons as in the Committee of Ways and Means I cannot accept the amendment.

I am very sorry that the hon. Minister of Finance cannot accept this amendment. The excuse now made by him is that if at this juncture he starts making exceptions he will afterwards not know where he stands. He himself admitted, however, that in two provinces only transfer duties have to be paid. The settlers, the poorest of the poor, now have to pay these transfer duties. We know that the settlers are the poorest section of the community and have to be assisted to get a bit of land. We have often put up a plea on behalf of these people, and this morning again we put forward a very reasonable proposal to the Minister of Finance, in which we asked that these poor people, who are suffering great hardships, should be given some help, in view of the fact that transfer duties have to be paid in only two provinces. Help those people who have anxiously been looking forward to get possession of a bit of land. At the same time that steps are being taken to drive people from their homes by the Deparment of Lands, the Minister of Finance now steps in and aggravates the position. Now that these people are suffering hardships to pay for their land, the Minister drives up the prices further and demands 4 per cent. transfer duties from the very poorest section of the community in this country. Let the Minister continue making such mistakes. The time is approaching fast when the people will put an end to it, but for the sake of this very poor section I again want to make an appeal to the Minister to listen to us.

May I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that so far as the settlers are concerned it is the Department of State which has control over the documents concerning them. Their leases are registered and the Department therefore knows exactly where transfer duties have to be paid. Consequently there is a degree of neglect on the part of the Department as well, apart from the neglect on the part of the settlers, if the transfer duties are not paid. As far as the settler is concerned it is often due to ignorance. He doesn’t realise that he has to pay transfer duties if he exercises his option. The Department knows that if a settler exercises his option he has to pay within six months, and if he doesn’t get a receipt for the amount he has paid, the Department knows that he has neglected to pay. Many of those people are still under the impression that they don’t have to pay transfer duties until they take up their Crown grant. The hon. Minister has given an extension of time in regard to estates until the 15th August. Will he not do so for the settlers as well? The Department of Lands will then be able to avail themselves of the opportunity of notifying the settlers concerned that they have to pay before the 15th August. Surely that is quite reasonable. As far as estates are concerned, you often have well-to-do estates which have to pay. But we are dealing with very poor people here. Some of them were unable to pay because they haven’t the money. Let the Minister give them the chance to do so until the 15th August.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Naudé put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—32 :

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

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.

Ludick, A. I.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Noes—58 :

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, J. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridhe, M.

Marwick, J. S.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, E. B.

Solomon, B.

Stallard, C. F.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Steyn, C. F.

Steytler, L. J.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

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.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Finance put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The remaining Clauses and the Title having been agreed to, HOUSE RESUMED:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with amendments.

I move—

I object.

Amendments to be considered on 23rd May.

In his speech the other day the Minister of Mines made this statement about which I am very worried. In reply to one of the hon. members of this House he said that in his opinion the time had arrived for us to go back to the Low Grade Ore Commission’s report. I didn’t like that, and I hope the Minister will get up and say that in no circumstances will he ever consider putting into force the Low Grade Ore Commission’s report. And I say so for the following reasons: The Low Grade Ore Commission’s report of 1932 made certain recommendations against which every worker in the mining industry and every worker in the country will be up in, arms, if the Government even thinks of giving effect to it. I do not know whether the Minister realises that that Commission actually recommended the wholesale retrenchment of European workers underground. Let me invite the Minister’s attention to paragraph 104 of the report.

I haven’t the slightest intention of giving effect to that recommendation. I haven’t the slightest intention of doing anything of the kind.

I am very pleased to hear the Minister say so, and I hope he will in his reply be clear that in no circumstances will he consider carrying out these recommendations. The report is such that we shall be courting trouble if we dare even consider it. If the Minister thinks it necessary to appoint a new commission to go into conditions prevailing at present, with the present price of gold, to go into the whole question in relation to the favourable position in which the industry has been placed from time to time, and into the various concessions which the Government has already made to the industry— that, of course, is a different matter. I hope the Minister will tell us very clearly what he is going to do in regard to appointing another Commission. Here it would appear very necessary that he should do so. During the course of the debate last week, the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Friedman) advocated the closing down of the low grade mines and instead of working the low grade mines, working high grade mines and those mines in the Free State which it is said are also of a high grade. That is a matter for the Government to consider. It is not a matter with which I am concerned at the moment. I am concerned with the policy which the Minister announced some time ago. I am sorry the Minister did not make a statement as I asked him to do, in regard to the gold mines’ attitude and intentions on the matter of post-war reconstruction. I thought the Minister would make a statement on that, and I hope he will not allow this debate to end until he has given us an assurance that for the first time in its history, the gold mining industry will be made to play the game to the country. We know that the Government is straining every nerve to keep up employment; yet, in spite of that, the gold mining industry is threatening to close down certain mines. In spite of the increased price of gold, in spite of the concessions the Government has made, the gold mining industry is trying to intimidate the Government by telling them; We are going to close down certain mines. The Government has made great concessions to the industry. They have told them that they are prepared to meet them to an extent of £1,800,000 to enable them to pay a little more to their native labourers. In spite of that the industry has told the Government that they are going to close down certain mines. I know what the answer of the mining industry will be to this criticism— they will say: “It is not the industry which is intimidating the Government; it is certain individual companies.” Yes, we know; when it suits them they speak on behalf of the industry, but when it doesn’t suit them— when concessions are wanted for certain specific companies, they say: “It is only those particular companies which want it.” Well, if that is the position, I would suggest to the Government that whenever they have to consider any concessions to the industry they should leave out the industry as such and only deal with the individual companies which are working on the border line of profit and loss. We have learned a lesson; in spite of the fact that certain companies are making record profits, and that the industry as a whole is doing very well, the Government has made this big concession. Yet, after the concession had been made, individual companies have come along and said: “Unless you meet us we shall have to close down.” They were very careful not to say anything before the Minister of Finance made his Budget speech. After they had got the concession, they turned round and said: “Unless you meet these individual companies, they will have to close down.” Now what is the position? The municipalities in whose area these mines are located are very worried. They are Implicated and they are sending deputation after deputation to the Government asking them to prevent the closing down of these mines. One can quite understand that. But I again want to make this suggestion to the Government: Just tell the mines: “Very well, close down. We shall take over the whole staff and for the sake of employment keep the mines running, even if there is no profit.” If the Government had the courage to say that they would never hear of any mine closing down on account of its low grade.

Would the Government run it better than these mining companies?

That is not the point. I say that if it is only done for the purpose of keeping these people employed, the Government should do it. We get the annual report of the Government mining engineer, containing a number of figures supplied by the industry itself in regard to the grade of ore in the various sections. I say that before the Government accepts anything about the standard of ore contained in a certain mine, it is the Government’s duty to send out its own assayers to make sure what the position is. You may say that the Chamber of Mines would make no incorrect returns to the Government mining engineer. Well, if that is so, you may as well do away altogether with the Government mining engineer and his inspectors. No, before the Government embarks on any policy in regard to low grade mines the Government should send down its own assayers and samplers to determine what the grade of the ore is in these mines. I am not prepared to accept blindly the reports of the mines’ own Department. The Chamber of Mines we know has one object only and that is to find out where the richfest portion of the mine is and where the poorest portion is, and that is in order to balance and regulate the conditions of the mine. As a practical miner I have seen them say: “Stop working on this drive or this stope,” although they have found very rich ore there. At times you have to work the high grade ore and at other times the low grade ore. If we could send down our own assayers and let them report to the Government that a particular mine contains so many levels, and these are the grades of the ore in these particular levels, this is the stoping width of this level, and that of the other, and so on, we would be able to get independent and reliable reports. [Time limit.]

In Another Place the Minister repeated the recent complaints of the President of the Chamber of Mines that industries other than mining, through demanding an unduly large share of the unskilled labour resources of the country, were in effect limiting the operations of the mining industry, and the Minister even went further than the President of the Chamber in saying that the country had to make up its mind as to whether it wanted a mining industry or not. In his reply to this debate last week, the Minister said that he hoped that the recent increase in native mine wages would solve the mines’ problems arising through shortage of labour. I want for a moment to examine this increase. The Native Mine Wages Commission reported in favour of an increased minimum wage for native mineworkers, in the case of underground workers by 5d. per shift, and in the case of surface workers by 4d. They also reported in favour of the granting of a boot allowance working out at about 1d. per shift and a cost of living allowance of 3d. per shift. The Government has only accepted the increase in basic wages and the boot allowance. They have not accepted the cost of living allowance recommendation, and the position now comes to this, that an underground worker gets in cash wage approximately 2s. 6d. per day on which he has to support his family. Now I know that the argument of the Chamber of Mines is that the mine wage is not meant to be a family wage, that the native mine worker is expected to supplement his earnings from subsistence in reserves. According again to the Commission’s report the highest average net reserve income, which is that in the Transkei, is about £15 per annum for a native family of five. The amount of time a native mine worker in the Transkei can afford to spend on the mines is about 14 months as against eight months at home, which at 2s. 6d. per shift cash wage works out to an earning of about £24 for 14 months. Adding £15 per year to the assumed subsistence which he gets from the reserve, that would make an annual income of £39 per annum. I said £24 for the 14 months—I meant for the year. The Mine Wages Commission itself in the very slender budget of requirements for a native family which is contained in the report, estimated a minimum income necessary of £57 12s. per annum, which means that assuming the reserve’ subsistence, which is not applicable to thousands of native mine workers, and assuming the minium wage rate which has now been applied, the total annual income of the average native mine worker would be £39 per annum as against a minimum requirement of £57 12s. according to the Commission’s report. I have gone into these figures in order to show that the native mine worker is still being paid far below his requirements. With most expanding industries there is a normal tendency to increase the standard of living and remuneration of their workers. All the evidence is to the effect that the income of native mine workers, expressed in real terms, has been steadily falling over the past third of a century. Between 1914, the year when the first Great War broke out, and 1939, the beginning of this war, there was an increase of 3d. a shift in cash wages to native mine workers. While we have not the accurate figures it is known that the cost of living had risen considerably between 1914 and 1939, probably considerably more than that small increase in cash wages; and if the present increase in the cost of living is taken into account as between now and the commencement of the war, that is not offset by the recent increase. The increase works out at about 25 per cent. The Native Mine Wages Commission found that in respect of many articles consumed by the natives the cost had increased from 40 per cent. to 50 per cent. as compared with the cost before the war. The native reserves themselves have steadily deteriorated and are still deteriorating because of the steady draining off of their able-bodied manpower to work on the mines and in other industries, accompanied by the process of soil erosion and a general impoverishment of the character of the soil. The level of subsistence has been falling. The real wages over a period of a third of a century have not only not increased but they probably have actually fallen; and I want to put this to the Minister. There is a limit below which no industry can continue if it is to be continually maintained at the expense of the standard of living of the mass of the workers employed in it. Any industry if it is to prosper must pay for at least some increase, however slight, in the standard of living of its labour force, and not a rate of wage which entails a fall in the standard of living, which has been the case with the gold mining industry. The wage which is now being paid to the native unskilled worker is still nowhere near a family wage even if the assumed contribution to subsistence from the reserves is taken into account. In 1942 out of a total product of £114,500,000 produced on the mines the native mineworker, the basis of the prosperity of the industry, received as his share £12,750,000 out of the £114,500,000 in cash wages, and even if the cost to the mines of feeding him and the cost of compound accommodation is added to the figure, the total cost of the wage bill of the native worker to the Chamber of Mines is still under £20,000,000 out of a total production figure of £114,500,000. The European labour force which is only one-eighth as large as the native labour force drew £20,500,000 out of £114,500,000. The State, on the other hand, took nearly £28,000,000. The State’s share has been steadily increasing since the country left the gold standard. It quadrupled between that time and the outbreak of the present war, and it is now about eight times what it was when the country left the gold standard, while as I have indicated, native wages have been going down throughout this period. [Time limit.]

I sympathise with the views expressed in regard to native labour on the mines by the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno). As I have said on a previous occasion, I feel that the increase in the wages granted to the native workers is quite inadequate, although it is certainly a step in the right direction, and I should like to see some consideration given, apart from the question of wages, to establish a stable native labour force as far as the mines are concerned. We have been discussing recently the policy of native labour stabilisation so far as secondary industry is concerned, and I think, having regard to the importance of the mining industry in the national economy of South Africa, that the stabilisation of the native labour force for the mines is very important, and I think there are only two methods by which that can be accomplished. One is to see that the wages of the native mine-workers are improved, and their standard of living raised. The second one, which I should like the Minister and his department to consider in consultation with the industry, is to create opportunities for native family life by a policy of native housing for those who work on the mines, to enable them to have their families with them; and the effect of that will be, not only to improve the living conditions of the native and to stablise the native labour force, but also to facilitate the employment of native labour for secondary industries in the towns, and especially in the towns of the Witwatersrand. To some extent this step will also relieve the congestion that exists at present in the native reserves. I feel that the Minister might take that matter into consideration for discussion, not only with his department, but with the gold mining industry. I come now to the question of European wages, which I think requires more attention from the Government than it is getting at present, in spite of the fact—and I do not say this is any reflection on them—that the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Justice have presided over very protracted negotiations that are taking place in regard to the wages of the European miners. An application was made quite a long time ago for an increase in wages, and these negotiations are being unduly protracted to the disadvantage, I think, of the industry as it creates a sense of insecurity, and also to the justifiable discontent of the miners, who feel that they are being trifled with. I think the time has arrived when the Minister of Mines should take action to urge on the Chamber of Mines that an effort must be made to meet some of the demands so far at least as the lower paid men are concerned, and if need be the State itself as an important participant in the wealth produced by the mines—as mentioned by the last speaker— might pay a contribution, at least by way of rebate in taxation, to the low grade mines to enable them to carry on if they cannot pay an increased wage that ought to be paid without such rebate. That brings me to the question that has been raised whether we should work the low grade mines or close them down, and simply satisfy ourselves with working the high grade mines. That is a problem which has been canvassed in South Africa for many years, and a problem which no amount of eloquence can possibly settle without having regard to the actual conditions existing at the present moment. Today we have reached the stage when I believe all sections of the population, including our friends on thé benches opposite, will agree with me that our national economy is largely based on the gold mining industry. The Planning Council, in its recent report, has indicated that of our total export from the Union of South Africa more than two-thirds consists of gold, and if one takes the 1942 figures for the industry one finds that out of the total sum received for the product of £114,000,000, no less than £20,000,000 was apportioned to European salaries and wages, while the wages of non-Europeans came to £12,700,000. The amount spent on stores came to over £30,000,000, of which 80 per cent. is spent on our agricultural produce and on commodities produced by our manufacturers in this country, and the State received £27,700,000 in revenue from the mines, and when we take that into consideration we cannot avoid the conclusion that if anything were done to curtail the life of the mines by the closing down of the low grade mines, it would prove a calamity and a catastrophe to the people of South Africa as a whole. Our position must be based on the fact that the world, it is now clear, is prepared to continue to use gold. From the provisional report that has been issued on the fund to stabilise world currency, it is quite clear that gold will continue to be in use when the war is over, and even the point favoured by the Minister in regard to the free sale of gold seems to receive support. Therefore it will pay us to extract every posible ounce of gold we can while the world is still prepared to buy it. According to the Planning Council’s figure, whether we take it from the Government Mining Engineer’s report, or from the report of Mr. Hill, it would seem that in spite of the price we are getting for gold—which is twice the amount we were getting before we went off the gold standard—by 1960 or 1965 the industry will have shrunk to such a degree that our gold output will be infinitesimal. Our business is to see that we delay that shrinkage even if it becomes necessary in the process, to grant a State rebate or a subsidy to those mines which fall below the profit level—to make some rebate from Government revenue from those mines to enable those mines to continue working. That would mean that we would have not only a substantial wage bill but a substantial amount of money spent on the stores consumed by those mines. In that connection I do hope that the Government will take into consideration a policy of that kind if and when it becomes necessary, and that the commission which the Minister has already appointed in connection with the Van Ryn and Wits. Deep mines, will be given terms of reference so broad as to enable it to report on the whole question of the life of the low grade mines in the interests of the community as a whole. The second point that should be considered by the Government and the Minister is to set aside a portion of the huge revenue we are getting from the mines at present as a special fund for the development of secondary industry, so that we will be able to build up our secondary industries to an important stage, as the life of our mines nears its end. Without that, by merely closing down the low grade mines, agriculture will languish, and secondary industry will not be able to develop. By pursuing the policy of keeping the mines alive as long as possible and at the same time setting aside a portion of our revenue for encouraging the development of secondary industry, we may look forward with some confidence to the position when the mines will no longer be the important factor they are at present in the national economy of South Africa, because we shall have our secondary industries firmly established.

When we last heard the Minister reply to the questions on the subject of diggers we were very disappointed with his reply and the diggers will also be very disappointed with his reply. The Minister simply ignores the question and considers it of so little importance that all he says is that he is not going to explain his policy on the subject again. But we know perfectly well what the Minister’s policy has been in the past. We have made representations here. We are experiencing different conditions today and the Government side tells us that we are facing a new world, that conditions are going to be improved for all sections of the population. Everybody has a great deal to say about social security. I want to ask the Minister what he is doing for that section of the population. I am putting this question again after his statement that they count so little that he is not going to take up the time of the House by saying what he is going to do about it. When I last spoke I said that the diggers had certain difficulties to contend with, and I was supported by the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler). I pointed out that the diggers today did not have enough diamondiferous ground. I pointed out that there were companies in this country which were holding back rich ground and I said that if any land was thrown upon it was land holding very few diamonds on which the diggers could not make a decent living. We again want to emphasise the importance of this whole question to the Minister. We know his policy. He has put a stop to the issue of further certificates to diggers and he thinks that he is solving the problem in that way. But we should not forget that there is a very large section of the community which is dependent on the diggings, and that section today has to be satisfied with very poor ground while the rich diamondiferous grounds throughout this country are closed to them. And for whom are they kept? Will the Minister use his power to proclaim some of the good land? I do not intend going into the Minister’s policy of stopping the issue of certificates, of stopping the further issue of certificates or the opposite plan of buying out diggers. We know now what the Minister’s policy is. All we are asking for is that the lives of these people shall be made easier and more tolerable in the occupation they are following today. I do not want to discuss certain other difficulties these men have to contend with. I only want to raise the question of concessions which are given to traders on the diggings. We know that there are instances where traders have to pay up to £50 trading rights per month, and all this money has to come out of the poor diggers. Why cannot the farmers in the surrounding districts get the right to sell vegetables, fruit, milk and eggs on the diggings? Today they have that right on certain diggings but not on all of them. We have no uniform policy. In some parts it is allowed, but in other parts tremendous sums of money have to be paid every month for these concessions. There is another question I want to bring very seriously to the Minister’s notice and that is the education of the children of the diggers. I want to put up a plea for the department granting a special allowance for the education of diggers’ children. The prospects and the facilities on the diggings today are such that we canriot get the best teachers there— you cannot get them to go there. One finds sometimes that the children get on quite nicely in spite of the poor facilities provided, and occasionally they get bursaries, but when they come to the bigger schools they fail. They cannot get any further, and often one finds that the parents have not the wherewithal to buy the children adequate clothing and equipment to attend school elsewhere. The result is that the children return to the diggings without any prospects. We therefore ask the Minister to consider the establishment of a fund in the hands of the Mining Commissioner, who will know in which cases assistance should be rendered. As I said earlier, we talk a great deal about a better world and about social security. We dare not use those expressions if we allow a part of our people, no matter how small, to be deprived of its share in the privileges which are accorded to the people as a whole, and we are dealing here with a very considerable part of the population and a very useful part. The Minister will not deny it. These people have in the past opened up the country’s wealth. They are perhaps, owing to circumstances, not able today to give their children the education the want to give them and that is why I am pleading with the Minister to help these people so that the children may become useful citizens of the State. In conclusion I should like to say a few words in general on the subject of research work into the mineral wealth of this country. I should like to know from the Minister whether he has any conception of the extent of the wealth buried in this country?s soil, especially in the area which I represent. I should like to know how much manganese, asbestos, iron ore and ochre, just to mention a few things, there are in this country. Has the Department analysed the actual wealth we have and what attempts are being made to exploit those minerals for the benefit of the country? What attempts are being made, in co-operation with other Departments of the State, not just to prospect for certain minerals, certain wealth, but also to create the possibility of their future development, not merely for the benefit of a particular area but for the benefit of the country as a whole.

I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to a mine that has played a very great part in the development of South Africa, more particularly of the Free State, and that is the Jagersfontein Diamond Mine. Hon. members from the Free State, particularly the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges), do not know about the part it played in the economic development of the Free State. Of course the hon. member for Fauresmith is a carpet bagger, and in passing he gathers up votes from the faithful, forgetting that if this particular mine were reopened the southern part of the Free State might blossom like the rose. Our Nationalist friends do not worry about that; they would rather have meerkats …

We would rather have anything than Barlows.

I should like the Minister to turn his attention to the fact that the Jagersfontein Mine was one of the richest diamond mines in South Africa, that it has been closed down for many years, and there is an enormous sale for diamonds, and from what I understand—I speak subject to correction—most of our stocks of diamonds are running very low. We do know that the Jagersfontein diamond is a very valuable stone, and I also know from the history of the old republic that that mine was allowed to run for many years with hardly any contribution being made by it to the funds of the Government of the old Free State. Two or three hundred thousand pounds of profit a year was taken out of this mine, and all the country got was a few claim licences and a few stand licences. Strange to say there was no direct taxation in the old Free State days, and we allowed this enormous amount of money to be taken out of the country to buy pictures for Barney Barnato and race horses for his nephew and palaces in Park Lane. No wonder the Afrikaner people are so bitter today that these things were allowed to happen in the past, that these men made their money out of our country and put nothing back into it. So far as I know the original owners of the Jagersfontein mine, the Barnatos and the Joels never put anything back into the Orange Free State. They died worth a lot of money, but you can look through the schools and the hospitals in the Free State and you won’t find their names recorded as having left one brass farthing to our province. That rich mine is there still. Why is it not being worked? Will the Minister tell the House? I hope the Minister will not tell the House it is going to be worked after the war. I am not blaming the present Minister, but why was not this mine properly equipped before the war? For years and years it has been lying there, though things are not too good for the southern Free State; what with the poor members of Parliament they have in the Free State and the drought, things are rather bad in the Free State. We know that we cannot get different members of Parliament, and I can only say that it is unfortunate if we cannot get new equipment for the Jagersfontein mine. There we have a derelict town, a ghost town, though at one time it was a thriving, pleasant village in the Free State. Cannot the Minister help us to build it up again? I know that it is going to be rather difficult with the type of member of Parliament we have there, because that member is anxious to pull the country back instead of helping it forward. Cannot the Government help to build the town up by asking Sir Ernest Oppenheimer to do his best to re-equip the mine even at the present time? They say they have to get mining equipment from America. Well, if you can bring whisky from America, surely some way might be found of bringing important mining machinery here. I am one of these people who believe that this Minister is doing quite well in his old age—he has a lot of faults, but he also has a lot of good points about him, and I believe he will help the Free State if he can. I have to represent the Free State in this House in this matter. I get letters from all over the Free State from people who say that it is no use writing to the Nationalist members.

The hon. member must confine himself to the vote.

I am doing so. I get letters from people who say: “It is no use asking our Nationalist members to speak on these matters so we ask you.” I am speaking about these matters because those Nationalist members in the Orange Free State refuse to do so, because instead of speaking on this particular subject which I have raised, they speak about other matters which don’t interest their constituents. So I am speaking to the vote and I am asking the Minister to do all he can, and I am sure the Minister will do something—if he asks Sir Ernest Oppenheimer, I am quite sure Sir Ernest Oppenheimer will do something to reopen his mine—in spite of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) who represents that constituency.

I want to come back to the position of coking coal and I cannot pretend to be satisfied with the Minister’s answer. He pretends to be greatly concerned and to share my perturbation in regard to the position, but he is doing precisely nothing in regard to this matter. I have put to him very pertinently the recommendations of the Third Report of the Agricultural and Industrial Requirements Commission, where they recommend that the Government immediately consider ways and means whereby all coking coal be preserved as far as possible for coke production only. I have asked him what the Government is doing to carry this out, but the Minister has not seen fit to give me any reply at all. Judging from his reply the Government is doing precisely nothing in regard to this recommendation of the Commission. Now it is very easy to come here and prate glibly about the concern which he has while at the same time he is allowing this very precious asset to be frittered away. If I may use an analogy, he is like Nero fiddling while Rome is burning. He tells us he is greatly concerned and all the time, while he is talking, this very precious asset is being allowed to be used for other purposes than that for which it is most suitable. It is being exported and used for steam raising in other parts of the wrold. If one assumes that the proportion of the export of coking coal is the same as that of coal generally, one must accept the fact that we are depleting our coking coal reserves at the rate of 4,000,000 tons per year. I have also shown that our total coking coal reserve is only about 100,000,000 tons. If we continue at this rate and do not use a single ton of coal for its legitimate purpose, it means that our reserves will be completely exhausted within 25 years. What is the Minister doing about that?

I told you the reason.

I don’t know whether he realises it yet and I want to refer him to Dr. Meyer’s statement before the Associated Scientific and Technical Societies 3 or 4 years ago. In it he said this—

Those are the opinions of a man who is the head of Iscor, who knows what he is talking about. Then we have this report, this third interim report of the Commission pointing in the same direction, and yet the Minister is not able to tell me what he has done to stop this pernicious practice, this depletion of our very limited resources. He has come with the usual excuse which passes for answer to criticism that there is a war on.

Is it not a fact?

There is a war on I know, but it does not mean that you must stare yourself blind against that war and that you must be indifferent towards what is going to happen after that war. There will not always be a war on. The time will come when there will be no war on and this country will have to be prepared to weather the storms of depression which will come after the war. Hon. members over there are suffering from myopic vision politically. They cannot see beyond the hill; they stare themselves blind against the war and they refuse to see that there is something beyond, and they follow the policy of “present wise and future foolish.” The country will find where they have been led when arguments like this are used as an excuse for the apathy and incompetence of the Government. If this is the Government’s policy it must cease now paying lip service to social security, because their policy is designed on the one hand to increase the need for social security and on the other hand to decrease the means by which that need can be satisfied. They must not come and talk to us about social security at this stage, they must try rather to get hold of some sense of responsibility. I know there are irresponsible members in this country who think that the war is an excuse for anything, but I trust that the Minister will have sufficient sense of responsibility—sufficient sense of the responsibility which attaches to his position. He is there as the guardian of the country’s natural resources, and he should have a sufficient sense of responsibility to see that these hidden resources are not wasted in the way they are being wasted now. In any case why export coal which is fit for coking purposes when other coal is available? There are 4,000,000 tons exported for war purposes. Are they all required for producing coke? No, they are not. They are required for ordinary steam raising and fuel purposes. Why can we not take from our huge stocks of ordinary coal and export that for war purposes and preserve this precious supply for its proper use? Why deplete these limited resources when the war needs can be satisfied from the other resources? I am afraid the Minister is not showing a sufficient sense of the gravity of the situation. Let me refer him to paragraph 157 of the Third Interim Report of this Commission, where they say this—

Now I say that the apathy of the Minister for which he is now seeking an excuse in the fact that there is a war on—and that excuse is wearing very thin—is very serious. In this case that excuse is not applicable at all, because coal required for war purposes, coal exported to the Middle East is wanted for fuel purposes. Why not take ordinary coal of which we have unlimited supplies and keep the coking coal for our iron and steel industry and other industrial development generally. [Time limit.]

When this debate was on last week I pointed out to the Minister that there was a matter of great importance from the trade union’s point of view. The Minister gave an evasive reply. Possibly he doesn’t understand the intricacies and important principles underlying trade unionism in South Africa. He had a ready ally in his reply in no less a person than the hon. membey for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). I remember that at one time the hon. the Minister found good company in Mr. Oswald Pirow in an aeroplane trip. I hope he will not have the same company in the hon. member for Waterberg, because an alliance like that must of necessity be an unholy one. I had no intention last week of attacking the Minister, but apparently he interpreted my remarks as an attack on him personally. In this country we recognise trade unionism, and under that recognition we register trade unions under the Act. Under the law it is not compatible to recognise opposition unions. If the Minister’s reply means that in every industry opposition trade unions can be recognised, I am afraid of serious repercussions. The Minister knows what has happened in the past. Trade unions will never be safe in the hands of any political party.

What would anyone say if the United Party were to start a trade union in the mines or in the building industry or in any other industry. No one can deny that the organisation which the Minister meant was a political one.

Business suspended at 1.0 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

When I was interrupted by the march of time for the lunch hour I was pointing out to the Minister that by his action he was giving recognition to unregistered trade unions. No one can deny that the organisation to which I refer is a political organisation. Now are we in South Africa going to recognise political trade unions? That is a point I want to put to the Minister. There are a few other points to which I want to refer. First of all there is the question of preventing diseases on the mines. One wonders whether we are exerting our full energies to prevent the occurrence of these diseases. Another question is the question of facilitating holidays for miners. Many of these mine-workers although they get their annual leave, cannot afford to get away from their homes to seaside resorts or anywhere else. As these men are making a very important contribution to the mining industry, I feel that facilities, railway facilities in particular, should be made available to these men to increase the length of their lives. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) referred to the question of wage increases and to the protracted negotiations in regard to certain increases in wages which the miners have asked for. I associate myself with what the hon. member said. It is rather a pity that at this time, when one realises the contribution these men have made to the War effort, it should be necessary to plead for an increase in their wages. Cost of living has gone up tremendously. I have before me a schedule giving the increases in the cost of various articles of clothing, and one finds such increases as 125 per cent., 119 per cent., 122 per cent., 154 per cent., 200 per cent., 209 per cent. and 186 per cent. According to the latest census of the South African Trades and Labour Council the increased cost of living is such that it costs the working man £11 5s. 10d. more to live per month, than it did last year this time. In those circumstances it is urgently necessary that the wage scale of these men should be revised. While being in favour of that increase, one must emphasise too that an increase in wages without control over the cost of living will hardly serve any purpose, and while we are asking the Minister of Mines to try and bring about the increase asked for, we must also appeal to the Government to take drastic measures to control a corresponding rise in the cost of living. The mine-workers are going through very strenuous times and I hope the Minister will be able to do something in the direction indicated. Another important disability from which the mine-worker is suffering is lack of housing—inability to buy a house. My remarks may sound contradictory. The trouble with the miner is that he cannot put down the initial deposit on the house he wants to buy. When one realises that on the Rand people can buy houses by putting down a deposit of £100 or even £50 I do feel that it would require very little pressure on the industry, possibly with the co-operation with the Government to assist the ordinary miner to make the initial deposit and thus enable him eventually to acquire his own home. There are large numbers of these men who haven’t got their own homes. They have no security of tenure, and when they retire from the mines evenually their pensions are very low. This is the time for the Minister to see if he can do something to help them.

I should like the Minister to give some information about the diamond industry generally. I should like to know from him what the position is in regard to the sale of our diamonds. If I understand the position correctly certain quotas have been allotted to members of the Diamond Corporation. That also applies to the diamonds produced in South-West Africa and in other parts. Since the Corporation has come into being, the Premier Mine, for instance, has closed down. Some of the Kimberley mines have also closed down. The questions in regard to which I should like to have some information is this; to whom has the quota been allotted which existed, for instance, in favour of the big diamond magnates in respect of the Kimberley mines and other mines of De Beers which are today not working in the Kimberley district. Which diamonds are at present being sold in place of the diamonds which used to come from those mines? Are the circumstances such that more South-West Africa diamonds are being sold, is there in actual fact a curtailment of diamonds produced in the Union of South Africa, which in a sense would be to the detriment of the sale of alluvial diamonds and to the detriment of the State’s own diggings? I should be very glad if the Minister would give us a full statement on this question so that we may know exactly what the position is today. I should also like to know from the Minister what developments have taken place in regard to drilling for water. I don’t know whether it is for coal or for oil, but boring and drilling operations are being carried out in the Waterberg district. It is a well-known fact that in the north-western part of Waterberg there is a fairly extensive coalfield. Years ago coal seams were discovered on Government land. The land is not being issued under the Settlement Act, and it is actually being reserved. In the last two years I understand the Government has been boring there. Would the Minister tell us whether the boring that is going on is only for coal or whether it is also for oil, and would he tell us what are the results in that area up to the present and what the Government’s policy is in regard to further research and development in those areas? I should like to know whether there is any agreement between the Department of Mines and the Department of Lands not to allot those farms. There are quite a number of farms there which are not being allotted. Is the policy to continue in this way, and, if so, why? What is the reason? I am given to understand that at the request of the Department of Mines the land is not made available for settlers or for farmers who want grazing for their cattle. What is the reason for the Government not allotting the land, because in any case the Government retains the mineral rights and the coal rights when the land is allotted. Those rights are reserved. Why cannot the land be allotted seeing that the mineral rights are reserved for the benefit of the State? If there are any special reasons for their not being allotted then I want to know why the land is not at any rate made available for the farmers.

When this vote was under discussion last week, I dealt with a few points in connection with alluvial diggings. In the ten minutes at my disposal I was unable to bring all the points to the Minister’s notice. The hon. member stated that the £1,800,000 which was being given to the mines, was practically part of the money taken out of the mines, and that it was not a subsidy. He stated that only a portion of the yield was being given back to the mines. Since the alluvial diggings have in the past contributed a great deal to the Treasury by means of the ten per cent. export tax on their production, I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot see his way clear to make a small refund to the diggers as in the case of the mines? On every £100 of diamonds which are produced, the diggers pay ten per cent. to the State. I want to suggest to the Minister, since he was so kind as to give £1,800,000 to the gold mines, to give a small allowance to the diggers by refunding the ten per cent. which he collected on the diamonds they sold. A small portion of the diamonds which are produced are cut in our country, but I am referring to the ten per cent. duty on the export of diamonds. As far aş the small portion is concerned which is cut in our country, the State can make this contribution. The State would then be doing justice to that section of the people who are in very needy circumstances today. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) has already said that there is still a great deal of diamondiferous ground which can be prospected. There are many farms where there are signs of diamondiferous ground, but unfortunately the greater portion of that ground belongs to rich companies, mostly De Beers, and they are not throwing open the area, so that they can sell the diamonds which are produced in their own mines more easily. Is it right to close diamondiferous ground in this manner? Only a few natives live on it; otherwise it is kept closed, while a section of our people who in the past have proved to be a very great asset to the State as I have already indicated, are handicapped in order to benefit De Beers. I shall be very glad if the Minister will go into that. Today there is one farm in the Lichtenburg district which is being prospected, and it has been brought to my notice that it is being prospected in such a way that it cannot be a payable proposition. Anyone who has experience of alluvial diggings, knows that diamonds are always found in patches or reefs, and today, at great expense, the farm is being prospected in such a way that holes are dug where there is not the least sign of diamonds. Even if the reefs which are diamondiferous are very rich, it still cannot make the farm payable. In this way land which represents a payable proposition might easily be kept closed. I want to emphasise the needs of the alluvial diggers. They want more land, and I am convinced that there is more good land available. The Act of 1927 was a little too drastic as far as prospecting is concerned and it should, in my opinion, be amended. The position today is that the owner cannot cut up his farm into parts and carry out prospecting. The law is so stringent that if diamonds are discovered, the man only has the right to make holes 7 x 7, and then he has to move on again. It takes a great deal of capital to prospect. If the owner or prospector is given the right, where diamonds are found, to go on working in order to get hold of money to enable him to carry on with the prospecting, much more prospecting would be done. In that way more diamondiferous farms could be discovered and converted into payable propositions. Then I should like to say a few words in connection with one or two aspects of the agreement which the Government entered into with the other members of the Diamond Producers’ Association. I asked the Minister certain questions in regard to the manner in which our diamonds were sold and how many diamonds the State diggings had already produced; what portion of it had been sold and what we got for it? The Miniter’s reply was that it was not in the interests of the State to make it known what quantity of diamonds had already been produced on State diggings. He did not say what quantity had already been sold. A few weeks later I received a further reply that diamonds to the value of £9,000,000, produced by the State diggings, had already been sold. I can understand, if there is a large quantity of diamonds in stock, in the hands of the State, that it would not be advisable to make it known what the quantity of diamonds is, because it may influence the world diamond market and cause the market to fall, but what does the Government gain by refusing to give the House information in regard to the quantity of diamonds we have, because the agreement with the other producers stipulates that they have the right to ascertain how many diamonds the State has and what the quality is. There is a clause in the agreement which provides that members of the Producers’ Association have the right to examine the diamonds of the State. De Beers, for example, could examine the diamonds of the State, and the State has the right to examine the diamonds of De Beers. Why should this information be withheld from this House, which is the highest authority in the country, although the members of the association have the right to make an inspection? Another point which, in my opinion, is altogether wrong, is that the State undertook to sell only 15 per cent. of the diamonds which are put on the market, as far as the State diggings are concerned. De Beers are allowed to deliver 47 per cent., South West 17 per cent., and each of the other two partners 10 per cent. Since diamonds are fetching such good prices today and since there is a big demand for diamonds, the Government undoubtedly made a great mistake in being satisfied with a quota of only 15 per cent. for its diamonds, while De Beers and others are allowed to market the remainder. We understand that many diamonds are produced in the State diggings; and the Government allowed a golden opportunity of marketing these diamonds, to slip through its fingers. They gave De Beers a free hand to do as they please. But another point in the contract which I cannot quite understand, and in connection with which I should like to have an explanation from the Minister, is that while the State only delivers 15 per cent., De Beers 47 per cent., and the other two producers ten per cent. each, there is a provision that if De Beers have not got enough diamonds to deliver, their share of the quota may go to the other members of the Producers’ Association. [Time limit.]

I may say that I am not in the least impressed by the Minister’s defence of the present low grade policy of the gold mines. He believes that it would be disastrous to abandon this low grade policy in favour of industrial development. I, on the other hand, believe that we cannot afford to forego the prospects of industrial development for the sake of the gold mining industry, and that if we adopt what I would describe as the King Midas policy of turning everything into gold, the results for the country would be approximately the same as in that admirable fairy tale, the moral of which we as adults are too apt to ignore. May I respectfully beg the Minister to read the Van Eck report once more, and then tell me in the light of its implications which policy would be more disastrous for the country, the policy which he so staunchly defends or the policy for which I plead. In order to refute me the Minister would have to refute the Van Eck Commission report, and that I submit is a very formidable task. And may I ask the Minister and the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) this question, how do they explain the fact that although we have the most flourishing gold mining industry in the world, South Africa is a very poor country, one of the poorest countries in the world, with a national income of only £40 per head per annum?

What was it before the gold mines started up?

It is obvious that the attitude of the hon. Minister is at variance with that of the Government. The Government is pledged to a policy of industrial development. It looks chiefly to industrial enterprise for an increased national income to enable it to implement its social security proposals. I am a protagonist of industrial development. I believe that therein will lie the economic salvation of this country. Industry alone will raise the economic level of all sections of the population. At the same time I am not hostile to gold mining. On the contrary, I should like to assure my hon. friend the member for Troyeville that I realise quite clearly that it will be many years before industry can emancipate itself from its dependence on gold mining; and it is for this very reason that I deem it essential to establish a balanced relationship between them, and to resolve the apparent conflict of interests between industry and gold mining. On the one hand, I urge that industry must undergo a thorough process of rationalisation ….

What does that mean?

… in order to reduce the burden of indirect subsidisation which the mines now have to bear. As for the gold mines, if they fear that industrial development will deprive them of their sources of cheap native labour, they must adjust themselves to a higher wage level by raising the grade. That is the only way they can meet the situation. The hon. the Minister believes this raising of the grade would lead to a “cataclysmic disaster.” I am somewhat surprised that a Minister who usually expresses himself in felicitous, accurate and measured terms, should use such exaggerated and intemperate language in connection with an economic process of adjustment which is not only feasible but inevitable. I have already pointed out to the Committee that if the mines were to raise their grade by only oneeighth of a dwt. it would enable them to pay something like £3,000,000 more in wages to their employees. It is idle to pretend that the mines as a whole cannot afford it, or that such moderate increase in the pay limit would neutralise the enormous gold deposits in the new areas. Let me remind the Committee that before we went off the gold standard the gold mines had flourished for 30 or 40 years on a pay limit of approximately 4.5 dwts. Today the pay limit is in the neighbourhood of 2.5 dwts. It is clear therefore, if we take into account the new areas, and assuming that the new areas are at least as rich as the old areas, there is a definite margin for an improvement in the grade without seriously reducing the life and the scope of the gold mining industry as a whole. But the Minister is not content with that; that would be a “cataclysmic disaster.”

Have you got figures to support your argument?

The Minister wants to expand our gold mining activities and therefore he insists that no labour is to be diverted to industrial development. I for one cannot accept the argument that in order to expand the activities of our gold mining industry we must force down wages so as to enable every available ton of ore with a few traces of gold in it to be brought to the surface at a profit. If that is to be the policy, why stop at an arbitrary pay limit of 2.5 dwt.? Why not carry the logic still further? Why not use forced labour and reduce the grade to 1 dwt.? That would approximately treble the life and scope of the gold mining industry. No, Sir, a decent wage level must be the prime factor in calculating the pay limit. In other words, we must mine only the grade of ore which a decent wage will permit us to mine; and it is the essence of my case that, taking the old and new areas together, there is a sufficient tonnage of high grade ore to enable the gold mining industry to flourish on an undiminished scale for at least two or three generations. I repeat “two or three generations” because I have been misreported as having said 300 years; two or three generations is long enough. And those who prefer to look further ahead, those who have the welfare of their unborn progeny at heart unto the fourth generation, may have this reasonable assurance, that if we adopt the right mining policy now, by that time industry will be so fully developed that the country will be able to afford a sharp decline in gold mining.

A few days ago the Minister of Economic Development informed us on these benches that this was not a socialist House of Assembly. Unfortunately we have to admit, with sorrow, it is correct. So we must view the suggestion which is now under discussion as a question which reflects the capitalist system, and I think it is the most important question which has been discussed in the House this Session. South Africa has definitely got to the stage where new economic cleavages are making themselves obvious, and where the Government either does not know anything about it, or the Government, particularly the Minister of Mines is not prepared to do anything about it. First of all we have the policy of the new industries, and at least the new industries have got a little commonsense and have realised that the best possible market for South African produced goods is South Africa, and that the South African produced goods can only be bought by the people of South Africa if they are given enough money to buy them. So the industrialist has realised that in order to create his market in this country he must be in favour of a policy of giving more money to the class of people who today get least. The class of people involved is the non-European and it is obvious to us that if non-European wages are not very considerably increased, or shall I say that if this increased spending power was given to the non-European it would provide that impetus to production in this country, and would provide that market for which we have been looking. Ever since I have been in this House we have been looking for markets beyond our borders, but today we realise, I believe, that our largest market is the market within our borders; apart altogether from the economic justice or the moral rights of the matter it is good commonsense to sell the goods in our own markets simply by providing our people with the money to buy these goods. That is the industrialist’s point of view. As opposed to that we have two other points of view. We have the point of view, first of all, that the mining industry, which believes that a continuance of a form of native labour which has been described by the native representatives—and I believe rightly—as helot labour, with our workers living in native reserves, living under a non-money economy in the most abject circumstances, merely because more gold can be produced at certain grades if the cost burden is kept down at so much. So obviously at the moment there does not appear to be any near approach to reconciling those two points of view. But there is another point of view, and that is the point of view of the farmer, who unfortunately, whether he likes it or not, finds himself allied with the mining magnates in that he also wants a cheap labour force for his farm. He is opposed—as has been seen in debates during the Session—to the industrialist and the Labour point of view, which advocates an increase of wages, even to put it at the very lowest level to provide a market for the goods we hope to produce after the war. Then I believe we have a fourth factor, which is probably the most important and one that is paid very little attention to in this House, namely the speculator. I believe that is is from the speculator that we get this ultra serious view of the mines, which says: “We shall abandon our secondary industries, we shall abandon our protection, and we shall concentrate ourselves for the next twenty years in working only the mines in this country.” That is obviously the speculator’s point of view, because it denies all future to this country, it denies all future to industry, it denies the future of agriculture, and it denies the future of the European race in this country. That point of view I believe is the point of view of the speculator. I want to make a point in connection with an important utterance by the Minister in Another Place where obviously he was very annoyed with the industrial people of this country, but he has given us no line at all. I think I can also charge the Minister of Economic Development as not being prepared to say anything to us on this subject. But it is this subject that has to be solved. We find, for instance, that a paltry £1,800,000 is going to be given in the shape of increased wages to the natives on the mines; the mines are apparently in such a parlous condition that they cannot pay that £1,800,000 per annum. It is to be paid by the Government itself, and yet we find the Government by merely putting an extra 2d. on cigarettes can raise £1,250,000, while on the other hand by means of taxation of and their share in the gold mines the Government are taking about £28,000,000 per annum from the gold mines. We are being brought face to face with the facts, particularly on the Rand recently, but not only on the Rand but the whole of South Africa. What happens on the Rand has repercussions right through the country and has effects on industry in all parts of the country as well as on agriculture. So what stands to benefit the people of the Rand in so far as the mining industry is concerned is also a matter of vital importance to all sections of the community in South Africa. We have been faced recently with the threat to close down a number of mines. A threat which, in some instances at least will mean the blotting out of whole towns. Now, if continuance of those towns and the continuance of these mines only depends on a certain amount of assistance from the Government, it does seem to me that something on these lines should be explored. If we can raise £2,250,000 by a tickey tax on cigarettes it seems that we shall always be in a position to balance our budget even if we were to reduce the £28,000,000 which we are taking from the mines or which the mines pay the State. This is not a plea for lessening the taxation on the people who are making money out of the gold mines, because if we are not going to tax them at the source, we can tax them on their income, and we can then treat the gold mines as a national asset and not as a means by which people can make a lot of money out of shares and out of speculation in the shares which they huy. We expect to get some information from the Government. It is no use the Minister merely telling us that the question of native labour is an issue—I don’t believe there is a shortage of native labour— the shortage is in the wages you pay those people, and if you pay decent wages you will not be short of labour. And let me say this, we cannot continue to pay these helot wages simply because these people have homes in the native territories. I am not attacking the mining industry at the moment but they cannot tell us that for ever their industry can be run on the basis of not paying their employees enough to enable them to keep body and soul together. An industry which does that sort of thing cannot survive. And if South Africa is to survive as an economic entity, she will have to do something about it. I personally believe in working every possible ton of ore …

Even at a loss?

I am not thinking of profit, I am thinking of providing the greatest possible amount of employment for the people. [Time limit.]

I think the Minister would check speculation if he could indicate to the House what prospects there are of discovering any material oil deposits where they are boring at Graaff-Reinet. I also want to know what steps the Minister is taking to explore coal deposits in the Union of South Africa. My knowledge of geology is very limited, but I know that these series in which our coal deposits are located extend throughout the Cape Province. The Indwe mines are located in that series. I know at Bathurst, a farmer located a narrow seam of coal at 50 feet. I feel enormous benefit would come to the country if coal could be located in the Cape. It would relieve the railways of this very heavy transportation of coal and it would release them for our industrial development which we are anticipating after the war. We realise that our industrial development is controlled by the way our coal mines are located. At the moment they are mainly in the Transvaal and Natal. I hope the Minister will take this request of mine seriously to heart. Geologists state that there are great coal fissures in this country. Why not discover some of them in the Cape Province?

I want to say a few words, in the first place, in connection with the prospective development of gold in the Orange Free State. Even at the present time there are signs of tremendous speculation. Gold options are being bought left and right in a large number of districts in the Northern and Central Free State, and there is every sign of one of those waves of speculation which we have often had in our country in the past, speculation which is not in the interests of the country. We do not know what the position will be in the future; nor do we know what the prospects are of the gold mines in the Free State. Fór all we know the companies may already be in the process of buying options; we do not know whether eventually they will again close the gold mines as long as it suits them, which may mean that there will be no development in the gold mines Of the Free State; that they will keep the mines closed as long as it pleases them. I do not believe—and that is the attitude of this side of the House—that it is in the interests of the country to leave such an important industry as the gold mining industry completely in private hands, with the result that one finds this type of speculation—speculation in shares, speculation in land and speculation in other property—which will probably take place in the near future. The danger signs are already there, and I should like to know from the Minister what the attitude of the Government is. Are they simply going to allow this thing to take its course; are they going to allow it to go on in the same way as it did in the Transvaal in earlier years; or are we as a Government going to step in to see to it that the benefits do not again fall into the hands of a number of speculators who are spending money on it in anticipation and paying all sorts of prices so that they eventually have complete control of the position. We have made many mistakes in the past in connection with the development of gold. We do not want to repeat those mistakes. We must avoid those mistakes in the future, and I should like to know from the Minister whether the Government is going to stand by and allow this thing to take its course without any intervention on the part of the Government. We are in favour of placing this important industry under State control, on the principle that the greatest share of the income and of the profits should go to the citizens of this country.

Do you want nationalisation?

We want to ensure that the owners of the land are not deprived of their lawful share of the profits of the industry.

Do you want nationalisation?

Yes, to a certain extent. The State must have a far greater measure of control of the gold mines than it has today.

In what direction?

This method of leasing gold mines is not in the best interests of the country. If there are profits to be made out of the gold mines, the Government and the citizens of this country should make those profits and not overseas capitalists.

You are now preaching communism.

The Party which I represent advocates that all key industries in the country should not be exclusively in private hands, enabling them to do as they please.

What is a key industry?

Hon. members will have enough time to talk, and I hope they will give me an opportunity to carry on with my speech. The policy of this side in connection with this matter is well known. Hon. members who are on the other side today wanted to allow the iron and steel industry to fall into the hands of private interests. We saw to it that that did not happen. We want to deal with this extremely important industry along the same lines. Hon. members have spoken of killing the mines. Before the Three Years War in the Free State, when there were all sorts of difficulties with the diamond mines at Koffiefontein and Jagersfontein, the mining magnates also threatened to close the mines if the Government did not fall in with their wishes. The Government of that time said: “Very well, close them,” and they introduced legislation which provided that if any company closed the mines the State would take them over and work them, and that was the last we heard of the threat to close the mines. I should like the Minister to make a statement today in connection with the position in the Free State, in connection with the prospects, and as to what the State proposes to do. In the second place I want to raise another matter, and that is in connection with the sale of our diamonds. Earlier in this session I said a few words in regard to this matter on a certain occasion, but at that stage I was ruled out of order. Today the position is that all our rough diamonds first have to be sent to London. There is a committee in London, the so-called Diamond Trade Corporation which is responsible for the inspection of all packages of rough diamonds which are produced in South Africa, and they send it from London to other parts of the world. No diamond buyer has the right to send diamonds to any other country. It must first go through the London Committee. The London Committee itself is in the diamond trade. The diamond buyer must first send the diamonds to London; he has to pay the shipping charges and insurance and all the other expenses involved. If he wants to send diamonds to India, for example, he must first ask London for a permit. He cannot send diamonds to America or to any other country. He first has to go to London for the permit. Here I have a letter which was written to a diamond buyer by the Director-General of Supplies. It reads as follows—

Is that right? Here I have another letter which was written by a manger of a bank to a diamond buyer. He writes—

Here the man has to go all the way to London; he first has to go to London for permission. The excuse which was made was that they were afraid that the diamonds would fall into the hands of the enemy during the war. But surely it should be an easy matter to establish a committee in South Africa. Why cannot we have a committee in South Africa to decide these matters, and if necessary, obtain information from the High Commissioner in London in case of any doubt? Why cannot a local committee give permission for the export of diamonds direct to America or Palestine or wherever it may go? It causes tremendous delay and great expense, and it is not in the interests of our country. The Diamond Trading Corporation itself sold diamonds in 1942 to the value of twenty million pounds in one year, according to the report which I have here in an official journal. That is a record in our history. All our diamonds have to go to the London Committee, and I want to ask the Minister to say that a stop will be put to this state of affairs. We are the biggest diamond producing country. Why should we be subordinate to a committee in England? We have no objection to steps being taken to prevent diamonds from falling into the hands of the enemy, but why should they first be sent to England with all the war risk attached thereto, and then sent from England to other parts of the world?

Mr. Chairman, such a number of important points have been raised that I think perhaps I had better intervene before we go further lest some may be forgotten. Let me reply to the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) first of all, as what he said is freshest in our memory. With regard to the sale of diamonds the hon. member has given the reason himself in his speech; he has told us that the reason which is given for rough diamonds being sent to London is to avoid the chance that they may get into the enemy’s hands.

Would not you trust our own committee in South Africa?

Let me go on. I think I shall answer all your points. The possession of uncut diamonds, raw diamonds is becoming of first-class importance in the production of munitions. The making of tools for cutting hard metals and steel is now very largely dependent upon diamonds, and without any shadow of doubt it is a fact that our enemies would give a very great deal indeed to be able to get hold of diamonds even at a very high price, that we have to see that a black market in diamonds is not allowed to come into being. That needs the very strictest control. Diamonds, as everybody knows, are very easily hidden, very easily conveyed, very easily transferred, and therefore it is of the utmost importance that we have, as far as possible, a foolproof and thiefproof system which will prevent the leakage of uncut diamonds through devious channels reaching the hands of the enemy. This is a matter which concerns not merely South Africa, but all the allied nations who are engaged in the war, and one ally in the war cannot act in disregard of the reasonable wishes which the other allies desire, and I can tell the hon. member and the Committee that it is as the result of the combination of these factors that it has been arranged that the uncut stones shall be sent to London, and from there radiates the system of control in all parts of the world where they are allowed to be sent. A track is kept of all stones sent, and the persons to whom they go, and what happens to them when they have gone. It is, of course, theoretically possible to set up here a duplicate organisation; we might have our Representatives in all parts of India and the world, but why should we take that step when the organisation is already in being in London? It is a fact that extra freight and insurance have to be paid, but that is one of the aspects of the case, part of the cost, part of the inconvenience occasioned by the war.

Is Sir Ernest Oppenheimer to be the only judge?

No, the Government is the judge. I hope the hon. member will not lend the weight of his name and authority to the suggestion that the Government does not act on its own responsibility and on the advice of its own advisers.

But the Diamond Trading Corporation does not act under your orders.

The Corporation is one of the members of the Producers’ Association of which the Government is also a member, and the actions of the Diamond Corporation are subject to the control of the Diamond Control Board.

The Government has no control whatever over the diamonds of the Trading Corporation.

I am telling the hon. member that to this extent we have; we are members of the Producers’ Association which is controlled by the Board, and all members of the Association are subject to the control of that Board. The Government is represented on that Board and the policy of the Board is subject to our veto. Decisions which are not unanimous and which are opposed are not decisions at all; any resolution of the Board is subject to veto by any member who chooses to object, and I am in the position to give instructions that anything that I think is improper should be stopped. As a matter of fact, I can assure the Committee that the members of the Association are working together in harmony, with great advantage to all.

Have you no people in South Africa who are capable of doing this job?

I have already said to the hon. member that it is conceivable and possible that we might duplicate all these arrangements that have been made, and set up duplicate organisations all over the world, but the cost of it would be prodigious and out of all proportion to the ends achieved. Also it would lead to chaos. No, I am not prepared to take any steps to alter that position for the reasons I have given. It is a little difficult for me to follow what it is exactly that the hon. member wants in the Free State. It is quite true that a great deal of speculation is taking place there. I am not at all sure that what is called speculation in some quarters is not really enterprise. Merely gumming on of an offensive label does not make a particular enterprise speculation. Gold mining which may come into effect in the Free State after the war will be due, if it does come about, to the expenditure of money and the energy of those enterprises which the hon. member now is labelling as speculation. The Government is not prepared to change the basis of our extraction of gold. All these years it has been upon a private enterprise basis, and I shall be very sorry indeed to see it shifted on to a State basis. The idea of my department, or any department of the Civil Service, undertaking the exploitation of precious metals and minerals would, I think, lead to very grave results and vast expenditure of money.

Did you say minerals? Then what about diamond diggings?

Well, that is on rather a different footing, but it is quite possible that that too might have been placed in private hands.

Is that your policy?

In one case you are searching over a vast area and you have to put down perhaps £2,000,000 in speculation before you can bring a mine even to the producing stage; in alluvial diggings for diamonds the prospecting and search is a very much simpler matter.

So that your objection is not based on principle but merely on expenditure?

If you like to call it that; the hon. member is very fond of gumming on labels; I am not so fond of labels because they are misleading. I prefer the genuine wine which I find inside the bottle rather than the label which is perhaps more attractive to the hon. member. I am afraid I am not prepared to indicate any change in the method of development contemplated by the Government. I would point out that the present position has the sanction of every Government that South Africa has had from the days of the Republic to the present time. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) asked about the possibilities of coal in the Cape. It is perfectly true that we have a series of coal seams in the Cape known as the Stormberg series. There are two fields in Grey and Molteno. We know a good deal about these two fields which have been worked at different times, but that work and all prospecting has shown that they produce only coal of very low calorific value and the mining is expensive, having regard to the narrowness of the seam and its mixture with foreign bodies. The efforts to exploit this commercially have failed and have been shut down for the present time. It is possible that at some time or other one may find enough in some quarter to do a little steam-raising, and I am going into that matter because I gave instructions some time ago for further enquiry in that direction, but our knowledge at the present time is that it is not a commercial proposition. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) complains that I have not announced the policy of the Government towards the mining industry. Well, I am not here making a speech of my own selection, I have been trying to answer the points which have been raised. If the hon. member wishes me to indicate what I am thinking of doing, the answer is that as far as gold mining is concerned our policy is to develop it to the utmost extent, to extract the maximum amount that we can whilst yielding a profit. In base metals, too, the policy is not merely to encourage private enterprise in prospecting, but to send out field parties and to do prospecting ourselves. Although there is power under certain circumstances to establish a State mine it is not my intention to use that power except in the case of diamonds. I believe that mining particularly is the field for private enterprise. The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Friedman) returned to his attack. I think in the language he has attributed to me he has inadvertently exaggerated a little. I think he has emphasised the line of demarcation which I drew between gold mining and secondary industries by language which I cannot quite accept. I am entirely in favour of such secondary industries being developed as can be justified, and we should make every effort to develop them, but there are limits, and the limits are defined by profitability. I drew the attention in Another Place to the crisis which the gold mining industry was at present faced with, and said that the people of South Africa would have to make up their minds as to whether they wanted it to go on or not. I repeat that, that is correct, that is the position. I further said that it was a remarkable fact, and I hope the hon. member for Hillbrow will follow the inward meaning of this. I said it was a remarkable fact that the secondary industries which depended for their life on gold mining were, in this extravagant expansion of their activities, sapping the foundation on which they themselves rest. Well, the hon. member has painted the picture of secondary industries within a reasonable time supplanting altogether the gold mining industry. I cannot see it myself; it seems to me that that is based on the fallacy that secondary industries, as they have been organised in South Africa, and as far as we can see are likely to be organised, can be profitably carried on independently of the gold mining industry. The gold mining industry, in my opinion, or rather the mining industry as a whole, because gold is simply the more important of the different mining branches, supplies the foundation as well as the means by which our secondary industries are maintained. I certainly never suggested that no labour should be used in secondary industries. I am entirely with the hon. member, of course, in keeping a decent wage level. I have always done, and will do all that I can to maintain it and to improve it where it does not exist, but I must not be understood thereby as saying that that is to be done without regard to the other factors. If, for instance, costs were to be driven up to such an extent that the means of livelihood disappeared, or that the whole employment field was destroyed, which is the reductio ad absurdum. We have got to go in this matter by reason, by calculation and by providence. I am very glad that the hon. member thinks that we have enough high grade gold for three generations, and I shall be very glad to get further details on this. I would like to point out to the hon. member that the report on which he relies so much actually stresses the point that every step must be taken to prolong the life of the gold mines. That occurs in the report itself, and the hon. member seems, in his devotion to the author of this report, to have excluded one of the most important recommendations. I refer especially to Section 153. The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) went back to the question of alluvial diggers. I am deeply concerned with their plight and their fate, but may I point out this, that it is not the province of the Department of Mines or of the Government to find diamondiferous ground; that is not our job. The owners of ground have got to find out what that ground contains, and they have power under the Act to prospect. I have not got the power of prospecting, nor has the Government or the Department; that is the job of the owner and the privilege of the owner of the land. If he likes he can throw it open to others, but if he does not like people walking over his land and digging holes, he can say he will not have it. Does the hon. member wish to completely revolutionise the position of an owner of land? Does he wish me to introduce legislation saying that the owner of land shall no longer be able to keep people off his land? Is it in that direction he wants me to go? If so, I think he will find very few, even of his own constituents, outside the alluvial diggers that will follow him in that path. I am sure that if I introduce legislation of that kind I should not find a seconder. I think I have gone as far, and used what influence a Minister may, with De Beers Company in asking them to prospect some of their land with a view to throwing it open. I have done that and they have agreed to certain of their farms, and in that I think I have gone as far, or further, than any Minister has gone.

What about the 10 per cent.?

Just let me follow that up. The hon. member proposes to relieve the plight of the diggers by means of the 10 per cent. export tax imposed on diamonds exported by them, and divide that tax up amongst them. If that were done it would only be right and proper that the man who got the most stones would get most of the tax back, and the man who got no stones would get none of the tax at all. But the people who get no stones are just the people who need to be assisted and for whom the hon. member is appealing, so that the scheme which he puts forward would not reach the people who are most in need of it, but would simply go to those who have found diamonds and do not need assistance so much. No, I am afraid that happy thought cannot be translated into reasonable and effective action. The 10 per cent tax upon export is a very useful provision indeed for establishing our diamond cutting industry in the Union, and that, Sir, I hope the hon. member for Hillbrow and others will accept as at any rate some evidence that I am not wholly oblivious to the advantages of secondary industries. I have used my influence with some effect to increase very considerably that particular form of secondary industry. The hon. member for Lichtenburg also says that we have a quota of 15 per cent. which he says is quite inadequate. I do not know whether the hon. member has read the Diamond Producers agreement which I put on the Table.

I have it here.

I am hoping that it has been read as well, and if so the hon. member will see that the quota is a quota on the sales all the world over, all the sales undertaken by the trading company, and 15 per cent. on the figure which the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) gave us just now, £20,000,000 last year, is not a bad figure at all. I fancy the hon. member was thinking of the very much larger figure of 47 per cent. which goes to De Beers. Well, but does he compare the desirability of keeping the alluvial diggings at Alexander Bay with the desirability of keeping Kimberley, with all its population dependent on the mines there, in a healthy, economically sound position? I don’t think so. The large quota is given to De Beers in order that the company may be able to work at a profit, one, two, or if you like, three mines, as the case may be. It was given for that purpose in order that they may work these mines for the benefit of Kimberley. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) asked about the Premier Mine. I took steps to cancel the existing Producers Agreement just over a year ago, and having cancelled that agreement, I started to negotiate a further agreement from which was eliminated, as members, the sleeping companies and the sleeping producers. The only members of the present Diamond Producers’ Association are live producing members, and the quota for gems is divided up amongst them. South African producers get 80 per cent. of the total trade in gems, and the Diamond Corporation only gets the remaining 20 per cent. to enable them to dispose of stones, gem stones, which they buy from outside sources.

Was the Government’s quota in any way increased as the result of the disappearance of the Premier Mine?

Yes, certainly. I am satisfied that we got a fair proportion.

What are the prospects of the Premier Mine reopening?

I am pleased to be able to tell the hon. member that I have got a positive undertaking that the Premier Mine will be equipped with a firstclass up-to-date plant for full production, and that equipment is to be undertaken immediately the war is over, and the Minister of Mines will determine the exact moment when the war ceases. I may also add in answer to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow), who raised the question of the Jagersfontein Mine, that I have been successful in getting a similar undertaking in regard to that. That mine will be re-equipped with first-class up-to-date plants immediately the war ends, and unless the market prevents it, it will be worked full steam ahead. I hope by that means to bring to an end this abeyance of these two very important diamond mines. The reason why Jagersfontein was closed down was this. It occurred in one of my predecessor’s periods. A commission was appointed and found that it was not payable and the Minsiter at the time was undoubtedly satisfied that that was the fact.

That was done by the Nationalist Party.

I don’t remember who the Minister was. The hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) wanted to know what steps we were taking to prevent miners’ phthisis. May I just give a little illustration of the alertness of the department, of the Medical Bureau and of the officials. It was found during the last year, and it came as an intense surprise to everyone that phthisis was created in drill sharpener’s shops on the surface. I was astonished, and so was everyone else. It was due to investigations which were constantly taking place and the alertness of our officials, and I particularly want to mention the Bureau, who, by their careful examination of people working in the drill sharpening shops, found that this was being produced there.’ I at once communicated with the mining companies, and they undertook without legislation, and in anticipation of the legislation which is coming, that any case of phthisis of that kind would voluntarily be treated by them and compensated on the same basis, as those who had statutory protection.

Will they have to get a red ticket from the Bureau before they can do drill sharpening now?

That is one of the questions which have to be determined before I can table the new Phthisis Bill. That in itself is a very pertinent question, and it is one which raises administratively quite a complex problem. It is a small problem comparatively but it is a problem which has to be solved before I can table my Bill.

Will you allow me to tell you that some of the drill sharpening is carried on underground and that is where they contract silicosis.

No, it is not as simple as that. My information is quite clear that the disease has been produced in drill sharpening shops on the surface. I went through these shops for the purpose of seeing the conditions under which it was done, and it is quite obvious. The dust is brought up in the hollow steel, it is shaken out, and the air is impregnated in considerable quantities, and with the pulsation of the air it gets into the lungs. A good deal of damage is also done by small particles of steel dust during the grinding operations. It is called sidero-silicosis. That is just an illustration of what we are doing. There is a committee studying this question and the study goes on continually and we are catching and analysing the dust of the different mines from day to day, and from week to week, and doing everything that can be done, as far as I am aware, to find out more about this and to prevent this fell disease. On the question of wages and housing which the hon. member dealt with at some length in his very interesting speech, I must say that these are two questions which do not come under the Mines Department and the hon. member will forgive me if I do not follow him in all his arguments on that point. The job of the Department which is the matter under consideration on this Vote, is concerned with the winning of the minerals. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) returned to the charge about coking coal. May I just correct him on one point? He told us that he calculated that 4,000,000 tons of coking coal per annum were going away in export or bunkers; I have had the figure verified; it is nothing like as much as that. The figure is under 2,000,000 tons—it is less than half the figure he gave.

Even that is bad enough.

Oh yes. I told the committee that I was very concerned about this matter, and that I should take steps to deal with it were it not that I was prevented from doing so by the exigencies of the war. It is all very well for hon. members to say: “Oh, don’t bring in the war.” But we have the war with us. I am afraid that many of my fellow citizens in South Africa are living and thinking as though there were no war, as though it were something very far and very remote which interests them in only a very imperfect manner.

For what purposes are the 2,000,000 tons of coking coal used?

They are used for prescribed shipping.

For ordinary fuel purposes?

Yes, for steam raising purposes. My hon. friend asked me why we could not with all our coal resources use the other coal instead of coking coal. The answer is this, that we are working at present every pit, every adit to its utmost limit, both in the Transvaal and in Natal, and although there are umpteen million tons of non-coking coal which are lying there, and could be used if we could get at them, they are not available because they have not been opened up. We are using what has been opened up and we are bound to use coking coal. If you had time to open and work fresh collieries …

You have had three years. The report is dated May, 1941.

Does the hon. member suppose that all we have to do is to place an order for machinery and the machinery will be delivered? The only way we can get coal cutting machinery and the rest of the machinery for developing a mine is by going to Great Britain or the United States, and although citizens of South Africa may be unconscious that there is a war on, the inhabitants of Great Britain and the United States are very much alive to it, and they make, it known in very plain terms that they are not going to allow either their time, material or energies to be wasted in producing stuff which is not necessarily for the war effort, and it is with the utmost difficulty that my hon. friend the Minister of Railways can get equipment for his railways.

But he can get whisky.

What a foolish remark.

That is first priority.

A few cases of wine or whisky put into the cabins or stowed away! To say that because that has happened we can get the necessary shipping for machinery is simply childish. The answer is that although we have this coal which is lying there, it is not available because it has not been opened up. I just want to say this before I leave the subject of coking coal. This wickedness of using coking coal for other than coking is not a wickedness of this particular Government. It has been going on for years.

It has never been brought to the notice of the Government so prominently.

It was brought sb prominently to their notice when I appointed a commission to go into it.

Where is that Commission?

It is called the Young Commission.

Are you not going to do anything while the war is on?

I cannot stop the extraction of coking coal, and it is used for war purposes until the war demand ends. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) was dissatisfied with the supply of diamondiferous ground and wanted to know what we are going to do if better days come. I think I answered that earlier this afternoon. It is not the job of the Department to find diamondiferous ground. I hope the owners will do so. The hon. member wanted me to use my power to proclaim fresh ground. The Government has no such powers. Privately owned land is at the disposal of the private owner and I cannot prevent the private owner from throwing it open or from prospecting if he doesn’t desire to do so. In regard to concession stores, I want to point out that the power of setting up a store rests with the owner of the land. In regard to trading rights—these rights also belong to the owner of the land under the Precious Stones Act. These rights are not at the disposal of the Government at all except under those conditions where it is shown that the trading facilities are inadequate for the population which is being served. There the Minister may cause a notice to be served on the owner to increase his facilities, and if he doesn’t do it the Minister can take steps to grant facilities to others. If my attention is drawn to such circumstances I shall use my powers. The hon. member also spoke about the education of children. That is a matter which falls under another department, and as a matter of fact when I was on the Fields, I didn’t get any complaints about the educational facilities— they were fair, although not as good as in a town. I can only say that all these matters make it clear that the life of a diamond digger on these alluvial fields is not altogether a happy one, and I hope fewer and fewer of these diggers will be content to remain there. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) wanted the stability of the labour force on the mines established. I do not know quite what he means by that, but I gather it is connected with the rates of wages for natives.

Their establishment on a family basis.

I do not think that will be welcomed by either the inhabitant of the towns or the inhabitants of the provinces, to have all the families of the mine natives brought from the reserves and established in family groups in the neighbourhood of the mines. I am afraid it would lead to a dreadful state of affairs. I could not hold out any hopes of a movement in that direction. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) raised a question in regard to pay. I have already said that the question of pay is not a matter for regulation by my department. The conditions of labour have to be negotiated between the employers and employees, with the Native Affairs Department adopting a benevolent fatherly attitude to look after those who perhaps are not fully equipped for maintaining their own rights. This system, of course, leads to conditions which should be improved from time to time. I am all in favour of a gradual improvement. I hope they will be progressively improved, but a radical change such as the transplanting of the population from the reserves to the towns would, I think, accentuate the evils. The hon. member told us a very interesting thing. He said that the condition in the reserves was not very satisfactory because their adult manhood was being drained away and drawn to the goldfields, and that the condition of the reserves suffered thereby. It struck me, as he said that, that if the wages and conditions of working on the goldfields are sufficiently attractive to attract the population away from the reserves to a large extent, you cannot at any rate complain of the conditions on the gold mines, and they must not be so bad and so unsatisfactory as has been painted.

That is what the commission said.

I am not talking about the commission, but about the statement made by the hon. member for Cape Western. That was my reply to him. May I point out that if you take requirements as a test of what wages are to be you can always keep adding to your list of requirements and run the amount up to any extent. But if you are going to look to the interests of the workers themselves you will see that the limit is not reached when the basis for his employment will be struck from under him. That limit is in danger. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) spoke about the Low Grade Ore Commission in reference to some remarks he had made to me, or that I had made. He was good enough to tell me on Saturday about this. I looked up the advance copy of Hansard, but I could find no reference to it. I remember saying something in regard to it. I fancy it must have been either as an interjection or as a reply to an interjection. But let me satisfy the hon. member by saying that I had not the slightest idea of reiterating the recommendations made by that report; but according to my recollection at the present time I was recommending the re-perusal of those points which had been mentioned in that Low Grade Ore Commission’s report, because therein is to be found information and facts, part of the history, all of priceless value at the present time. The hon. member stated that I had said nothing about post-war reconstruction. All the mining interests—and from the owner’s point of view I think I am in touch with the vast bulk of them—are prepared to launch out and develop and increase their speculative efforts.

Under what circumstances?

I think it is unfortunate to pick a word and make it representative of everything that is bad, and perhaps use that word with regard to undertakings which would be much better represented by enterprise and energy, which are qualities a good citizen should have. The enterprise and energy of these owners is ready, I am sure, to take advantage of the increase in supplies, of the labour available, and of modern inventions for the purpose of increasing the exploitation of our mineral resources. And there is, of course, the great field of the Free State which is a possibility. I want to say a word of warning about the Free State. It must not be taken that it is a proved certainty at the present time. I have given no gold mining lease in the Free State. The most I have given there, on the advice of the Mining Leases Board, is what is called a mining and prospecting lease under the Gold Law. This means that the proposition is still a prospecting one, although in that prospectiveness the rights of the person who is prospecting are to some extent defined.

You ought to tell us whether you are prepared to give these leases you are asked for.

They have a prospecting and mining lease. A mining lease is given on the advice of the Mining Leases Board, which is a statutory body. I have to get a report from them before issuing a mining lease.

Why did you not say so?

I am telling you that now.

You tried to make us believe you were not prepared to consider it.

The hon. member does not seem to appreciate the difference between a mining lease and a mining and prospecting lease. I would suggest that he go back to the Gold Law and read that. I have given them a prospecting and mining lease but no mining lease up to the present time. That I think covers all the points that were raised.

If there is one thing which has struck me during this debate, it is the duplicity of the Labour Party towards the mine workers. We have ample evidence that we have a Government which has no sympathy with the interests of the European mine workers. We have ample evidence that the Government is completely under the thumb of the mining magnates. John Martin himself could not look after the interests of the mines in this House better than this Government. Nevertheless the Labour Party supports the Government. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) made a fuss here but he can be no more than a ventriloquist in the hands of the Chamber of Mines. The hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers) made a virulent attack on the Minister of Mines. We must not forget that it is his Minister, and the policy which is followed is not the Minister’s policy but the policy of the Government, and the hon. member is responsible for that, because he supports the Government.

Now you are making propaganda again.

We hear a great deal about the short term of life of the mines. I am not one of those people who attach great importance to that cry. In my opinion it is to a large extent the fruit of effective propaganda on the part of the Chamber of Mines. We have sufficient riches left in this country. We must not forget that the propaganda service of the Chamber of Mines has £30,000,000 at its disposal, and with that sum one can make effective propaganda. Just look at the benefits which the mines got only recently, and the benefits which they have had all these years. Roughly estimated, an amount of £193,000,000 has been invested in the mines and in round figures that sum has yielded an amount of £2,222,000,000 up to the present; nearly eleven times the amount invested in it, and the dividends which have been paid up to the present far exceed the sum of £400,000,000. From 1936 to 1943 an amount of £150,000,000 was paid out in the form of dividends, of which £80,000,000 went overseas. Then we come to the mine workers. The report of the Stratford Commission states that a sum of £1,130,000 has been paid to miners’ phthisis sufferers in the past year, and that in the past twelve years the amount has only increased by approximately £300,000 per annum. When we look at the expansion of the mines and the enormous profits they made, it should have been £3,000,000 rather than £300,000. But the mines enjoyed further benefits. The Stratford Commission says in its report that the working costs fell from 6.36d. per ton to 4.189d. per ton of milled ore; the costs per shift have fallen from 6s. 11d. to 2s. 3d., or almost 5s. These are all benefits which the mines received and nevertheless one hears the cry that the mines have to be assisted; and they are given a subsidy of £1,800,000 in connection with their labourers. Why is that labour not rather given to the farmers who cannot even get back their interest on the capital they invested? The policy which is being followed here is an unfair policy. If the Government wants to approach the matter from the point of view of the nation, more should be done for the mine-workers and especially for those who have to pay with their health for the services they render to the country. The De Villiers report and the Stratford report contained recommendations, and the various mining associations also made recommendations. There is a basis which can be worked on; there is ample data. The Government has not got the slightest excuse for not acting in the matter, if it really has the interests of the mine-workers at heart. It has the necessary data to go on, and to give better remuneration to the mine-workers. It is time this matter is approached in the light which this side of the House, the Nationalist Party, approaches it, namely, in the light of the general national interest. The time has arrived when the Government should have greater control, not only in the policy of the mines, but also in the administration of the mines. The time is overdue for the Government to get greater direct control. When we look at the whole position of the mines today, it is clear that the State should have a greater say in the policy of the mines and in connection with the mineral riches of our country.

A certain number of people in the Northern Transvaal are interested in corundum. As the Minister has announced, this is an industry that has developed very considerably since the outbreak of war. A considerable number of people are stuck in the wilds in the Northern Transvaal, and we find these people are living under appalling conditions and I think very little is being done for that class of mine. I warn the Minister that these people are now allowing their children to grow up in circumstances which are no credit to the white men of this country, and I appeal to the Minister to do everything in his power to assist these people. The great majority of corundum bearing localities are on Government ground. You will find that a good many of the farms that have been acquired by the Government just lately from companies have mineral rights which have been reserved for the companies, and I think it is most unfair that the Government should acquire land where the Government has not the full rights, and where the mineral rights are locked up. Something more should be done for these people. Americans come into this country and they offer to render all the assistance to these corundum people, and it is most unfair that our Government is not treating these people in the same way. While all the assistance necessary is offered by the American Government these people can get no assistance from our Government. It has been said here today that diamonds are being used in the making of munitions for war purposes. That same remark applies to corundum. The House will be surprised to hear that in the last report on minerals it is stated that these people who work with corundum mines, brought into this country no less than £40,000 in 1940, and during the last two years that amount has nearly trebled. I hope the Minister will see that this industry is put on a basis which will not only last for the duration of the war but for many a year afterwards. I hope the Minister realises that these people are living in a malarial area; they are living in shacks and something should be done to see that they have proper houses. If a man gets malaria he is brought in at Government expense and it costs the Government £50 to bring in one patient. It is in the national interest that that sort of thing should be stopped. Some mines have a turnover of from five to six thousand pounds a month, and they haven’t even got a telephone. A mine like the New Union has its nearest telephone 25 miles away. That is not a thing which should be allowed to continue. These men of whom I speak are living in conditions which are detrimental to themselves and their families and something should be done to see that they are housed under better conditions. I speak for both natives and white people.

I think the Minister owes a statement to the House and to the country as to why they do not allow the gold mines in the Free State to be developed. Boring operations to discover gold have been carried out for more than ten years, and it has been definitely established that there are rich gold reefs. The company, Western Holdings, obtained a mining servitude more than three years ago, and the company was obliged in terms of the law to commence work within six months. But it was granted an extension of time, and we should like to know therefore what the policy of the Government is. Will that company be given an indefinite period, or will it be compelled to commence work in terms Of the law? We should like to know what the policy of the Minister and the Government is; whether they are going to compel the company to open the mines as soon as possible. The opening of the Free State gold fields is a matter of national importance, because the whole of South Africa will benefit in consequence. The position is that since gold is fetching such high prices today, the whole country as well as the Government would benefit if that gold could be mined and sold. It would mean that the burden of taxation on the poor people could perhaps be reduced if such great sources of revenue were created. There are thousands of people awaiting employment, and they would be able to make a good living on these gold fields. I am thinking more particularly of the Free State Provincial Administration, which has always been handicapped by financial difficulties and which has to be subsidised continually by the Union Government. If the gold mines are opened and those mines are compelled to work, the Free State Provincial Administration would have a great source of income, and the Provoince would no longer have to be dependent on a Government subsidy. The Minister may argue that they have not got the machinery, but can the Minister deny that machinery has already been dismantled in the Transvaal in mines of a low grade ore, and that that machinery has already been transported or is being transported to these gold fields? If that is so, why does the Government want to delay the mining of these gold fields? I think the House and the country are entitled to a clear statement from the Minister of Mines in connection with this matter.

I want to speak about this 10 per cent. tax on the export of diamonds. The alluvial diggers don’t want you to discontinue this tax, they are a very sensible lot of people, they don’t want you to do that. I have never heard anybody amongst the diggers contesting that that tax must be collected, but what they do say is this, that having paid in nearly £2,000,000 already ….

It is £5,000,000.

I am talking about the alluvial diggers. The Nationalist Party imposed that tax and the Nationalist Party also promised that it was only to be a temporary tax. It does not seem to be temporary. What the diggers ask is this, that some of that money should be kept back to settle some of the diggers who cannot work and get a living on the diggings in some other occupation. Also there are some poor old diggers who have been there all their lives and are now living on a little pension. These men say give these poor old diggers a little bigger pension. I think that is a reasonable request and I would urge the Minister to consider that. Now with regard to Namaqualand diamonds the diggers say that those are alluvial diggings and they have been robbed of their birthright by the Government. The party responsible for that was the old Nationalist Party. These diggers tell me they have been robbed of their legal rights in connection with the Namaqualand diggings, but they are also very reasonable. They say that since they have been robbed they cannot go back into the past, but some of the proceeds of some of the diamonds recovered there should be utilised to move some of the people off these diggings and settle them, either on the land or in some other occupation. I think these are reasonable requests and should be considered by the Minister.

Where I differ from the Minister of Mines is in reference to low grade mines. We find today that the Government are subsidising the mines. Why? Because low grade mines are conducting operations at a loss. I cannot understand how the Minister can allow mines to work at a loss, resulting in the State having to subsidise them. Just imagine! Our fit young men have to go down 5,000 feet underground to extract gold though it is not a payable proposition. There I agree with the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Friedman) in having condemned the Government in allowing low grade mines to be worked in, that manner. We find that the Government are paying the mines a subsidy to the extent of £1,800,000 with the object mainly in view of assisting the low grade mines to continue working. If the Government does not want to close down those mines the subsidy should, at any rate, be restricted to that class of mine. That principle has been applied to farming operations, and in the mealie industry the policy has been applied that the man who is farming on a small scale should receive a higher rate of subsidy than the big farmer. Let the Government apply that policy to the mines as well. Why should the very rich mine receive a subsidy? If the principle I refer to can be made applicable to farming operations, why cannot it be applied to the mining industry? The price of gold today has reached an abnormally high level, and, notwithstanding that, the mines I have referred to are not paying their way. Why not rather employ the labour force engaged in those mines for the development of new mines? The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. H. S. Erasmus) has just related to us how machinery is being broken up in the nonpaying mines of the Rand. Let us use those labour forces for the exploitation of new mining propositions. Every day we hear that there is a big shortage of labour on the mines. Even the best paying mines are working with an inadequate labour supply. The labour now employed on those low grade mines should be taken away and the labourers distributed amongst the better paying mines, which are an asset to the State, and in that way the men will not be sacrificing their health unnecessarily by working on non-paying propositions. This matter of operations on the low grade mines is, in my opinion, one that should be taken into very serious consideration by the Minister of Mines, and I sincerely hope and trust that he will do so.

The Minister replied at great length to a number of points raised on this Vote. I want to draw his attention, however, to one or two matters which he appears to have overlooked. First of all there is this question of occupational diseases on the mines, some of which have not been brought under that category. I want to emphasise that many men are working under conditions of such a nature that they require the Minister’s serious consideration, and I hope that when the new Phthisis Bill sees the light of day, these matters will not be forgotten. We all know what the mines have done for the country, and we are grateful to them; we know that the mines have carried the country on their shoulders, and today we feel that it is our duty to look after the interests of the people who are rendering great services to the mining industry in particular and to the country in general. I am referring to the men who are working underground and are giving of their best. Then there is another class of people, those who have retired from the mines and are getting a pension from the Phthisis Bureau. The cost of living allowance they receive is a very meagre one, and I want to appeal to the Minister to use his influence so that something may be done to improve the lot of these people. Our duty, it is the duty of the Minister to use his influence with the Gold Producers’ Committee and the Chamber of Mines so that something is done for these people and they are given something extra by way of allowance to meet their needs. Now there is another point which has been raised about which we feel very perturbed. We understand that the Minister has met certain unregistered mine workers’ organisations—instead of the registered and representative Mine Workers’ Union. We want to ask the Minister only to meet representatives of the Mine Workers’ Union. The others are only makeshifts and political organisations.

There is a tendency in this debate to detract the Minister’s attention from the point we want him to deal with. We want the Minister to concentrate on mining policy. We were taken to task by an hon. member for trying to concentrate the Minister’s attention on the question of the future policy of the mining companies, and on the question of miners’ phthisis legislation and post-war employment. In his reply the Minister usually spends more time on questions affecting the diggers and such like, questions which are not as important as these other questions which we have been trying to raise. We on these benches, like many members of the United Party, try to concentrate on these issues. But not so the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel). He doesn’t want the country to realise what is going on and it is striking that he and many of his friends are advocating the very policy which the Chamber of Mines has always stood for. The hon. member called me a ventriloquist—if ever there was a ventriloquist it is the hon. member for Wonderboom. Strange to say, that hon. member and his friends tried to balk us in our attempt to get from the Minister what is the future mining policy in regard to employment. And, because we on this side of the House insist on getting that information, the hon. member for Wonderboom tells the Minister to take no notice of us. I wonder if the hon. member is interested in a few shares and wants the Chamber of Mines to be well disposed towards him and see that his shares do not go down. I once more want to ask the Minister what the post-war reconstruction policy of the Chamber of Mines is going to be. Has he ever conferred with the Chamber on that subject? If not, let the Minister say so. This Government is concerned with the question of employment after the war, and that is why this House is entitled to call on the mining industry— which has asked for Government protection and assistance—and say to the industry: “What are you going to do after the war for the employment of our men who have returned from the front?” We cannot get the Minister to give us any reply, and he is now backed up by the hon. member for Wonderboom who wants to camouflage the whole business. And then if the Minister is concerned about winning the war, we want to know why he is flirting with the Reform Organisation? The Mine Workers’ Union is an officially recognised organisation which the Reform Organisation is not. We hope the Minister will not confer with a quisling organisation. Seeing that the Government has laid down the principle of recognising trade unions, it should only deal with recognised organisations, and the Minister should not flirt with other organisations which do not represent the men, and which are opposed to the very issue which the Minister is so concerned about, namely, winning the war. I hope the Minister will make his statement on a question of post-war reconstruction. The mining industry must help the country. The Chamber of Mines should indicate what they are prepared to do and whether they are prepared to employ additional numbers of men. Unless they give us that assurance then I am correct in saying, as I have said before, that they have already drawn the dagger and are waiting for the right moment to stab the Government in the back, for the gratification of members on the Opposition benches and particularly the hon. member for Wonderboom. When we are concerned about the employment of our men, he calls us ventriloquists. I say that the hon. member himself falls within that category—he is playing the game of the Chamber of Mines now. I know that the Nationalist Party in the past has recognised us on the Labour benches as representing the working men. Apparently the hon. member for Wonderboom doesn’t know that. He seems to be a stranger in the land. The best thing he can do is to get into touch with the real workers and find out whom they regard as their representatives, and he will come back, here knowing that it is we here on these benches who look after their interests and that he is the ventriloquist.

I wish to reply at once to the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg). He said that I had dodged making a declaration in regard to the mining policy. I don’t understand how he can say that. I have declared in the most categorical terms that all these directors of mining interests with whom I am acquainted are prepared to go full steam ahead to develop any favourable proposition ….

That is only a general phrase.

Of course they will employ the full quota which is necessary for the proper profitable development of these propositions.

What propositions?

West Rand propositions.

They are as much interested in West Rand propositions as in other propositions and they are interested in anything which will give any chance of profitable exploitation, and the intention is to develop these producing mines as fast as possible if the gold is there. The same with the Free State. We have had a number of boreholes put down and some are very promising.

Tell us about the number of men they will employ after the war.

I can only tell the hon. member that the full complement which the profitable conduct of that enterprise requires will be there. There is no question of men who have gone to the front not getting jobs—unless of course some of the mines did close down, but I am confident that even in that case any returned soldier would be taken into employment on another mine. I don’t understand this question. What is it? That is the policy of the industry and in that respect the Government look upon it with a benevolent eye. Now with regard to employment there are the Government Mining Training Schools in existence. True, they are very much understaffed at present. I want to get more I shall be only too pleased to get young men who are capable and willing to take up mining to go there and get instruction. I have appointed a committee to go into the whole question of deep mining and to enquire into the technical difficulties which exist. Sir Robert Kotze is the chairman of that committee. Unfortunately he is ill at the present time, but I hope before many months are over to get a report from that committee, and that will assist in forming an opinion by those who may be prepared to go in for this enterprise. Whether they will go into it or not and whether they will be able to overcome the technical difficulties or not, cannot be stated at present. The mining policy of those who represent the employers are actuated by those intentions and those motives as far as I am aware. The Government approves of that.

The other day I put a couple of questions to the Minister in connection with miners’ phthisis sufferers, and I should like now to refer to the report of the Lansdowne Commission. In this report a number of matters are discussed that I believe are of so great importance that we should have a clear explanation from the Minister on those points that give rise to anxiety. In the first place, reference is made in paragraph 6 of the report to the manner in which the enquiry took place. The Government appointed a commission to investigate important matters, especially in regard to the wages of natives and the question of whether the wages were satisfactory or not, and then the commission, according to its finding, was to make recommendations for the amelioration of the position. In connection with its instructions the commission allowed the President of the Chamber of Mines to be present at all its meetings on the Rand. Here you have a commission that had to institute an investigation into the conditions pertaining to the mineworkers in the mines, and they allowed the president and his alternate to attend the meetings in connection with the investigation by the commission. Does the Minister imagine that in such circumstances the commission really could institute an impartial enquiry on the lines that ought to be carried out, and that these gentlemen could adopt a disinterested attitude when the president and his deputy were present at all their meetings. But not only was the president of the Chamber of Mines, or his deputy allowed to attend the proceedings of the commission, but he was even granted permission to put questions to the witnesses who appeared before the commission. Here you have people who have no status who merely represent the interests of the mines, being given permission to put questions to witnesses at an important enquiry and what is more, they were even allowed to put leading questions, that is to say they were allowed to put questions with reference to points which apparently were not brought to the attention of the commission by any witness. I want to raise my voice against this procedure. I had the privilege over the course of several years of being a member of various commissions which were instructed to conduct an impartial investigation. I cannot imagine that any commission would be able to give effect to its instructions to give an impartial finding when interested parties are permitted to sit at the enquiry, virtually as members of the commission, to put questions, and even to put leading questions. The thing was carried so far that later on the commission was warned that the procedure might possibly lead to the victimisation of witnesses. The commission according to their contention, felt that this argument was well founded, and then they made the very weak explanation in paragraph 10 that they felt there possibly could be victimisation, but they had found that in reality there was no victimisation at all. Now I want to put to the Minister this serious question whether he took any steps to determine that there had actually been no victimisation, and I want to ask him whether he continued to bestow attention on the matter, because the report was only published this year. Is the Minister convinced that no victimisation has taken place up to the present? It is his duty to determine that such a procedure shall be followed by the commission as will not lead to victimisation, victimisation against witnesses who regard it as their duty to appear or who have been called to give evidence. The second point that I want to bring to the notice of the Minister is with reference to the attitude that the Government has taken up regarding the wage policy on the mines. The President of the Chamber of Mines made no secret of the fact that they wanted to pay the lowest possible wages to natives on the mines, so low that they saw no opportunity of taking any native into their service who was even slightly educated. It frequently transpired in evidence that no detribalised native may be taken into service except possibly in a clerical capacity, because the wages would not be attractive enough for detribalised natives, and because if the industry acted otherwise the whole structure of native labour on the mines would be influenced. With reference to this very serious attitude that was taken up by the industry, an industry which is the most privileged in the country, the best protected in so far as concerns the price of its product, with reference to the fact that this industry does not contribute to the uplift of a section of the population, which is at least entitled to uplift, I want to ask the Minister to explain what the standpoint of the Government is in this connection. Then the commission goes further, and in paragraph 67 it expresses the view that that line of conduct of the mines is really sound—

The Commission felt it necessary to emphasise this, and then it says in its report, in paragraph 72—

The Commission was directed to institute an enquiry into wage conditions on the mines. It proclaims to the world that the policy of the mines is to pay the lowest possible wages, so that no educated native can be taken into service, and here the Commission comes and in the name of the State itself declares that this policy of the payment of the lowest possible wage is a sound policy. With that in mind I think I am entitled to ask the Minister whether that is his policy. Is that the policy that the Government takes up? it seems as if the Commission themselves at first experienced some qualms of conscience, for in the following paragraph 74, after they had stated that the policy was sound, they discussed the question whether this policy is really fair and just and whether the Government ought to permit it. It is a very serious question. First the commission state that the policy is really sound; subsequently they put the question whether it was also just. I do not know really what is the difference between a sound policy and a just policy. Perhaps the Minister can tell us. The commission finds that it is a sound policy, but apparently at the moment they have some doubt as to whether it is a just policy. In reference to these statements I should like to know what the Government policy is. The commission goes further, and from the report it appears that the Chamber of Mines went so far as to arrive at a mutual agreement so that if one of their mines pay more to natives than the average maximum wage, it will be subject to a fine. If one mine dared to pay a slightly higher wage than the average maximum then it is fined, and to my amazement I discovered that the maximum average was 2s. to 2s. 3d. per shift, and any mine that ventured to pay slightly more was liable to a penalty. The third question that I want to put to the Miniser is also of great importance, and that is the question. Whether the mines can adopt the attitude that they alone are entitled to pay wages that are in a way supplementary to the income that the natives derive from the reserves, and that the supplementary wage need be no higher than to preserve the workers from starvation. That is the policy according to the finding of the Commission—that the mines are not obliged to pay anything more to the natives than what is virtually a complement to their income in the reserves. If the two combined merely enable the poor worker and his family to subsist, the wage is considered adequate. Is this the attitude, that the mine wages are only supplementary to the earnings they derive from the reserves? [Time limit.]

I hope that the hon. Minister will answer the very pertinent questions that have just been put by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). It is particularly important that there should be a statement of policy as to whether the Mine Wages Commission are correct when they say the policy of cheap native labour for the gold mines is in accordance with Government policy. Though the Minister of Native Affairs has most strongly denied that that is the case, we have had it, as the hon. member for Ceres pointed out, from the Mine Wages Commission that that is the case, and it will be interesting to hear from the Minister responsible who speaks in the House for the policy of the Chamber of Mines.

I am not responsible for the Chamber of Mines.

Yes, as far as the Government is concerned.

No.

The hon. Minister is the Minister who deals with the mining industry.

I am not responsible for someone else’s policy.

The hon. Minister deals with the mining industry, and presumably he is in the position if this policy conflicts with the policy of the Government, to bring that to the notice of the mining industry. That is the point that the hon. member for Ceres made. And the commission stated that the policy of the mining industry and the policy of the State are the same in this respect. I sincerely hope that is not the case. I did not say that the Minister is responsible for the policy of the Chamber of Mines; obviously there would be no point in my putting this question to him if he were. The point is whether the policy of the Chamber of Mines is also the policy of the State, and the Mine Wages Commission says it is. I am surprised at the Minister stating that he and his department are not directly concerned with the question of wages paid to unskilled labour on the mines. He drew a distinction between wages paid and the winning of the gold. I would have thought it would have been impossible to win gold unless there was labour available, and the question of the amount of labour available is very intimately connected with the amount of remuneration that is offered; and as a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, it was the Minister who raised this whole question in Another Place as to the alleged shortage of native labour on the gold mines. The Government is in a position, as a matter of policy, to make it possible for the gold mines to pay a wage which would enable them to attract an adequate supply of labour. As I pointed out in an earlier stage of this debate, the State takes from the gold mining industry £28,000,000 a year, which is distributed amongst the general population of this country in the form of administrative services, social services and so forth. That is nearly double what is received by the shareholders of the mines in dividends, and it is obvious that the State is the largest beneficiary of the mines at the present time, and therefore it is obviously in a position of very considerable influence in relation to the labour policy of the mines. Moreover, presumably the Minister is concerned, as the Government collectively is concerned, with the repercussions of the Chamber of Mines’ labour policy upon the economy of the country as a whole, and it was in that connection that the hon. member for Ceres put it to the Minister that that policy, which the State was concerned with, is inconsistent with the recommendations of the Van Eck commission as to the necessities for the industrialisation of South Africa. I know, as the Minister stated in his reply to the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Friedman), that the Van Eck Commission—as is obviously the case—thought it was in the national interest that the gold mining industry should last as long as possible. I do not think that anybody in the country needed a Government commission to tell him that. But that must be read in the context of the report as a whole. The report laid down what the basic necessities were for building up industries. It referred not only to secondary industries but also to new primary industries. It stated that South Africa is one of the few countries in the world that has the necessary material basis for heavy industries, adequate supplies of coal and iron. Whether the commission is right on that I am not in a position to say, but that is what the commission reported, and it stated further that for that to be done native labour would have to be integrated into industry, and a sufficiently high wage would have to be paid to enable the local market to be developed as a basis for these new industries. What the Van Eck Commission report states in relation to prolonging the life of the gold mines must be taken, surely, as subject to that, and our contention is that the gold mining industry at the present time sets the general standard of unskilled wages in this country, except that within slight limits they can be raised by the operations of the Wage Board and Industrial Councils. So long as the mining industry, chiefly the gold mines, pursues its policy of not paying a living wage to its unskilled labour, the general spending capacity of the mass of workers in this country will be kept low, and that—we have it from the Van Eck Commission—is inconsistent with large scale industrial development in this country. The mining industry does not even pretend to pay a living wage. By a living wage I mean a wage on which a man can support his family. It definitely says it does not intend to do so. It pays a wage on the assumption that the worker has land in some reserve. That assumption we know is false in a large number of cases. I do not know of another industry in the whole world that bases its remuneration to its workers on the assumption that they also work somewhere else or that they have property somewhere else. I do not know of any other industry in any country that would subscribe tp so outrageous a proposition. The workers in thé industry would not accept it, and public opinion would not accept it. What I do want to submit to the Minister is that the only long term solution of the problem he posed in another place as to the conflict between industrial development on the one hand and further mining develop ment on the other, is for the mining industry to accommodate itself to, and to face the necessity of, paying a living wage, a family wage. On that basis it could obviously compete for labour with the other industries, and a proper balance could be struck between industry and mining development, and also it would make possible what the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) mentioned earlier in the debate, the building up for the purpose of the mines of a stabilised native labour force. The ordinary primary industries, such as the mining industry, in other countries in the world rely on stabilised labour, and the economy of labour. [Time limit.]

I think we can report progress as far as the coking coal position is concerned. We have the Minister’s admission that 2,000,000 tons of coking coal is exported …

Less than 2,000,000.

I take it that by less the Minister means very nearly 2,000,000.

Not very nearly, but still, leave it there.

We know that the pre-war export was one and a quarter millions, so I take it “less” means close on 2,000,000. We have that admission. We also have the admission that this close on 2,000,000 tons of coal are being exported for ordinary steam raising purposes; in other words, not for the purpose of producing coke; and we have the third admission, that the Government has done nothing in connection with the recommendation of the Van Eck Commission in regard to the conservation of those resources of coking coal, nothing whatsoever. I have asked the Minister twice, and I take it, Mr. Chairman, that the fact that the Minister has not given any reply amounts to the fact that nothing at all has been done I want to put a further question to the Minister; perhaps we shall get a further admission. How much of the coking coal has been used internally for purposes other than coke production, and how much of the production from Natal, half of which is suitable for coking coal, has been used? The ordinary peace time production of Natal is five or six million tons, and if you add that to the amount exported you will see that the reserves of 100,000,000 tons cannot last very long at this rate of depletion. The Minister comes along ánd savs we have other coal useful for steam raising purposes, but we have not the machinery. I would ask the Government what steps they have taken to get the necessary machinery.

None at all.

We know the Government were very successful in getting machinery for gold mining purposes from America.

I don’t know that.

I am surprised. That was all the trouble in America; they said: While we are shutting down our own gold production you want us to export machinery for the production of gold in South Africa.

I do not know of mining machinery having come forward.

They know more about it than you do.

That was the criticism in America ….

They said they did not want to send it.

Their criticism was they were closing down their mines.

They did not send the machinery out.

Let the Minister tell me whether the Government has made any effort to get coal mining machinery from overseas.

They got plenty of whisky.

Yes, and priority for it. But for this machinery that is required there is no priority at all. Let me go further: Has the Government made any effort to use machinery designed for mining coking coal and transferring that to other coal? Is there any reason why they cannot use the same machinery and use it for other purposes? Can the Minister tell me whether they have attempted to carry out the recommendations of the Van Eck Commission.

What about Iscor?

Yes, they use a certain amount of the coal, but we want to ensure that those supplies will not have run out by the time the war is over.

Your case is finished; it broke down when you made a statement you could not prove.

I can share the disappointment of the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Friedman) and other members at their incapacity to extract any statement of mining policy from the Minister. I am afraid that they have only just discovered that. I found it out some time ago. I attempted last year, very unsuccessfully to extract from the Minister some announcement of general mining policy, and particularly policy in regard to base minerals, but I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that it is more easy to extract gold from its ore than to get policy from, this Minister. I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, we shall have to apply some kind of cyanide process in order to extract this from him. Of course the Minister must not misunderstand me. I am referring to political cyanide. I am not suggesting any other form of cyanide for extracting policy from him. I tried to get this policy in regard to base minerals from the Minister last year. I am trying to get it this year in regard to coking coal, but all these efforts have proved unsuccessful because the Minister is a past master in the art of evasion. I know it is stated that speech has been given to man to conceal thought. It has also been unkindly suggested that some people use it instead of thought; but I think I will give the more charitable explanation. I want to say this to the Minister, that he has reduced speech as a process of concealing thought to a very fine art indeed. We hear him talk here and talk very eloquently, but at the end you ask yourself what the Minister has said.

He is very glib.

Yes, he talks glibly, very eloquently, but the net effect at the end is that you have extracted no information whatsoever. You do not know what his policy is. The hon. member for Hillbrow is inconsistent. He has referred to the Van Eck Report as his authority in support of his view that high grade mines should be developed, but the Minister very rightly put it to him: what authority had he for saying that this high grade ore would last for three generations? I think it could not have been the Van Eck Report which the hon. member took as his authority because that report, based on estimates of the Government mining engineer, says that the gold mining industry in 25 years will have shrunk to one-seventh of its present size. The rate of decline being greatest between 1950 and 1955. That statement is made in paragraph 151. The report goes on to say—

[Inaudible.]

I quite appreciate that the hon. member who has just interrupted has some affinity with Jagersfontein; both the hon. member and the Jagersfontein Mine are now derelict, and in that respect they certainly show a common affinity. In other respects there is a very great difference, because no amount of Government assistance will ever be able to restore the hon. member for Hospital to his pristine mediocrity.

The hon. Minister in his reply said that he could not understand the question that was being asked from these benches. Listening to his further remarks I am beginning to agree with him that he does not understand what we are trying to do. Let me try once more. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) asked him categorically what is the mining policy towards reconstruction, and the hon. Minister quite blandly said that so far as his knowledge of the mining leaders went the post-war reconstruction policy will be to invest their money wherever there is reasonable possibility of profits being shown. Well, I don’t want the Minister of Mines to tell me that, I know that has been the mining policy ever since we had mines. Of course money will be invested by speculators wherever profits can be made, but that is not a mining policy. I tried to show the Minister earlier on this afternoon that we have got several divergent points of view which have already arisen in this country. We have several economic problems facing us. You have the demands from native representatives in this House and from a great many other people in this country for a particular rise in wages for the natives on the mines. You have a long delayed demand from the European mine workers of the Rand for an increase of 30 per cent.; you have the policy now being agreed to—I have to repeat it because the Minister apparently did not follow the point—you have the policy adopted by the industrialists who ask for a rise in non-European wages in order to provide a market for their goods. Then you have the attitude of the Chamber of Mines who say that native wages must be kept down to the lowest possible level in order that they can work the lowest possible grade of ore. What we want to know is, how is the Minister going to reconcile all these things? Is he just going to allow a strike to occur in the mines in order to get these miners their 30 per cent.; is he going on the other hand to take the part of the Chamber of Mines in order to keep the natives perpetually on their present wage level? Is he going to allow the industrialists and the mining people to fight it out or has he any kind of policy? It is the duty of the Minister of Mines to guide this House, to tell us what the policy of the Government is and let us examine it. But the Minister dismisses it by a wave of the hand, and says he is going to leave it to the man who is prepared to invest his money, and one of the worst features of these investments is that many of them are not made in order to provide a reasonable profit but in many, many cases money is invested in mining ventures purely from a speculative point of view. I believe the mining industry has suffered more in this country from the speculator than from anything else. There are shares still being bought and sold which should not be on the Exchange at all; they are completely worthless, yet people are from day to day losing and making money out of them. However, that is a side-track. Some kind of reconciliation will have to be made in this country between these conflicting economic interests, some kind of policy will have to be laid down otherwise we are going to find ourselves in a mess at the close of the war. The Minister says he has nothing to do with the wages laid down, he has nothing to do with the housing, well, that may be technically correct, but actually it is a lot of nonsense. The Minister says he is responsible for the production of gold, for the amount of ore which is brought up from the bowels of the earth, and he says he is only responsible for the amount of ore which can be profitably mined, but to mine ore profitably all these other considerations of wages and houses and general economic conditions in the Union have to be taken into consideration. There is nothing in the nature of even a present policy, let alone a post-war reconstruction policy, in the mere statement that these individuals have promised to invest their money wherever a reasonable profit is in prospect. It does seem to that some Kind of reconciliation can be made between these conflicting interests, and that can be done, I believe, out of this £28,000,000. After all, it does not matter where the State gets its taxation as long as it gets it, and it does not matter to me as long as the Government gets the money out of the pockets of the people best able to pay. It may be possible, I don’t know, but I expect to get some kind of hint from the Minister—it may be possible by making a thorough investigation into the economic differences arising between industry on the one hand and mining on the other, to reconcile these differences. We don’t need any more investigation into native wages because we had a full investigation handed to us a little while ago. An investigation into mine workers wages would have to be undertaken within the next two months because that has been a very long delayed request, and it is something which has been going on for quite a number of years without any finality being arrived at. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) has been representing a rather dismal outlook advanced by the Van Eck Commission. I am not in a position to contradict the conclusions arrived at there, but what I do know is that experts, long before the appointment of that commission, have given such dismal forecasts about the life of the mines. Just before the strike of 1922 we had all the expert evidence in the world to show that the mines were on the verge of closing down, and that unless the ratio of non-European to European labour was increased the mines would close down. The very reverse happened, because from 1922 onwards the mines began to develop and have continued to develop ever since. The past history of the mining industry has shown us that we must take these forecasts with a very considerable amount of salt. I know that we must have these forecasts, but I still believe a great deal of mining operations can be carried on much longer than the forecast in the Van Eck Report if there were some kind of specific Government policy, and that what we want is to try and reconcile all these conflicting economic interests. There are interests which are gradually getting into a state when they are going to fight one another bitterly and that would be a tragedy for South Africa. There is no doubt going to be a considerable expansion of industrialism and it would be a tragedy if we found that to be stultified by warfare breaking out between industrialists on the one hand and mining interests on the other.

Mr. Chairman, I want to pay tribute to the Mine Workers’ Union and other unions, mine officials and mineworkers, for the splendid way in which they have carried on the mining industry ever since the war has been in existence. We all need to remind ourselves of the strikes and other things which have taken place in other parts of the world, and I am glad to say as far as the gold mining industry is concerned we have been entirely free from happenings of that sort. Let us just look at what that has meant and realise how these men have worked in bringing up the gold from the bowels of the earth. Only recently I paid a visit to the mines just to see how the air was dealt with before being forced down eight or nine thousand feet to enable men to work. If some people would only think of the work and brains which is put into the working of the gold mines they would realise what a tremendous undertaking it is, and what an immense amount of industry and skill is involved in producing one block of gold, and some of us in this House are entitled to say to those hon. members who have been attacking the gold mining industry: Hands off the mining industry! And when we realise that the industry has stood by the Government and the country we should pay a tribute to those who are responsible for carrying on those undertakings. We know there is a dispute on between the mineworkers and the mines, and I want the Minister to do all he possibly can to maintain the amicable relations which have existed between the miners and the management— or I might say the shareholders, who are possibly the most interested. And if these amicable relations can be maintained in the future as in the past, our gold mining industry will expand for the benefit of us all. I am pleased to see that the Minister has come forward with an increase of £5,000 for the School of Mines. I take an interest in that school and I am very proud of the school in my division. It would be a good thing if hon. members could see these training schools and the way they train these young fellows for their future duties. I want to thank the Minister for providing the necessary expansion for the benefit of the training of these young fellows who will no doubt render good service in the development of the mining industry. Instead of all the criticism levelled at the Minister, I think credit should be given where credit is due, and I think he deserves some credit for what he has done.

I should like to dispose of the point which I was discussing a little while ago in connection with the basic remuneration of native labour. The standpoint adopted by the Chamber of Mines is that the income that the natives derive from the reserves must be regarded as the foundation and the earnings they obtain on the mines as merely subsidiary. If the two combined enable the native and his family to subsist, then it is regarded as adequate. This seems to be a revolutionary attitude. I have never previously heard of that. It struck me as something novel when I read it in the report. I think that the Government should make a clear statement whether that basis meets with their approval. The Commission takes an extremely peculiar attitude in respect of this matter. They put the question whether that basis of payment is fair and just, but the question is not answered in the report itself. It awakens misgivings when such a fundamental question is put and then evaded. But in any case the Commission comes to the conclusion that the wages are too low. The Commission then states—

Here they are referring to the natives who leave the reserves for temporary employment on the mines—

The Commission thus, by implication, subscribes to this basis of compensation. The Commission states further—

One might have expected that is what they would say, seeing that the President of the Chamber of Mines was present throughout. They state that any other policy would be catastrophic for the mining industry, and that it would be detrimental to the whole economic structure of the Union. That is the standpoint that the Commission takes up, and then it imposes the responsibility on the State that, seeing that this basis of compensation is accepted—that a part of the remuneration for services that the natives render to the mines must come from the reserves—that the obligation must rest on the State to develop the native reserves. One must understand that the State has to be responsible for contributing its share in the development of the native reserves to enable the mines to pay low wages. That is the finding of the Commission—that because the State receives a share of the profits of the mines, by way of taxation, the State must accept responsibility for the development of the reserves. Obviously, a lead must be given to assist the natives in the development of the reserves and for increasing the carrying capacity of the reserves. But I have never heard the opinion expressed that the native reserves must be developed so that the gold mines shall receive cheaper labour. Then the Commission goes so far as to say—

I believe that the House will emphatically reject this conclusion of the Commission. Then the report goes on—

I think that the Minister is obliged to throw light on this, and to state whether he subscribes to the findings of the Commission, that the State is obliged to develop the native reserves so that the gold mining industry may have cheap labour. That is an unprecedented finding, and I have never before come across any similar proposition. The matter is carried further, and I want to mention a fourth question. The commission comes to the conclusion that the income of the natives from the mines is inadequate; I do not express any opinion over that, although it was news to me to find that the maximum is 2s. 3d. per shift; and the commission comes to the conclusion that the remuneration of the native is not adequate, not even when combined with the income he derives from the reserve, but in face of that it does not recommend an increased wage—I want to emphasise this—but it recommends an allowance on the ground of increased costs of living. The native will perhaps want to make a claim to increased living costs, but for the commission the only way out is for the State to bear the allowances. The finding is that the Government should make a contribution to the increased cost of living. Now my question is this, if in this case the State is going to be held responsible for meeting those increased cost of living allowances, is the State going to continue to accept responsibility on that basis? Is the State also going to assume responsibility for the future as long as the cost of living is high? Seeing that within a short while we shall be asked to give our approval to the payment of £1,800,000 for increased living costs in respect of the natives, is the State going to accept that responsibility for the future? I think that these are questions that we may rightly put to the Minister. It is disquieting to us that the State should accept this responsibility. Is it only going to be in respect of this year, or will it also be the case in the future? I should like the Minister to give an explicit answer to this question. Any hesitation on the part of the Government to make a statement will justly be viewed with suspicion. For the present I do not want to say anything further on this matter, but I hope that the Minister will deal fully with these important aspects of the matter.

When on the last occasion this vote was under discussion, I referred to two aspects in connection with mining and I mentioned the speech of the President of the Chamber of Mines in regard to the supply of native labour to the mines. The other aspect to which I want to refer briefly is the high cost structure in this country and the way.it affects the mining industry. The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Friedman) referred to the development of secondary industries to take the place of the mining industry. One thing which is of extreme importance is that the closest attention should be paid to the way secondary industries develop and the effect they will have on the mining industry. If these secondary industries have to take the place of the mining industries, they will have to develop as economic industries. In the meantime it is urgently important that these secondary industries should not pile unnecessarily high costs on the mines. I want to refer to the report of the Customs Tariffs Commission of 1934-’35 and to quote the following from the report—

The gold mining industry today is in the unfortunate position of having to carry the burden, or a large share of the burden, involved in the development of secondary industries. But it is most important that those secondary industries themselves should be brought on to an economic basis and the reason why I refer to this is because it is of the greatest importance to the mining industry and to the continuance of that industry that the general cost structure of all industry in South Africa should be brought to a sound basis. And the unsound way in which the Government has allowed that cost structure to go up in this country should be exposed. Dr. Van der Bijl, speaking in Johannesburg some time ago to the delegates of the Chambers of Industry, Mines and Commerce, stated that he had been amazed at some of the figures obtained by the Price Controller as to the cost of manufacturing certain identical articles in the Union. The difference in price in some cases was more than 100 per cent. It was clear to him, he said, that there was enormous scope for improvement in efficiency. If that sort of thing took place in one industry it probably also took place in many industries. The cost-plus system which the Government has allowed to develop in the country, the Minister may feel does not affect him, but it affects the mining industry, and the general policy of the Government should be to keep costs down in every respect and particularly in requirements of the mining industry. When it is known that the cost of production in this country is as much as 100 per cent. higher than elsewhere it is more than time for the Minister to interfere. As the result of these higher costs of stores the working costs per ton in the mining industry have increased from 17s. 1d. in 1914 to 19s. 5d. in 1930, and £1 0s. 8d. in 1940. The great burden placed on the mining industry as the result of the protection of secondary industries producing stores which the mines require, amounts to round about £2,000,000 in ordinary times. That is a figure which I have calculated very carefully and which I have checked up with senior men in the customs world. If we take a statement by Mr. Gemmill to the Customs Tariff Commission in 1935, that figure which I have quoted is nearly double when the indirect costs of protection are taken into account. A point of cardinal importance therefore is, what is the Government’s whole policy towards this high cost of production in South Africa? If the Government sits quiet as it is doing at the moment, if it is not doing its duty in seeing that the mines get cheap supplies and have no obstacle in the way of getting supplies of labour from the native reserves, and if the Government does not point out to us what its policy is in regard to keeping costs down in this country, then what is the policy of the Government in regard to mining developments at the end of this war, and what is its long-term policy in regard to post-war reconstruction? If these high costs of production are to be carried by the mining industry, what attitude does the Government adopt and what is it going to do at the end of the war to see that that sort of thing is stopped? As the result of these high costs and the difficulties of the labour supply the grade of ore mined actually rose from 4.053 dwts. in 1942 to 4.097 last year, and this was accompanied by a market fall in dividends and a substantial reduction in development. This is particularly important to the whole financial position of this country, important to the grade of ore that can be mined and the future of the gold mining industry. I congratulate the Minister on differing from the hon. member for Hillbrow who suggested we can solve the problem by simply raising the grade of ore that is going to be mined. Nobody in this House and nobody in South Africa knows what the future position of gold actually is going to be, and we fully realise the importance while the going is good, and the price of gold is as high as it is, the importance of mining the lowest possible grade of ore, and continuing to mine the lowest possible grade. If in future, as it may happen, the price of gold drops again, then we shall have no option but to mine our highest grade ore. If we want to continue to mine low grade ore then we must keep down prices of production in every possible respect. It is in this respect that we should get some definite statement from the Government as to what is its attitude towards the future long term development of the industry.

I think I should reply as briefly as I can to some of these further points. The whole of the latter part of the debate has been directed to enquiring what is to happen in the future with regard to wages, employment, and development, regardless of the fact that there is an enormous mass of uncertain factors intimately concerned with this. As the hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) has said, the future of gold is by no means determined. We have heard proposals in regard to an international fund but we don’t know whether they are to be accepted or not or whether other proposals are to be forthcoming, and therefore it is idle to expect one to go further than to say that the policy of those who are responsible is to develop everything which circumstances will permit to be exploited at a profit. It is not the policy of the Government to subsidise uneconomical and unpayable propositions, but it is the policy of the Government to foster the exploitation of that which can be made to pay. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) asked me to make a statement with regard to this Mine Wages Commission Report. First of all may I say I am not going to follow him in criticisms of that commission as to whether the Chamber of Mines should be represented there or not. I think with all respect that it is idle to ask that now and I do not propose to go into it. A judge was Chairman of that Commission and I have no doubt he exercised his judicial function in a way which seemed to him best, and I don’t feel in the least called on to criticise that. He asked whether the policy of the Government was identical with that stated to be the policy of the Chamber of Mines, namely, to obtain their native labour at the lowest possible level in all circumstances. No, that is not the policy of the Government.’ I should have thought it would have been unnecessary to put the question, at any rate in that form, having regard to the fact that the Government so far from being content with the preesnt wage level, appointed a Commission for the purpose of enquiring whether the existing level of native wages was right or wrong. And the terms of the commission’s report makes the attitude of the Government abundantly clear. We desire to see the level at such a mark as will enable those concerned to live reasonably, healthily and to keep up their families and develop family life. The Commission reported, and the Government carried out the main portion of the Commission’s report, by coming to an arrangement with the Chamber of Mines and the different mine owners under which they pay this increased rate.

The cost of living allowance?

Well, that opens an enormous field of administrative difficulties. That the Commission did not go into. The application of a cost of living allowance to native mine workers raises difficulties of a complex character. The hon. member must realise that these natives come not only from the Union but from territories outside, from Mozambique, from Nyassaland and from the High Commission territories, and the application of a cost of living allowance would be very difficult indeed. In the circumstances we came to the conclusion that right would be done by arranging with the Chamber of Mines that they should give this increased amount. The Government cannot enforce it, but there is a responsibility on the Government to us its influence where it has not definite power; we did use our influence, and we used it in the right direction is saying that the native wage level on the mines had to be increased, and the mines concerned agreed to accept that. Under these circumstances I don’t think it is reasonable to expect the Minister of Mines to make a wide declaration as to the Government’s policy in wages and in employment in industry and the rest of it and what is to happen in the post-war period. I doubt if anybody has the information to enable a definite answer to be given as to that. I have given my answer to that in terms which I think are adequate; at any rate, they are views which represent myself and my department. The question of whether the Commission was correct in going into what was earned by the natives in the reserves, and those kindred questions, is one which I do not feel called upon to make a declaration upon. I am perfectly prepared to answer for myself and I say this, that the wages which should be paid are not dependent upon what happens in respect of somebody else, but the wages that are paid are, as a matter of fact—I am not talking about policy now—dependent upon what the employer is willing to pay and what the employee is willing to accept. That is the actual way in which the wages are determined. If you want to go further and interfere in the play of that, you have to set up a tribunal like the Wage Board, which will go into the question and have its own standard. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) referred to a demand for increased wages by the white miners at the present time. I am not going to say a word about that. It is a matter which is being investigated and two of my colleagues are engaged in the enquiry. No further word is called for. Then there was the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges), I think I answered him by interjection; no machinery has been coming to the gold mines. I hope the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) will take the reply I gave to the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) as also referring to him. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) referred to an interview which I gave to a gentleman who came to see me about projected legislation for miners’ phthisis. May I just point out again that no question is involved in this of the recognition of one trade union or another, nor has it anything to do with trade unions. In the way I have approached this question, and as I am dealing with it, I am desirous of getting all the information I can from any source; I shall not close any source. There is no question of recognition or non-recognition of any trade union. Nothing of that sort entered my head, nor in my opinion had it anything whatever to do with this matter. The hon. member for North Rand (Mr. Van Onselen) raised the question of the cost of living allowance for phthisis pensioners. I have no power to increase that. The law lays down what a pensioner is entitled to, and that he gets. I have, as a matter of fact, used whatever influence I have with those who are responsible for the conduct of the mines, and I will not say that it was because I raised it, but certainly it was after the conversations I had, the cost of living allowance was granted, and afterwards again the cost of living allowance was increased. The hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) suggested the giving of a subsidy derived from the sale of diamonds to deserving diggers. That really is a matter for my colleague, the Minister of Social Welfare. I have not got the machinery. I have not got the inspectors. I have not any machinery which would enable me to deal with that aspect of the question. Therefore I would ask my hon. friend to refer that to my colleague. The hon. member for Hoopstad (Mr. H. S. Erasmus) seemed to think I was responsible for preventing mining actually taking place in the Free State. Nothing of the kind. I have no power there at all. Mining has not taken place there because neither the stores, the machinery nor the labour are available, and the reason for that is well known. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) raised a very important matter, about corundum. I should like to say something about that. We have been taking a great deal of interest in the mining and development of corundum, and we have been searching for it everywhere. It is in great demand, particularly for the United States, and as a result of that a corundum company which is the largest concern connected with corundum, has raised the price which is being given, and instead of three grades a flat rate for all those grades is now being given at a higher price, and a bonus equivalent to £2 per short ton is being offered by the American Government. Those together bring up the flat rate to about £12 per ton, which is a very considerable increase to what was being given before. I am hopeful that will lead to considerable development. I have given instructions that next year our field parties should go into the corundum fields and see whether we cannot develop more by mining efforts. Up to the present we have been recovering it by quarrying and by working alluvial deposits. That is all that has been attempted. But I hope that we may be able to adopt mining methods and mine at a depth at a profit, and we have given instuctions that experimental shafts shall be sunk on known deposits with a view to seeing how far this is possible, and how far the deposits extend. So an active forward policy is being pursued by the Department in that respect. We have been concerned in trying to improve the ore dressing methods of corundum, the difficulties of which have been responsible for restricted output, and the mineral research laboratory has been very active in this respect. Improvements are being made, and I hope these improvements will develop to the extent whereby ultimately we may get a finished grain corundum which might be used for the manufacture of brace tools here in South Africa. I think that is sufficient to assure the hon. member for Zoutpansberg that we are doing what we can in this respect. I think I have covered all the points that have been raised.

I am very sorry that I must again direct the attention of the Minister to agreements that the Minister has made with the Producers’ Association. It is very clear that this agreement has been made to control the sale of diamonds, and every producer has naturally done his best to sell as many of his diamonds as possible through the medium of his association. And I must honestly say that I think that Oppenheimer has succeeded very well in getting his share, and considerably more than his share sold through this association. He can sell 47 per cent. of his diamonds; moreover he has control of two of the other producers under him. What I cannot understand is this, that paragraph 23 of the agreement lays down the percentage that every producer must sell. Oppenheimer gets 47 per cent. He did his best to sell a greater proportion of those diamonds. In the last part of the agreement provision is made that every year a return shall be rendered showing the quantity of diamonds that the association has sold, and if there are members who have not delivered their full share, they obtain the right to deliver the diamonds that were not delivered by them; but in the case of De Beers if it cannot deliver its share a sum must be paid to them equivalent to what it would have got if it had delivered its share. I shall be very glad if the hon. the Minister will go into that clause. It seems to me rather strange seeing that De Beers can sell such a large proportion through the medium of that association, that there should be such a clause to protect it and which lays down that it will get the profit that it would have got if it had delivered its full share. That is unintelligible to me. I want to say a few words now in reference to what the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. Steytler) said here in connection with the export duty of 10 per cent. on alluvial diamonds. The hon. member stated that the diggers were not asking for the abolition of that 10 per cent. export duty. He stated it was not the present Government that had imposed the 10 per cent. export duty on them, but the old Nationalist Government. But was the hon. member not a member of the old Nationalist Government? And I ask him whether he ever stirred a finger in an endeavour to prevent that taxation. Whenever we on this side of the House plead for the diggers, the responsibility for the existing position is ascribed to past Governments? Two wrongs do not make a right If there is a mistake and it has to be rectified, then it is the duty of the Government to rectify it. The hon. member stated that the 10 per cent. export duty could remain in any event. But then he turned a somersault.

What are you complaining about then?

Why are you casting the blame on to the old Nationalist Government?

I take full responsibility for that.

Did you make any objection against that taxation?

No, I take all responsibility for it.

I want again to emphasise what I have stated already. The hon. Minister was prepared to grant a subsidy of £1,800,000 to the mines, and the Minister’s argument was that it was money that had come out of the mines. The same thing applies in the case of the alluvial diggers They are just as entitled to a subsidy as the gold mines are, and I want to make a further appeal to the Minister to try to meet the diggers also and to give them a small subsidy.

I only wish to speak for a few minutes under the heading “Motor drivers.” I see that a motor driver receives a salary of £380, but at the moment I am not concerned about the salary he draws. I am more concerned over the way in which he drives his motor car, because it was nearly the cause of my death. I should like to know from the Minister, and I also want to know from other Ministers, whether they cannot do anything in this connection. They come and tell us that we must preserve our motor cars until at least 1947, but some of the Ministers’ chauffeurs drive in such a way that they are a public menace in Cape Town. These are people who should set us an example. I see that the Acting Prime Minister is shaking his head. He does not need to be afraid that I am talking about him. He is not to blame. I am referring to the chauffeurs of a few other Ministers. I am now talking about the man of whom I had personal experience. We are told that motor tyres are very scarce and that we should not exceed a speed of 35 miles an hour. We are told from the Government side that our motor cars will have to last for years here, that motor cars are very scarce and that we will not be able to get new cars until 1945. Here you get chauffeurs, ofwhich the Minister’s is one, who speed along the De Waal drive at a rate of 50 to 60 miles per hour. Students have come to me and complained that they are in such danger that when they see a ministerial car coming along they take care to get off the road. I wish you could see how they step on it when you ask them what the traffic regulations are, say that they can hardly stop a Minister’s car. What happened to me personally? I came from Rondebosch via the De Waal Drive, and the Minister of Mine’s chauffeur came tearing along at the rate of 50 or 60 miles an hour and cut in in front of me. I had my wife and children in the car, and if I had not gone half off the road on the mountain side I would have had an accident and my car would have been wrecked. The police say that of course they cannot drag a Minister before the court. I make an appeal to the Ministers to instruct their drivers not to drive in such a way that they are a public danger.

A few minutes ago I referred to two aspects which are of great importance to the successful continuance and longevity of the mining industry in South Africa. I have referred to the ample supply of native labour to the mines and I have referred to the general cost structure in this country. Now with regard to the cost structure and its effect on the mining industry, and the question of what the mining industry gets for its products—when the question was raised here some time ago and it was argued that we could and should obtain more for our gold than we do today, there was rather a sneer from the side of the Government. Nobody less than Mr. Unger and the Industrial and Mining Magazine referred to the fact in their April issue that gold fetched 260s. per ounce in India and up to 310s. in Bombay. If that is the position, the Acting Prime Minister, whom I am pleased to see here, and who I would like to listen to this argument, might change his attitude. He said at the time that it would be impossible for us to handle this enormous supply of rupees which we would have to take over from India if we had to sell our gold in India at a higher price. Shortly after that the Minister of Economic Development said in the Other Place that last year we had imported goods to the value of no less than £8,000,000 from India, and to a value of £10,000,000 from South America. To that, extent at least it is practicable for us to sell gold in India, and at the higher price; and if the President of the Chamber of Mines and others have complained that their costs have gone up, and their receipts gone down, then surely it is the duty of the Minister to discuss this whole question in the interests of the mining industry and of South Africa as a whole with a view to getting the highest price for what we produce. In the past India was a great hoarding place for gold. Today so we are told by the mining authorities, India is again returning to its old position of hoarding gold and it is prepared to pay the enormous price of 310s. per ounce to get all the gold it can and hoard it in India. I cannot help but feel that the Government is treating this question too lightly, and I want to appeal to the Minister of Mines to go carefully into this question and see that South Africa gets the highest possible price for its product. I cannot accept any argument which maintains that it is not practicable to sell gold to India to the extent to which we import from India, and the same applies to South America. There is one other aspect to which I want to refer under this vote, and that is the position of the staff in the Geological Survey. Since the beginning of the war the Geological Survey has supplied quite a decent proportion of its geologists and other technical men to do service up North. No position, to my knowledge, that has become vacant has in the meantime been filled up. All these posts have been kept vacant so that the men who have gone North should not be penalised.

Hear, hear.

That may be very admirable in the view of that hon. member, but in the meantime the Government have stopped all peace time work in Geological Survey. They have put all men of that department on wartime work in this country. There is a tin survey party, a tungsten survey party, an oil survey party and so on, but since 1941 all these local men have been engaged on war work in these various branches, on what is either directly or indirectly war work in South Africa. These men have no option or choice. If these men are doing war work in South Africa why should they be penalised while other less qualified men have had the opportunity of going North, getting better pay and a few pips on their shoulders? There are men doing this sort of work locally and they have offered their services to go North, and they have been refused because they are wanted to do this work here. As a man who has been in Government service for many years I appeal to the Minister. I feel that this sort of thing is bound to cause dissatisfaction and inefficiency if the men doing the work here are discriminated against. These men who have gone North or the others who have offered their services to go North, but who have been told that they cannot go because their services are needed here for urgent war work, should not be penalised. In regard to what the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) said about Ministers’ drivers speeding, I have experienced the same sort of thing, and if this speeding by Cabinet Ministers’ drivers is intended to drive the present Cabinet out of office, I shall raise no further objections and resume my seat.

I want to ask the Minister when this report of the Ultra-Deep Mining Commission can be expected.

It is not a commission, it is a committee which I have appointed.

I should like to know if there is anything to report in regard to that. Then I should like to put a point to the Minister on a matter which has not been raised in this debate, which I think has an important bearing, particularly on the gold mining industry, and that is in regard to the railway rates on coal. We know, and it is commonly accepted, that it should be one of our industrial objectives to have one’s power supplies as cheaply as possible. We know that in all industries the cost of production is largely influenced by the cost of the power that is available. We have this position, this very fortunate position, that in South Africa fuel, in the form of coal, which is the only fuel we have available—we have no gaseous or liquid fuel here—is the cheapest at the pithead in the world. In the Van Eck report they say in paragraph 17 that the average American and British pithead prices were about 15s. per short ton before the war. In 1940, the selling price per ton at the collieries averaged 4s. 9d. in the Free State, and 4s. 11d. in the Transvaal, and 6s. 9d. in Natal, as compared with 15s. in England and America. Now the snag comes. To convey that coal from Witbank to Johannesburg, a distance of 100 miles, costs 6s. per ton. The picture becomes much worse if one sees what is the tariff when you want to convey that same ton of coal for export from Witbank to Delagoa Bay, a distance of 276 miles. Then the cost is only 5s. 3d. per ton. Now you have this curious position that for the same money, for which you can convey a ton of coal from Witbank to Johannesburg, for use in our industries and the mines, you can convey 1¼ tons from Witbank to Delagoa Bay for export.

The one is competitive.

Competitive with which railway line?

Competitive with other coal from all parts of the world.

I am comparing the pithead prices of coal. I am comparing the cost of transport. It is a very curious form of national economy that a country where production costs are already very high should be saddled with extra costs by way of tariffs. I am wondering whether the hon. Minister has not seen fit to discuss this matter with his colleague, the Minister of Railways. I think it would be a much sounder form of assistance to the gold mining industry if we were to get railway rates which are proportionate to the rates for export. I think that would be better than giving them a subsidy out of loan funds. The Minister has, I think, attempted to show that the money in the loan funds belongs to the mines. He seems to agree with that extraordinary proposition. Well, I can only say that whatever the position may have been before it went into the loan fund, once it is in the loan fund, then my learned friend’s legal knowledge will tell him that it belongs to the loan funds of the country, it belongs to the consolidated account. If you take it from that fund and give it back to the mines then you are subsidising the industry, not only from the ordinary revenue account, but actually subsidising it from loan account. I am suggesting, from a public finance point of view, and from a general industrial policy point of view, it would be much sounder for the Minister to approach his colleague to point out that it is ridiculous to pay the same price for transporting coal 100 miles that you are paying to transport the same weight of coal for 276 miles, provided it is earmarked for export. I think that is the point to which the hon. Minister should give his attention. I have quoted this one example and it is probable that there are scores of similar examples which might be quoted. Although the Minister is inclined to think that his Department is a watertight Department he should be as much concerned as everybody else, and the Cabinet as a whole should be concerned that development of the country as a whole is not retarded in this way. I think this is a direction in which the Minister might usefully employ his good services in order to make cheaper power available.

I don’t want to waste the time of the House, but this point raised by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) is a most important point. The Customs Tariff Act which the Minister of Finance laid before the House, and the whole of our customs legislation, militates against something from other countries, whatever form that something may take, and this question of exporting coal at these low rates simply amounts to dumping.

I cannot allow a general discussion on that question. It does not fall under this Vote.

The hon. member for Fauresmith has referred to the possibility of other instances and I would mention the manganese ore at Postmasburg. It might be in the interests of that industry to keep it going. I wish the Minister to discuss this with his colleague, the Minister of Railways, in order to see if this sort of cheap dumping from South Africa should not be stopped.

Vote No. 33— “Mines”, as printed, put and agreed to.

Vote No. 34.— “Lands”, £415,600, put.

I move—

Agreed to.

HOUSE RESUMED :