I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

This short amending Bill has been rendered necessary due to certain deficiencies and ambiguities in the Sea Fisheries Act of 1940. A White Paper has been circulated to hon. members explaining why these amendments are necessary. The first one deals with the question of the disposal of fish or implements—nets—which may have been seized in the course of their duties by officers administering the Act; and it really refers to the crawfish areas, which as hon. members know, are from time to time declared to be crawfish sanctuaries in which fishing is prohibited. There is no provision in the Act for dealing with such implements, or fish either, which may have been seized. There is no provision for disposing of them either by way of returning them to their owners in due course or declaring them confiscated to the Crown. The first amendment seeks to remedy that. A police officer or any officer under this Act, if he has reasons to suspect that any offence has been committed in respect of such a fishing area, or is about to be committed, in other words if he finds people poaching in the area, or if he finds nets have been put down in the area and left there, is entitled to seize these nets. As a result of this crawfish nets have been found by the patrol boats in crawfish sanctuaries which have been declared prohibited areas, and they have been seized and held in terms of the Act. For obvious reasons the owners of these nets or fish are almost invariably not determined, and consequently there is no opportunity of having the fish and nets declared confiscated to the Crown in terms of Section 8 of the Act. In order that these nets and fish may become the property of the Crown, or alternately be returned to their owners if claimed by them, the proposed amendment is now brought forward. In regard to fish, which of course is highly perishable, it enables the Crown to sell the fish and the proceeds can be dealt with in the same way, either returned to the owner if claimed by him and he has not been guilty of having poached, or alternatively they may be forfeited to the Crown. The next amendment deals with the point raised in the House last year by, I think the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus), and that is the practice of fishermen taking out boats owned by other people for the purpose of fishing on their own account. They bring the boats back, so they cannot be accused of having stolen them, and the only legal way of dealing with such persons at present is for the owner of the boat first of all to obtain an interdict to restrain them from using the boats, and if they continue to do so to proceed against them under the interdict. To overcome the difficulty it is now proposed to make it an offence to use any fishing boat without the consent of the owner. The next small amendment has been found necessary as there is no provision in Section 8 of the Act for disposing of any implements, any gear, which may have been declared by the ’courts to have been forfeited to the Crown. We now take power that if these things are forfeited to the Crown by order of court, they may be disposed of. Then there is an amendment to Section 11 of the Act which has been introduced on the advice of the law advisers to remove an ambiguity. Section 11 (1) (c) has hitherto been interpreted as enabling regulations to be made prescribing permits required and fees payable therefor not only in respect of the general intention, which is to achieve the purposes of the Act, but it also has been presumed that it enabled regulations to be issued in respect of such matters as are defined in Section 11 (1) (e) which prohibits the use by boats, other than fishing boats, of any defined portion of a harbour and provides for the control of such defined portion. That implies the power to set aside one part of the harbour as a fishing harbour. The law advisers hold it is doubtful whether Section 11 (1) (c) does enable us to prescribe such fees, and to remove any doubt in this respect the new sub-section is proposed. The last amendment deals with the question of fishing from the coasts of Natal. When the Sea Fisheries Act was introduced, as hon. members know, it was a unifying Bill bringing the sea fisheries of the Union under one control whereas in the past the fishing in the different areas had been under provincial control; and the Provinces in agreeing to that made a proviso—in the case of Natal—that fishing from the foreshore or any lagoons along the Natal coast should, for licensing purposes, remain under provincial control. Parliament accepted that and legislated accordingly. But in practice it has been found that difficulty has arisen in connection with applying the Act to the catching of fish by means of Seine nets from the foreshore—what we down here call “trekking” —by reason of the manner in which the fishing is carried out. One end of the net is held on the beach and the other end rowed out, taken round the shoal and brought back to the shore. Although the law advisers consider this method of catching fish can only be considered catching fish from the foreshore, they consider all doubt as to whether this is catching fish from the foreshore would be removed by using the word “coast” instead of the word “foreshore”, and ‘the wording now proposed simply substitutes the word “coast” for “foreshore”. It effects no fresh development in the Bill at all; it is simply a clarifying amendment. The Fishing Industry Development Act has a similar clause exempting the Natal lagoons and foreshore, and therefore it is necessary to substitute the word “coast” for “foreshore” in Section 39 of the Fishing Industry Development Act. These, Sir, are the proposals in this amending Bill, and I hope that the House will accept it.

This Bill appears to be very innocuous, but it contains a few deep radical principles, and unless the Minister can give the assurance that these deep legal principles will be dealt with differently in the Bill, unless small amendments can be made in the Bill, we shall have to object to some of them. It is news to me to learn from the Minister that an explanatory memorandum was issued. I fear that we did not see it. The Biiris short and there are only a few of these principles to which I would like to draw the attention of the House. We suppose that a person is not guilty until his guilt has been proved. We know that recently that legal principle has been deviated from to quite a large extent, and that a suspect is sometimes regarded as being guilty until he proves his innocence. The onus of proving his innocence is laid on him. The Minister does not only do that in this Bill, but he goes much further. Not only is the accused person obliged to prove his innocence, but the Minister goes further and gives officials the power to act as a court and to apply penalties. That appears to me to be a radical principle. In this connection I want to come to sub-article (3). Article 4 of the main Act determines the capacity of the officials concerned, and certain powers are given to them. In sub-clause (3) (d) the official receives a right to seize fish, implements, etc. in certain circumstances, but he has no further power than to seize the fish and implements in cases of alleged contravention. Section 8 of the Act deals with forfeiture, which is rightly left to a competent court. Section 3 provides for seizure, and Section 8 leaves the forfeiture to a competent court. That is quite correct, in case there is a conviction. In Section 8 mention is made only of nets, implements and boats. It contains no provision in connection with fish. The addition of fish is now essential, according to the Minister’s statement. But now there is sub-clause (3) which provides that when fish or any implements are seized, those are also confiscated unless certain things happen. This inclusion of the powers granted by Section 3 to forfeit only comes into operation when the official has the power, not only to seize the goods, but also to forfeit them. Otherwise there would be no meaning in the words. The official who has the right to seize the goods, now also receives the power to forfeit. Formerly he did not have it. But now the matter goes much further. That power is taken out of the hands of the court in certain cases.

The power rests in the hands of the court.

But Clause 3 deals with the powers of the officials. We now find that forfeiture is included there, and in my opinion that is an extension of the powers of the officials. Something new is included. I thought that the Minister would make this very clear, and we must state it clearly that officials have not the power to declare goods to be forfeited.

That is not the meaning.

Then I am thankful. It appears to me that in certain cases it is not intended that the case will come before the court. Paragraph (a) of the new subclause (3) refers to cases where the fish and implements which are the subject matter of a prosecution remain to be disposed of by a court. These words create the possibility that all cases will not go to court. If it is the intention of the Minister that a shorter procedure should be followed, we can understand that; but as it stands now it means that the official brings the charge and he himself finds the accused guilty and declares the implements to be forfeited. I think that we should have an explanation of the article here. If there are instances where the case does not go to court, it should be in cases where the accused person appeals to the Minister. That is the chief difficulty I have. We should word it so that there can be an appeal to the Minister, or the accused person can prefer the case to go to the court. As regards the other amendments, those became necessary, according to the Minister, because there were deficiencies in the administration of the Act. In connection with Clause 2, the Minister explained to us that the words “without consent” or “without the consent of the owner or person in lawful charge” are added. If a boat is taken without the consent of the owner, serious penalties follow, according to the Act, namely a maximum fine of £100 or imprisonment for one year or both. That is a tremendous penalty. I should like to know from the Minister why he did not add that it should be written consent. If it is a question of verbal consent, the owner can deny that he gave it, and another case will ensue. I think provision should be made for written consent. Perhaps the Minister thinks that some of the fishermen are not capable of giving written consent.

But the owner of the boat will be able to do so.

Yes, I think that written consent is necessary. Those are the few matters which I would like to bring to the Minister’s attention. If I read the Bill correctly and I think I do read it correctly, it contains radical principles which go too far. We cannot give an official the power to bring a charge, then to judge of it himself, and also to impose the punishment. It should be left to the court. There is already a tendency on the part of the State to accept that suspected persons are guilty and then to lay the onus of proof on them to prove that they are not guilty. If that is not the purpose of the Bill as I have described it here, I hope that the Minister will meet us by making the necessary amendments, and we shall try to help him to do so.

We are of course always prepared to help the Minister in connection with a Bill like this, which is of great interest, but the Act was amended in 1944, and the Minister now comes with further amendments. We should like to know what progress he has made in connection with the matter. While we are prepared to help him to fill in gaps where necessary we should like to hear how far he has progressed. For example, there is a rumour floating round in connection with the Industrial Development Corporation. Clause 12 provides for the issue of B. shares. The A shares are retained by the State, but I understand that as regards the B. shares no progress at all has been made, and that the work of the Development Corporation is being delayed. I should like to know what the position is. The rumour is that the Minister, although he had offers from people who were prepared to take the shares, did not act but sat quiet, and that in the meantime the work of the Corporation is being delayed, and that the necessary progress has not been made. I do not wish to mention the motives ascribed, but I should like to know what the position is. I should like to have a clear statement here. Then I should like to know how far the Minister has got in connection with the control of the sale of fish. One comes to a fishing port, as has been my personal experience, and wants to buy some fish. The fish lies there and I ask the fisherman what it costs. He says that the little heap of fish cost 6s. I ask how much it weighs and he says it weighs approximately 3 lbs. That would be 2s. per lb. He says that he has nothing to do with the Government, and that he can ask what he likes. He is not bound to sell by weight or at a fixed price. He charges 6s. and I can leave it if I don’t want to pay it. There is a scarcity of fish and they charge what they like. I investigated and they say that they are not able to exercise control. The fisherman simply says that he cannot buy a scale or that he will not obey the law. One cannot put him in prison because that will increase the scarcity of fish if he does not catch fish, and one cannot fine them because they have nothing, so they do just what they like. I should like to know what the Minister has done so far. One cannot buy at fixed prices. They sell at any price. We expected that there would be difficulties, but the position is now very unsatisfactory. The Minister asks for these amendments and we are prepared to help him, but we should like to know what the position is in connection with price control and the Industrial Development Corporation. Were B. shares issued, was there an offer, why was it not accepted? Will the Minister tell us.

The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) has endeavoured to initiate a general discussion on the Bill of 1944, and interesting though the subject is, I do not think it would be appropriate for me to deal with that subject under this Amending Bill, which does not refer to the Development Corporation. There will be plenty of opportunity later on during the Session for the whole question of the fishing industry to be discussed fully, and I do not think it is appropriate to this discussion.

It seems to me you cannot reply.

The point raised by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) is that we are giving additional powers to the officers administering the Act, under Clause 3 (d), and I have said that that is not so. We are not giving any additional power whatever to the officers under this amendment. The position now is this, that the official has the right to seize these implements, or the fish, if he finds them in a prohibited area, but having seized them, there is no provision in the existing Act for their disposal. There is no provision either for returning them to the fisherman or for confiscation, or for disposal when the goods have been confiscated. All we are trying to do here is to provide for what happens next, when the official seizes the implements. Here it is now provided that if these things are seized by an official, and the owner comes along and says: “Those are my implements”, it may well be that the owner may be able to show that they were taken without his permission. There are a number of cases where he can show that he is not guilty of personally infringing the Act. In that case he obviously cannot be prosecuted. Under Clause 3 (a) here, we make provision that if he is prosecuted and if he is found not guilty, his goods go back to him at once, but unless one has subsection (b) there is no provision for returning his goods to him unless he is prosecuted. I hope the hon. member takes my point. A man comes along and says: “These are my implements; the fish was caught with my nets but I was not responsible”, and he proves that he was not responsible. Obviously one does not wish to prosecute the man and wants to return his implements to him, but unless one has sub-section (b) one cannot give him these things without taking him into court and his being found not guilty. That is the difference. But what I do propose doing is this: I am not satisfied with the drafting of 3 (a). Section 3 (a) as it stands means that where a case is taken to court, where these things were seized and the man taken to court and convicted, the fish or implements seized in connection with that case shall be forfeited to the Crown by the court. They have no discretion. That seems to me to be in conflict with Section 8 of the Act, which is the general forfeiture clause, and under Clause 8 the court, having convicted the man, may, if they think the offence is serious enough, in regard to a first offence, confiscate his implements, and for a second offence his boat as well. It seems to me that this amendment should be in line with Clause 8, i.e. the discretion given to the court whether they should confiscate his goods or not. Therefore, in the Committee Stage, I shall propose a simple amendment. I will leave it to the court as to whether it will confiscate the implements.

In other words, the officer will have no forfeiting power.

No, he has none. If the man comes along and proves to the satisfaction of the Minister that no offence was committed by means of his implements, obviously he gets his stuff back. But if the Department thinks he is guilty, they charge him under Section 3 (a), and if he is found guilty, with my amendment, the court will decide and he may get his goods back.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time: House to go into Committee on the Bill on 17th April.

A moment ago I handed an amendment to the Minister in connection with the definition of “military service”. As it stands now, the Bill reads—

That is under Clause 1 (b). As it stands here, anyone, whether he is a Russian, an American or an Italian, who today also is a sort of ally, or a Frenchman, or anyone, can in this manner be taken into the public service if he works for the Road Transportation Board. This Bill deals with the transfer from the personnel of the Road Transportation Board to the public service, and we feel that we cannot just take anyone into the civil service. Nor do I think that such is the intention of the Minister, but for safety sake we should like to propose the amendment. I should be glad to learn from the Minister whether all the personnel who are today in the service of the Road Transportation Board are Union citizens, or people shortly before the beginning of’ the war lived in South Africa. I am not quite satisfied with the provision as it is here. Just listen to Clause 2. It says—

When will the Act come into operation? The last clause, namely Clause 7, says that the Act will come into operation on a date to be fixed by the Governor-General by Proclamation in the Gazette. If we approve of the Bill, it can, for the sake of argument, come into operation in a year or three years’ time, and in the meantime Americans or Italians or others who fought for the Allies can enter the service of the Road Transportation Board, and such a person will be taken into the public service when the Act comes into operation. What language qualifications will he have? Perhaps he will not even speak English, not to mention Afrikaans. I do not want to expand too much on this point, but wish to propose the following amendment—

If the hon. the Minister accepts this, no injustice will be done to soldiers or other persons on military duty because the amendment amounts to this that the person must be a Union citizen or must have been resident in South Africa before the war in order to be taken into the civil service. It is just a matter of safety. I want to do no injustice to people employed by the Transportation Board, but we propose that it should be limited to Union citizens.

I just want to put this to the Minister. The position is not clear and the question we ask is whether in the original Act provision is made that only Union citizens can be taken into such service. This matter of service only for Union citizens, or also for foreigners, is a matter which has been repeatedly raised in this House. I want to confine the Minister’s attention to the fact that last year the same matter was discussed when the Bill in connection with the re-employment of soldiers and war workers was being dealt with. That Bill was sent to the Select Committee at the time and in the Select Committee there was a difference of opinion in regard to this matter, and a proposal that provision should only be made for Union citizens under the Bill was rejected in the Select Committee by the Minister of Labour and those who supported him—at the time it was rejected by his casting vote. But after that discussion took place in this House and this House adopted the principle that the Act would be applicable only to Union citizens. The Minister of Labour will remember it. For example, we had in mind Hollanders who are not Union citizens but who have been living in the country for a long time already. Therefore provision was made in accordance with this amendment, and it will be inconsequential if another principle is laid down which is not contained in the legislation of last year by this Bill which is now before us. That is a very important point, and that is why I hope that the Minister will accept the amendment, or will give us the assurance that this provision, as it now stands, will not allow people who are not Union citizens to come from outside and to fill posts which should be filled by Union citizens. In the first place, when it comes to the provision of employment, we should look after our own citizens. Therefore it will be inconsequential if a measure slips through this House which provides for the employment of people outside the public service who are not Union citizens. That possibility should not be created. The hon. member for Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) stated that we are moving the amendment as a precautionary measure. It will perhaps be asked why we are so afraid, why we are so cautious, and the reply to that is that last year in connection with other legislation, we had to fight to make similar provision. For this reason we are cautious in connection with legislation of this nature.

I appreciate the point which the last two members who spoke were anxious to make, but I would point out that it is really not necessary to move the amendment which they have moved. To begin with, of course, all existing employees are appointed strictly in accordance with the requirements of the Public Service Act. We employ nobody who is not a Union national and who does not qualify in all other respects, in regard to language, etc., for the requirements of the Public Service Act. If the hon. members would look at Clause 2 (3) they will see—

So that he is a Union national. It is only Union nationals who can be considered in this matter at all, and therefore I think that the amendment is not required. The fact is that we prescribe in the contents of the Bill that no one other than a Union national can be affected.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 2,

I just want to have the assurance from the Minister that everyone who at the moment is employed by the Road Transportation Boards, will if they so choose, be accepted by the Civil Service Commission. I just want to refer the Minister to the reason why I am in doubt that everyone is not guaranteed his job. It is the very clause which the hon. Minister has just read in reply to the amendment moved by my hon. friends over there. Sub-clause (3) says—

What would the position be if he is not recommended by the Commission? What will his position be? Will he still retain his job?

Oh yes.

The point I am trying to make is that certain people who are employed now asked me to make doubly sure that they would retain their jobs under all circumstances. Consequently, if the Commission refused to accept them, and cannot make a recommendation because it would be inconsistent, possibly, with the rules and regulations applying to the civil service, what is the position, if they choose to become members of the public service, and the Public Service Commission refuses them? What will their status be? They might well be young, between 20 and 30 years of age, and will then have to work for practically a lifetime in the public service, without receiving any pension benefits, they not being members of the public service, but retaining their jobs in the employment of the Board. What are their pension rights then? I would like the hon. the Minister to give us information here, and I hope he follows these two questions.

In connection with the matter which the hon. member discussed the Minister has now given us the explanation that in order to be appointed to the civil service a person must be a Union citizen. As far as it goes that satisfies us. But now we come to the persons who were appointed on the Road Transportation Boards, and they were subject to no requirements, for example, in regard to bilingualism. Although he must be a Union citizen it is not necessary to have language qualifications. It says in the clause “notwithstanding any limitation in respect of age or educational qualifications” these people can be employed in the civil service. But if people who are unilingual are so employed, we are contravening the Public Service Act, in view of the fact that it is a requirement for the public service that a person should be bilingual before he can be appointed. Therefore I should like to move—

Then we will be sure that this Bill will not come into conflict with the language qualifications which today are a requirement of the Public Service Act. It is not necessary to expand further on this. The Minister of the Interior will surely be able to tell the Minister that the Public Service Act may not be contravened, and therefore I wish to move the amendment.

There is just one aspect of the clause I would like to raise by way of question to the hon. Minister, as I must confess I am a little in the dark. My interpretation of the clause is that it provides for the transfer of employees who are today under the Central Road Transportation Board, to the public service, but we are aware at the same time that the South African Railways have slightly different regulations. In broad outline they do fall under the Act of 1923, but in minor details they differ from the public service position, and I would like to know what the position will be, whether these people will be railway employees or public service employees.

The answer to the last question is that these employees will be public service employees; they will have nothing to do with the railways

Thank you.

With regard to the other points raised, I should like to point out in regard to Clause 2 (3) “notwithstanding any limitation in respect of age or educational qualifications”, this applies to the existing employees, and it would not be possible for me to accept in a cast iron amendment any particular qualifications. As far as I know these people are practically all bilingual, but what is important is this, the moment they become public servants the Public Service Commission must be satisfied that they are capable of doing the work. I think that is a sufficient safeguard, and that is why it has been left in this entirely reasonable way. If I accept the amendment it may result in two of three people being thrown out of work, which is contrary to the very purpose of this Act. We want to persuade these people to come into the public service, and I think the wording here is much the best, having regard to the fact that these people must today satisfy the Public Service Commission as to their special ability for any particular work. With regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr.’ van den Berg), I want to make it perfectly clear these people have an absolute right to become employees of the Government if they wish it. No one can question it. Once they become members of the public service they are entitled to promotion for other jobs, but if they do not get promotion they will still remain in their present jobs. There can be no question of their being turned out at any stage. They are being given both in respect of their employment, their pensions and other rights as complete a right as a member of the public service. There is no catch in this at all.

But they may not be able to accept them if it is inconsistent with the regulations.

The Public Service Commission has no choice but to accept them subject to the provisions of the Bill, and that is one of the reasons I am not accepting the amendment the hon. member moved, because I want them accepted even if today they do not altogether comply with what is required by the public service.

I am very sorry that I cannot accept the Minister’s explanation. His explanation amounts to this—and that is the old explanation used to evade the bilingual stipulation, namely: He says that the Civil Service Commission will satisfy themselves that the officials are competent. To use his own words, he said: “The Public Service Commission will satisfy itself that these officials are efficient.” It is this word “efficiency” which every time ruins the scope and purpose of the principle of bilingualism in this country. As regards the age qualifications and the educational qualifications we have no objection, but I want to tell the Minister at once that bilingualism is one of our principles, and I want to say that with all respect, especially to the Minister of Transport. We have had too much experience of how that language qualification is manipulated in the railways. We have the experience that the Minister of Railways once had to—I almost wanted to say—haul up the General Manager about language qualifications. He gives them certificates which show that they are now competent people who can be appointed, while they are not bilingual. The Minister knows what the attitude of this side of the House is. On this side we believe in bilingualism and not only in lip service. We believe that the principle of bilingualism should be applied in practice. We want to state here this morning that one will only have bilingualism in South Africa when every man realises that he will have to become bilingual if he wants to progress in the civil service. That is the only way in which there will be bilingualism in South Africa. Why is it that every Afrikaans-speaking person in the country is properly bilingual? It is because he knows from the beginning that there is no one who will show sympathy towards him; he knows that he must be bilingual if he wants promotion in the civil service. Unfortunately it is always the case that for the English-speaking bilingual people a refuge is always found and I want to tell the Minister this morning that if he wants to work in the interests of the English-speaking people in South Africa, he must not have regard to the exceptions of the English-speaking unilingual people. He must have regard to the majority of them, who are today taking the trouble of making themselves bilingual. It is his duty not to worry about those exceptional cases who are not bilingual. By ‘doing so he would really be wrecking the principle of bilingualism. It is his duty to have regard to the majority of English-speaking people in South Africa who today are taking the trouble to make themselves thoroughly competent in both languages. Therefore, if the Minister wants to be honest towards the English-speaking people in South Africa, he must not try to find a hiding-place in the Acts for unilingual people. It is his duty rather to think of the large majority of Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people in the country who went out of their way to become thoroughly competent in both languages. Because it is a matter of principle to us on this side of the House, we cannot accept the Minister’s explanation in connection with “efficiency” That is a little word in which the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Economic Development also seek refuge when we on this side plead for bilingualism. It is that word “efficiency” which every time wrecks the principle of bilingualism in South Africa, and I regret that we cannot accept the Minister’s explanation and that we shall have to divide on it.

Once again we arrive at the same thing. Last year we had it in five Bills. In the Bill providing for the Re-employment of Soldiers and War Workers the principle of bilingualism was thrown overboard; the principle of bilingualism was thrown overboard in the Nursing Bill, the Apprenticeship Bill and the Fishing Industries Bill and this same Government, which threw it overboard, in 1943 won an election with bilingualism as one of its planks. That was their election cry. We so often hear that the United Party stands for the point of view that civil servants need not be bilingual; the Nationalist Party on the contrary say that civil servants must be competent in both languages, because they have to serve the public. The officials of the Transportation Board will come into contact with both sections of the public. Therefore it is essential that they should be bilingual. We on this side say: Make bilingualism compulsory, and it will encourage the unilingual person to become bilingual. When once he knows that he will not be able to get promotion unless he is bilingual, he will go out of his way to become bilingual. Today he takes no trouble to become bilingual. Here a number of people are appointed in the service, and the Minister is making provision for the exceptions. We can well understand that it is the Minister’s point of view. He is unilingual. He is now trying to become bilingual. Why does he do it? He does it because in the past he was criticised in connection with his unilingualism and because he finds it difficult to do his work properly without a knowledge of the second language. If we do not adopt this amendment we will appoint people who are not competent. We have had the same difficulty in this House over and over again, and I think it will still often happen. We recently had the Standards Bill before us. There we had the same provision. Why does not the Government once and for all accept the principle that bilingualism is an essential requirement? Why must we always waste the time of the House with a discussion about bilingualism? I support the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) as strongly as possible, and I hope the Minister will now realise that after 35 years it is his duty to lay down that every official in the service should be bilingual.

I should like to direct an appeal to the Minister, and I shall try not to repeat the reasons given in the past as to why bilingualism is absolutely essential. There was a time when the Minister was completely unilingual. When the Minister comes into the company of Afrikaans-speaking people, those people had to speak in the language which the Minister can understand. You will understand that where there is one person on a committee on a board who is not bilingual, the discussion must of course be carried on in the language spoken by that person, so that all the members can understand. In the Cabinet, because there are some members who cannot understand Afrikaans, Afrikaans is not spoken when the Cabinet meets, because there are members who do not understand Afrikaans. I think the facts. I have mentioned here are enough reason to show why I as an Afrikaans-speaking person have the right to insist that the Minister should not place me and other people like me in the position that we always have to speak the other language because there are people who are not bilingual. There are many of us here who sometimes rise to address the House in English, not because we are English-speaking, but because we want to make sure that the Ministers understand us. However good the interpreter might be, it is very difficult for him to convey the exact meaning of the speaker. There may be one man who is unilingual on a board of 50, and one is practically forced, through etiquette or good manners, to speak the language which he can understand. The Minister has never been in a place where he was forced to speak Afrikaans. Most of us are bilingual, and I think it will be a nice gesture if he, as an English-speaking person, gets up today and says: “I, who was also unilingual but who tried to learn the other language, agree that it is essential that we should be able to speak both languages.” I hope the Minister will accept this amendment.

I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that we are sorry that he gave this reply. I want to tell him in all friendliness that this is the reply which has been given all these years. It is the reply of the last 30 or 35 years, and that reply means nothing. The Minister said these people are practically all bilingual. Here one now has a small group of people who will enter the service, who on the date of the coming into force of this Bill are in the service of the board. These people are mostly in the clerical division. Now the Minister says: “They are practically all bilingual.” But it is just that word “practically” mentioned by him which causes the difficulty. If Ministers had omitted that word 20 years ago, there would today have been no more unilingual people in the service. Why must we fight over this question every year as a matter of principle? In my hands I have a Bill which is being introduced during this Session by the Minister of Labour. He was congratulated here on what he is doing. In this Bill, the Bill providing for the registration of unemployed, the Minister of Labour decided to accept that the official he appoints must be bilingual.

I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss that Bill. The hon. member must confine himself to the amendment to this clause.

My point is just this, that when one Minister lays down in the Bill that an official must be bilingual, it is reason enough for me to say that another Minister must also do so. Here the Minister says that an official must be appointed, and he clearly states in the Bill that a bilingual official must be appointed. If that is right in one case, why should it be wrong in another? I think we should remove the inconsistency. Why must we waste the valuable time of the House every year about a matter where the Minister can simply say that he will do it? I am sorry that this Minister who pretends that he personally is working very hard to become bilingual, refuses to accept this amendment. Why does he not meet us? This concession is asked for, and it is in the interest of the large aggregate of officials. It is in the interest of the future of people who want to become civil servants, and now the Minister wants to provide in his Bill for possible exceptions, because he says there is practically no one who is unilingual, and it is high time that those few who are practically not bilingual should now become actually bilingual. But the Minister refuses to adopt an amendment like this, and I just want to tell him that as long as they continue with that sort of thing, we will keep up the pressure. It is not an unreasonable pressure. It is a request which applies to both sections. We speak about the Afrikaans-speaking person who must know English, but we also speak about the English-speaking person who must know Afrikaans. I want to put the question to the Minister: He says in his speech that the officials are practically all bilingual. Can he rise and tell me how many of those who are not bilingual are Afrikaans-speaking; how many Afrikaans-speaking people are there in that service who do not know enough English? There are perhaps a few who are not bilingual. As regards those few who are not bilingual, is the language which they do not know Afrikaans or English? The Minister ought to be able to tell us that, and it is in the interests of the House to know it. That little group which is not bilingual, what official language do they not know? I trust that the Minister will reply to me on this point and I wish to give the Minister the assurance that as long as that standpoint is adopted opposite, that point of view which is not a complete execution of the spirit of the South Africa Act and of the civil service regulations, for so long we on this side will keep up the pressure.

I should like to make one thing clear to this House, because some members attribute more to my remarks than was intended. As to how many employees of the board are unilingual or how many bilingual or anything of that kind, I have no detailed knowledge at all. What I said was that from my knowledge of the staff of the board they were probably 100 per cent. bilingual, also from my knowledge of them if any happened to be unilingual it is just as likely to be Afrikaans-speaking as English-speaking.

No, no.

It might surprise hon. members to know that I have quite a number of unilingual Afrikaans-speaking men on the South African Railways.

I asked you several times to give me their names.

I do not want to be argumentative ….

Have you unilingual Afrikaans-speaking men in clerical positions?

I do not know about that. I personally have no knowledge about these men and I do not want it to be assumed I am speaking with an accurate knowledge of the facts when I say practically all the existing staff are bilingual. This is a very small matter. These are existing officials. These are people now in the employment of the State, and all we are doing is to transfer them to the public service, where the desire for promotion will give them every incentive to get busy and become bilingual if they are not so now. Everything I am doing is in the interests of these men in employment here and in the interests of the bilingual policy. I may say that during last Session in connection with the Act which transferred certain employees of the United Transkeian Territory General Council to the public service, we adopted the same course exactly—

The same clause was adopted by the House last year. If Parliament, in its wisdom, thought fit to make that provision as recently as last Session there would not be any justification for taking a different course now.

I have learned a few lessons since last year.

We all realise that the aim of this Bill is to improve the position of the officials of the Road Transportation Board, and the hon. Minister realises that we all approve of it in principle. We plead that all persons benefited by the Bill should be bilingual, and now the Minister pretends that also unilingual Afrikaans-speaking persons will be affected by the Bill. We do not want restrictions to be placed on one section only. We plead that the same restrictions should be placed on unilingual Afrikaans-speaking people. We also do not want unilingual Afrikaans-speaking persons, if any, to share in the benefits aimed at by the Bill. In this case perhaps we have only a few people who will not benefit by the Bill if the amendment of the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) is accepted. We now have a golden opportunity of setting an example in the civil service. If this amendment is accepted it will be an encouragement for all officials to become bilingual as soon as possible. The amendment is so reasonable and so just that I cannot help urging the Minister seriously to consider and to adopt it.

I am very sorry but I cannot accept the Minister’s statement in this regard. I feel very anxious about the bilingual problem in South Africa. It seems to me that inside the Cabinet there is no unanimity about the interpretation of “bilingualism”, and that is what worries me. The other day we had the case where a colleague of the Minister rose and said that he interprets Clause 137 to read that he can use whichever language he likes. I do not know whether the Minister of Transport interprets Clause 137 in the same way. Every day we hear from the Government that it is very anxious about the question of bilingualism. If the Government is really anxious about bilingualism, why must we plead every day that the principle of bilingualism should be put into practice? The hon. the Minister said just now that the people being transferred to the civil service are perhaps 100 per cent. bilingual. If that is the case, I wonder what the Minister’s objection is to the acceptance of this amendment. The way in which we have to carry on in this House in connection with the question of bilingualism proves to me that the Government is simply not serious, and it does not help the Minister to come and tell us that there may perhaps be unilingual Afrikaans-speaking people. That makes no difference to us on this side of the House. We want all civil servants to be bilingual, and if officials are now being transferred to the civil service, let them be bilingual. If the Minister is serious in regard to the language question in South Africa, he has no right to reject this amendment, and I wish to press from this side that the Minister should now prove that he is in earnest, and he must adopt this amendment proposed by the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman).

Every sitting hours are wasted in this House on the request of this side that we should appoint and promote bilingual officials in the civil service. The Minister of Transport does not know which of these officials will be unilingual, Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking. As far as we are concerned, we are not concerned about that at all. It is nearly 30 years ago since this Act with reference to bilingualism was introduced in this country, and there are still péople today who do not know the second language. We on this side say that they should not be appointed to posts of this nature, whether they be Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking. It does not matter to us who the person is; we are concerned about the principle, the principle of maintenance of both official languages. If the Minister can mention the name of a single person in the clerical division who occupies a responsible post, an Afrikaans-speaking person who does not know English, I shall be very surprised. I do not think he can mention a single name, but I can mention the names of thousands of English-speaking officials whom one finds in responsible departmental posts and who, when one addresses them in Afrikaans, stare at one as though one does not know what one is talking about. Why should we go on in this way? It is unreasonable towards the European race in this country. If we maintain this principle—and the sooner we accept and carry out this principle, the sooner we will have harmony in this country between Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking persons, but while we continue to give preference to one section of the population by ignoring important decisions which are made here in connection with the language question, we shall not make any progress. I want to make an appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment. We are only asking for something that is already on the Statute Book. Is that not consistent? No, Mr. Chairman, I hope that this debate in regard to the question of bilingual officials occupying responsible posts, will not come up for discussion in this House again, but that every Minister concerned will do his duty and satisfy himself when appointing such persons that they are bilingual. We cannot accept an assurance on the part of the Minister that he will do his best. Our experience is that this is only a backdoor through which unilingual persons can be appointed or promoted, and, moreover, to permit of the elevator being used to give them promotion.

I had not intended discussing this amendment because I took it for granted that after all this talk we have heard from the Government side in regard to bilingualism in the past few years, the Minister would at once be prepared to accept this amendment in order to prove his bona fides, and to prove by word and deed that it is not only lip service on the part of the Government when they speak about bilingualism. But to my surprise the Minister of Transport refuses to accept this amendment, notwithstanding the fact that we have shown that the Minister of Labour and others, since this fight was started a year or more ago, have agreed to lay down in their Bills that the officials to be appointed must be fully bilingual. But what particularly impelled me to take part in this debate, was the remarkable explanation that we heard from the Minister of Transport.

These are employees who are in the service at the moment.

I shall come back to the point which the Minister raised. First of all, I want to carry on with the train of thought which I was developing, namely, the remarkable statement we had from the Minister. He gave us the assurance that the “majority of the officials concerned were practically bilingual.” That made us sit up immediately. It must have sounded strange to everyone that the Minister should state here that the majoriy of these officials were practically bilingual. That can only mean one thing and that is that many of these people are not bilingual. When that was brought to the Minister’s notice, he amended his first statement and in doing so he contradicted himself. But he then stated that he had been misunderstood, that he did not mean it in that sense and that as far as he knew these people were practically 100 per cent. bilingual. That was a reassuring statement, but immediately thereafter the Minister made this statement. He said he wondered whether this side of the House realised that in all probability some of the officials concerned were Afrikaans-speaking unilingual. What was the Minister’s object in saying that? Was it simply an attempt to get out of the difficulty or what did he mean?

I said that in order to prove my impartiality.

Did the Minister, in order to prove his impartiality, simply make a statement which was not true? Did the Minister deliberately, with that object in mind, make a statement which is not true? What type of officials are in the service of these boards? These are not ordinary workers. They are not in the same position as labourers on the railways. The people employed in the service of these boards are clerical personnel and inspectors. Can the Minister tell me what other people are in the employ of these boards, except clerical staff and inspectors at the various places? I challenge the Minister to get up in this House and to mention the name of a single member of that staff who is Afrikaans-speaking unilingual. He knows there is no such person. He knows that his Government will not appoint a single person on the clerical staff or as an inspector who is Afrikaans-speaking unilingual. He knows that very well, and if he knows it, why does he make a statement here which must inevitably mislead the people in the country? If this were an isolated case, one could have let the matter pass and one could have accepted the statement that there are no unilingual people. But everyone who has come into contact with Government departments in the past few years knows that this Government, wherever it was not compelled by the law to appoint bilingual persons, appointed unilingual people. Take the various controllers and their departments. Take the other organisations which have been created since the war broke out, the personnel of which does not fall under the Public Service Act. Take the controllers of rubber, petrol, meat, etc. In all the various departments which have been established in the past few years we find the same position, namely, that unilingual people have been appointed everywhere. Wherever the Public Service Act did not compel the Government to appoint bilingual people, unilingual persons were appointed on a large scale. On a previous occasion I pointed out what happened in a certain department in Cape Town. When I walked into the office I did not find a single Afrikaans notice in the whole of that office. This is a department which came into existence during the war. I repeat that in the whole of that department there was not a single Afrikaans notice and if one had tested the officials, one would have found a large number of unilingual persons, and these are people who come into contact with Afrikaans-speaking persons every day. For that reason one simply cannot accept the Government’s word, unless it is compelled by law to appoint bilingual persons. I am not satisfied therefore with the statement which the Minister made today that these people will be bilingual, unless he is compelled by the law to appoint bilingual persons. Some time ago I had to telephone the Department of the Meat Controller. The person who spoke to me on the telephone did not know a word of Afrikaans. He could not understand me. He was an English-speaking unilingual, and I had to wait until he had called someone else to speak to me on the telephone. In all the various departments which have been established during the war, we find numerous examples of this nature. The Minister says that this only applies to people who are already in the service. I know that, but this Bill only comes into operation when it has been promulgated, and I do not know how many more unilingual persons will be appointed in the meantime or how many unilingual persons have been appointed in the past. I do not know how many unilingual persons are being appointed by the Government in conflict with the general policy of the country, and in conflict with the policy which the Government has announced from time to time. We have no idea how many unilingual persons have already been appointed, and if the Minister wanted to treat this Parliament reasonably, he would have been able to tell us today how many of those persons are bilingual and how many are unilingual. We ought to have more information on this point, especially since the Minister has sought to create the impression that there are Afrikaans-speaking unilingual persons in that department, and it is no more than fair that the Minister should tell this House and the country how many members of the staff in the employ of these boards are unilingual English-speaking and how many of them are unilingual Afrikaans-speaking. I cannot accept the Minister’s statement on this matter, and for that reason I sup port the amendment, and not only that, but we are going to ask for a division.

I rise just to say a few words to enlarge upon the remarks of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). Recently I had an opportunity of coming into contact with two controllers in Cape Town. I spoke to them in Afrikaans and they asked me why I did not rather speak English. I told them that I was surprised that an official should ask me why I did not speak English. I told them that they ought to be bilingual, and do you know what the reply was? It was this: “You should not blame me, you should blame yourself, because you are the people in Parliament who appointed me.” I repeat this in English deliberately so that those three Ministers on the other side can understand me. It will be seen that these unilingual persons who occupy these posts adopt the attitude that they need not be bilingual because we appointed them to those positions. I hope the Minister of Transport will listen to me. I do not know why the Minister has latterly cultivated this habit, and I ’am now going to tell him personally that I find his disdainful attitude in this House reprehensible. It has become his habit, when we discuss a Bill in this House, to create the impression, by talking to the Acting Prime Minister or to members on the other side that he is not even taking notice of us and that he is not paying any attention to our remarks. I said a moment ago what the reply of these controllers was. They went on to say that the Minister of Transport had said the other day that there were unilingual Afrikaans-speaking persons in his Department. Last year I challenged the Minister to mention the name of an Afrikaans-speaking unilingual person in his clerical division, and I am convinced that he cannot do it, but because the Minister stated here that there were unilingual Afrikaans-speaking persons in his service, these controllers feel that they need not be bilingual.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

When business ’was suspended I was on the point of sitting down. I just want to refer to one point. The Minister made the remark that unilingual persons in the service of the Road Transportation Board may include Afrikaans-speaking persons, thinking that in saying that he would satisfy the Afrikaans-speaking members on this side of the House. But the Minister is groping in the dark. It seems to me that he is under the impression that we on this side adopt the attitude that we only want the English-speaking people to be bilingual. He is making a mistake’. Our attitude is clear. We expect every man in the civil service, English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking to be bilingual. We feel that the Minister, in trying to create the impression that we on this side only want the English-speaking people to be bilingual, is obscuring the principle of bilingualism. He is apparently of the opinion that we would be prepared to pass Afrikaans-speaking persons who are not bilingual, and that for that reason he must be prepared to pass English-speaking persons who are not bilingual. That is not the position. The Minister referred to similar legislation which we allowed to pass last year. I want to tell the Minister that since that time I have become a little wiser. The Department of Railways, to mention an example, drew the attention of heads of departments to the fact, through the General Manager in October, 1944, that unilingual persons were not to be overlooked for promotion. That is what causes one concern. I thought that the Minister had come to his senses after our attack upon him in 1943, as far as the policy of bilingualism is concerned, but to my surprise I got hold of this letter which contains an instruction to the heads of departments not to overlook unilingual persons. I say therefore that I have become wiser. If that happens in the Department of Railways, it will also happen in this case that the Minister will promote unilingual persons, who slip into the civil service in preference to bilingual persons. I say emphatically therefore that the Minister’s action in connection with the application of the policy of bilingualism makes it impossible for us to be satisfied with the explanation he gave this morning. That is why we move this amendment.

I fully agree with the remarks of the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Wilkens), namely, that this Bill means an improvement, but’ I cannot associate myself with the hon. member as far as the language question is concerned. That amendment which has been moved is only intended to hurt the feelings’ of people, because if he thinks back a little, the hon. member will realise that he was a little over-hasty. These things adjust themselves gradually. When we declared peace at Vereeniging, 85 per cent. of the whole population of the Transvaal was unilingual, and if the hon. member goes to the Transvaal today, he will find that 95 per cent. of the people are bilingual. What is the member doing now? He now seeks by means of his amendment to place the stamp of inferiority on the remaining 5 per cent., which is made up of old veterans who fought for our country. They are the people on whom an inferiority complex is now being forced.

You need not think that the Government will ever appoint one of them.

Hon. members cannot get away from that. In this way the stamp of inferiority is placed on people who sacrificed their all for the country, although the Minister says that only a small percentage are not yet bilingual. I say that if the principle of bilingualism had not been hawked about so much in the past, our people might have been 100 per cent. bilingual by this time. Hon. members want to raise the question of bilingualism on every conceivable occasion and in doing so they make things very difficult for the 5 per cent. Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking persons on whom they are forcing an inferiority complex. I hope the House will not accept this amendment.

After what has been stated by the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) I cannot remain silent. It is very clear that the hon. member is labouring under a misapprehension. Apparently he is under the impression that when it comes to clerical appointments the Minister or the Government will appoint veterans of the three years war who are Afrikaans-speaking unilinguals. Let me just give the assurance to the hon. member that this will not happen.

I do not believe that at all.

Even though the present Government is in office for many years it will never appoint one of the people to whom the hon. member has referred, but the opposite is true, namely that unilingual English veterans of the war will be appointed.

Where is the evidence?

The evidence is that I come in contact with them in various departments.

I meet them in the Department of the Building Controller and in other departments. You get these old veterans who are unilingual English-speaking and who cannot attend to you in your own language, but the hon. member for Pretoria (District) will not find there a single Afrikaans-speaking veteran who has fought with him. He should not throw up this smoke screen and pretend that these people are being branded with a mark of inferiority. In any case they would not to all eternity get a chance. We say that the people in the public service should be bilingual. Another misunderstanding under which the hon. member is labouring is that this amendment is directed at people who were appointed in the dim past. That is not so. This amendment was only designed to prevent the Government continuing in their policy of placing English-speaking unilinguals in the public service, because this is happening. The purpose of the amendment is to prevent this. The hon. member for Pretoria (District) is an Afrikaans-speaking member, and I only want to say this to him that if he discusses the matter in this way he is conferring no service on his fellow Afrikaners. What is more, he is conferring no service on those English-speaking people who have made themselves bilingual. Our amendment is in conformity with the declared policy of the Government that it requires bilingualism from all State officials, a policy that it is unfortunately not carrying out, and our amendment is consequently in the interests of all Afrikaans-speaking people and of all those English-speaking people who have realised that if they want to be good South Africans they must be bilingual. Many English-speaking people have taken the trouble to learn Afrikaans. But if the Government continues with its present course of action those English-speaking people will ask what is the use of them having learned Afrikaans and having become bilingual, because the Government is simply appointing unilinguals and appointing unilinguals despite the fact that bilingual people are available.

Just a few words to the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo). I think that the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has already dealt with him, but there is only one aspect of the matter that I want to mention. He says that we are only irritating and that we want to hurt. But the position is that from the other side hurt can be inflicted. They can irritate the Afrikaner and trample on his language, and he has to remain silent and he may not plead for his rights as an Afrikaner and for the rights of his language. I did not expect this from the hon. member for Pretoria (District) that he should argue against bilingual people. It is peculiar to me that we as Afrikaners 35 years after both languages have been recognised as official, have still to stand up here and argue in favour of bilingual people being appointed in the public service, and that we have to seize every occasion to fight for the rights of the Afrikaner. These are rights that the Minister as an Eglish-speaking person ought to admit. The Minister of Transport is proud of what he calls British fair play. Is it British fair play that only the English-speaking section of the population should be looked after, that their language should be protected and not the Afrikaner’s language? We are obliged to plead for the rights of our children and for the rights of English-speaking people who have learned Afrikaans. In the future it will no longer be worth the trouble to learn the second language if the Government continues as it has been doing. Perhaps we cannot resent it from the Minister. When he is sitting in the Cabinet everything must be in English because there are some members who do not understand a word of Afrikaans. That happens everywhere. So that for the sake of one or two English-speaking people who do not know Afrikaans everything must be done in English. No, we are becoming tired of that sort of thing and a stop must be put to it. And then there is talk of racial co-operation. So long as that oppression and undermining of our language is going on we shall never have racial co-operation in our country, I make the strongest protest, and I hope that the Minister will still be prepared to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman). It is an amendment that is only asking for what is right and what the people want to have and will have.

I do not want to detain the House. But when the Minister replied I paid particular attention to the arguments that he employed, and he did not reply to this argument that has been mentioned. I do not believe the argument has been used previously, namely, if in company one English-speaking person is present who does not know Afrikaans it is expected of us to use the language that all can understand. This is the reason why many boards and committees have their proceedings in English. I want the Minister to answer to this. I do not know whether the Minister is finding it too difficult to answer that question, and whether on that account he has said nothing about it. What strikes one so forcibly in this debate is that the Afrikaans-speaking members of the United Party with the exception of one member who has stood up, have remained silent and have not expressed their opinion on this matter. We are very disappointed at that, and we are still more disappointed with the member who has spoken, because he has spoken in a very different way to what we thought his opinion would be.

Should I then talk as you want me to talk?

No, I think that the voters could nevertheless have sent someone to the House with enough intelligence to think for himself and from whom it would not be expected that he should imitate other members.

I know very well what I should say, and what I have said here is correct.

The hon. member carries on like a whirlwind in the corner, but we cannot really find out what he wants.

You have a Kruithoring on your coat, but he carried one.

I wear everything in the right place. I want to address particularly the Afrikaans-speaking members on the other side.

Why did you not go and fight?

I do not know where I should go and fight. I am opposed to the war and why should I go and fight?

You ought to have fought in the Boer War.

Then I should have to fight in a place where very little fighting was going on. I hope that now I shall be able to continue with what I have to say. I want to make an appeal to the Afrikaans-speaking members to assist in this matter which affects the interests of our people. I do not want those hon. members to take up the standpoint that our amendment should be condemned simply because it originated on this side. When in this House arguments are used and proposals are made that are fair and just then we should on both sides of the House view those arguments on their merits and not simply oppose them because they emanate from the Nationalist Party or from the United Party. I want to ask those Afrikaans-speaking members, who I am convinced hold the same ideas on this matter as we on this side do, to vote for this amendment because I want to believe that they have at heart the interests of their own mother tongue. It is very improper to ask here that people who are unilingual should fill such posts. On the other hand is it unfair to ask that people who hold these posts should be bilingual? We must not proceed from the standpoint that we are afraid if such a proposition is accepted, because it originates from the Nationalist Party it may do harm if it is accepted, to the political interests of the United Party. No, we must treat the matter on its merits.

And you were opposed to bilingualism in the schools.

The hon. member is now saying something which he knows is not true. How could I advocate unilingualism in schools and at the same time urge that bilingual officials should be appointed in the public service? That would be stupid, because then none of these children could be appointed. It is simply something that the hon. member has said in an attempt to raise a counter-argument to what I have said. My point is this, that if there are nine bilingual Afrikaans-speaking people serving on a committee and there is one unilingual English-speaking, English is always spoken.

Why?

It simply happens. Let the hon. member ask his own Ministers what happens at Cabinet meetings. There is the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and also other Ministers who do not really understand Afrikaans, and on their account everything is done in English.

We only talk there the language of friendship.

The Minister says that there they only talk the language of friendship, but if he was also bilingual he would not be annoyed with the other members of the Cabinet if they spoke Afrikaans. Now everything happens in friendship because only English is spoken. Everyone has to speak English, or otherwise they do not know what is going on. Supposing there is a council of ten persons and there are nine English-speaking people who can speak both languages and only one Afrikaans-speaking person who only knows Afrikaans, then those English-speaking people would very soon raise an objection if they had to do everything in Afrikaans. No, the result of the policy of the Government is merely that always English has to be spoken. I think that the whole spirit in Parliament would be very much better if everyone could follow everything that is said in both languages. I want to express the hope that the Afrikaans-speaking members on the other side and also the English-speaking, and I make an appeal to the Minister as an English-speaking person, will treat this matter on its merits. Let them admit the reasonableness of the motion that we are bringing forward on this side. They should not make observations of the sort the hon. member for Middelburg (Dr. Eksteen) made here, which are only designed to confuse the whole issue. Even if it were so it would have nothing to do with the merits of this case. We have not yet heard any argument from the other side why the requirements should not be laid down that these officials should be bilingual. The Minister has given us the assurance that the majority of these persons are bilingual. We hope that they will all within a short time be bilingual. The Minister has also stated that he hopes so. If this is so, then the Minister admits himself by his argument that it is desirable that these persons should be bilingual, and if he himself is anxious to have that why does he not accept our amendment that no person shall be appointed who is not bilingual? I hope that the hon. members opposite will see the fairness of our proposal, and the Minister even at this eleventh hour, will see it and accept the amendment.

So often in this House we have heard the Opposition refer to equal rights for those who fight and those who will not fight. Therefore, I am just wondering what is the real motive on the part of the Opposition members that they always insist on Government officials being “tweetalig”. After all, Rome was not built in a day and I say that tremendous progress has been made with Afrikaans in all Government departments, and I am therefore satisfied in my own mind, as a new member of this House, that the more I hear the Opposition speak on this question, the more I am convinced that they do not want the English-speaking South African to have a right to employment in any Government department. [Laughter.] That is the real motive. One hears them in connection with railway debates that 80 per cent. of the officials are English-speaking, but they do not tell this House that 95 per cent. of them are bilingual.

Do not be stupid.

He cannot help being stupid.

When it comes to stupidity you are an expert at it. The hon. member who refers to stupidity said this morning; in English, that when individuals go to Government officials they ask the officials why they do not speak English. They know only too well that when English-speaking members of the public approach Afrikaans-speaking officials they get ’Afrikaans in reply to their English questions. But we do not squeal. I say this, that there are other problems far greater in importance than spending so much time in this House on bilingualism. The people they profess to represent believe in something that will feed their stomachs, and not feed their minds with hatred and suspicion.

I would like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hopf) said, and I want to put this thought to the House: When you go into the Post Office or to anyone who is serving the public generally, do you go there for the purpose of establishing a political theory, or do you go there to get service? Do you go in to buy one penny stamp? I presume that if you do, you need a penny stamp, and therefore you get it in the quickest possible method. If you can speak English, and you think that the person behind the counter—this, of course, does not happen in the Post Office—cannot speak anything but English you ask for it in English. I presume that when you go to the Transportation Board you really go there to get something in connection with transport. You do not go to get something like my hon. friend—I forget his name, because he is so obscure ….

Your mind is always obscure.

Through all this Session he has only been interested in one thing and that is his business as a dentist, and he looks after his own pocket.

Order!

The hon. member must address the Chair.

The hon. member is only interested in his profession as a dentist and he has succeeded very well in holding up this House on an obscure business which puts money in his pocket.

Order, order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

No.

The hon. member must withdraw that. The hon. member is not entitled to say that any hon. member is doing anything for his personal benefit.

I am sorry.

Order, order. The hon. member must withdraw.

I am sorry but that is a fact. The hon. member has been throwing aspertions of stupidity.

Order, order. I am sure that the hon. member will, on reflection withdraw the reflection he has made on the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg.

I will withdraw, but it is still my opinion.

The hon. member must withdraw it unreservedly.

I am sorry.

I am sorry but I must ask the hon. member to leave the House for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

Whereupon Mr. Burnside withdrew.

I want to support the amendment of the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman), that the policy of bilingualism should be carried out. The policy of bilingualism that is being carried out in the country is the language of the Cabinet. As the Minister of Labour has now stated they speak the language of friendship in the Cabinet. Yes, it is the language of friendship if the one side preserves complete silence on its rights. We have not yet had a period in the history of our country like the past couple of years in which people have been so dissatisfied and disappointed in connection with bilingualism. The fact is that the Afrikaans-speaking official feels that he has no justice as regards his own language. There is great dissatisfaction amongst the Afrikaans-speaking officials, and not only amongst them. Many English-speaking officials who have taken the pains to become bilingual feel that the fact that they are bilingual is not being taken into consideration. There are cases where the Government has appointed unilingual officials and promoted them over the heads of bilingual officials of exceptional ability. This is happening in the railways and in other departments, and we maintain that it is a gross injustice towards these bilingual officials and they are entitled to feel dissatisfied over such treatment. I assert that it is in the interests of the country and that a big service will be conferred on the public service as a whole, and especially in the railway service, if the Minister accepts this amendment, because it will constitute an assurance to both Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking bilingual officials that it is worth the trouble for them to become bilingual and that we are in earnest with our policy of bilingualism. I hope that the Minister will at once accept this amendment.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—25:

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Brink, W. D.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges T. E.

Fouché, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, J. N.

Louw, E. H.

Ludic’k, A. I.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. J. Serfontein and P. J. van Nierop.

Noes—68:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Butters, W. R.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

De Kock, P. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

McLean, J.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Morris, J. W. H.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Waring, F. W.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Wolmarans. J. B.

Tellers: J. W. Higgerty and W. B. Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

I move—

I am moving this amendment in compliance with the undertaking I gave when I asked the House to accept the second reading. Hon. members will remember in the original draft of this Act a different kind of treatment was meted out to railway servants than to public servants. As enquiry has shown me there was no need for that I undertook to have an amendment putting railway servants and public servants on all fours in regard to this particular Act, and this amendment will achieve that end. I hope that it will meet with the approval of hon. members opposite.

Amendment 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 17th April.

announced that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders had appointed the following members to serve on the Select Committee on subject of Unit Trusts Control Bill and Stock Exchanges Control Bill, viz.: Messrs. Acutt, Christie, Clark, Dr. Dönges, Mr. Faure, Lt.-Col. Rood, Mr. Sonnenberg, Dr. Stals and Mr. Stratford.

I have an amendment to move to the amendment—

In the second reading I promised to meet the objections raised on behalf of those who voluntarily insured, as for example farmers and diamond diggers, etc., to what I called voluntary compulsion, namely, after having voluntarily accepted insurance they would have been compelled to remain in for all time. I have now decided to move this amendment which will give a voluntary insurer the right to give six months’ notice in any one year. Personally I would have liked to make it obligatory for two years, but it has been pointed out to me that six months’ notice might cover the business.

I spoke on this clause when we debated the second reading, and I referred to two or three very unsatisfactory points it contains. One of the unsatisfactory features is that the provision for voluntary insurance with the State is quite contrary to the recommendations of the 1940 Select Committee on Workmen’s Compensation on which the present Act was drawn up. Further the proposal to allow the State to transact voluntary insurance is not in accordance with the declared policy of the Government in that they have made it known from time to time that there is no intention of the State interfering with private enterprise. In addition, I want to point out that these employees who are exempt, but who can now be included under the voluntary insurance scheme, will receive compensation on a much lower scale than they can receive if the employer elects to insure them with a private insurance company. As an example. A man earning £1,200 a year insured under this voluntary system with the State will reecive £18 a month compensation as compared with £75 a month from the insurance companies. Then I want to refer to another undesirable feature. This clause enables an employer to take away the common law rights of his employee, and this to my mind is bad legislation. I therefore asked the Minister whether, in view of these unsatisfactory points, he would delete the clause or make it compulsory for the employees who are exempted at the present time to be insured with the State, and not with the insurance companies; or agree to the Bill being referred to a Select Committee. I must say that I was very disappointed with the reply I received from the Minister. It may be due to the fact that it was a Wednesday and a meatless day, for there was certainly very little meat in his reply.

I was speaking of vegetables.

The Minister mentioned a bunch of carrots and I think he was trying to draw a red herring across the whole matter. So what with vegetables, a bunch of carrots, a red herring and no meat I think it can be said it was a meatless day. In referring to what the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) and I had said regarding the reduced compensation he gave the House to understand that we were not one little bit interested in what the workmen would receive, but that we were only concerned with the interests of various insurance companies. How the hon. Minister could feel this I do not understand, because both the hon. member for Houghton and myself suggested that it should be made compulsory for all those employees who fall outside the Act at the present time to be insured with the State. In such circumstances I fail to see how he could arrive at the conclusion we were only interested in the insurance companies. In reply to a suggestion that it was bad legislation to take away the common law rights of employees, he said he always held the right to appeal to the courts was absolutely misleading and asked how many men had the wherewithal to fight insurance companies. He added: “I claim to represent the true interests of the working man in this country.” The hon. Minister by this Bill is taking away the employee’s common law rights, not only to go to court, but to claim. I feel this is wrong, for surely an employee should have the right to claim compensation from his employer for accidents due to his employer’s negligence for pain and suffering and for loss other than his pecuniary loss. Nine times out of ten he would receive compensation without having to go to court, but to deprive him of his right to claim seems to me bad legislation, especially when it is left entirely to the employer himself to take away that right. Further, the Minister has stated that he has the working man ’at heart, and I cannot understand, therefore, why he will not agree to the inclusion of the farm labourer who is not working with machinery. Why should not these employees be covered by the State under a compulsory measure? Also, why does he not allow those domestic servants employed in boarding houses where there are less than five employees, to be entitled to claim compensation if they meet with an accident? I am moving an amendment to this clause which will result in the employees I have mentioned being entitled to compensation in the event of disablement by accident. This amendment will make it compulsory for the employer to insure them and to insure them with the State. The amendment will simply result in the employees I have named being included, and entitled to receive compensation: and further it raises the limit of £750 to £850 in respect of the level of remuneration under which a worker may fall under the Act. I move—

1. (a) by the substitution in paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) of the word “eight” for the word “seven”;
2. (b) by the deletion of the word “or” at the end of sub-paragraph (i) of the paragraph (f) of the said sub-section;
3. (c) by the deletion of sub-paragraph (ii) of the said paragraph;
4. (d) by the deletion of paragraphs (g), (h) and (j) of the said sub-section; and
5. (e) by the deletion of the word “or” at the end of paragraph (i) of the said sub-section.

I have listened with attention to the second reading debate on this Bill and again to the debate as far as it has gone in Committee on the Bill. But I have not heard any member put the other side of the question in connection with this Bill. Although there is no one more anxious in this House than myself to see that all the workers are fully proctected and that every possible legislative measure is adopted for the protection of workers and to make the necessary provision for them, and to ensure them reasonable wages, I think that we should also bear in mind the other side, namely, the position of the employer. I realise to the full that if anyone is dependent for his living on his work with his hands or his feet and the whole family is dependent on that, and if in one way or another he loses a limb which makes him incapable of looking after his family properly, we ought to protect such a man. I should like to see the worker protected in every respect. But while we are regarding the matter from this angle I want to ask the House whether we are proceeding on the assumption that every employer is a wealthy man. We are protecting the worker and we want that, but do we give thought to the fact that in many cases the employer has just as much need of protection as the worker. We proceed from the assumption that the employer must protect himself. It is a fact that cannot be argued away that in many respects the employer is worse off, and in a more unfavourable position than the workers, and yet it is expected of the employer that he should give the necessary protection to the employees by means of insurance. As the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. Abbott) has pointed out, they expect that the people on a farm whose activities are not connected with machinery should also have protection. Well and good, I shall support that, but when you do this and you have 30 or 40 people working on a threshing machine or another machine or even doing ordinary work but who are entirely out of danger as far as the machine is concerned, and you go and compel the employer to insure these 30 or 40 people while the employer in many cases is perhaps just as poor or poorer than the employees, then I feel that we should also pause to give a moment’s consideration to the position of the employer. The employer has perhaps just as difficult a time to keep his family and to make ends meet, and you expect him to protect 30 or 40 people. Is that a reasonable expectation? I agree we should try to protect the workers, but should we throw the whole onus simply on the employer? Can the workman not contribute himself towards his protection, and should the Government be entirely exempted from contributing? Let us bear in mind that the man who is an employer is often not protected because of the fact that he cannot afford it, and we are now asking by means of legislation that the employers should protect the men while they are not in a position to do so themselves.

It is not compulsory.

I feel that there we are treading on dangerous ground, and that we are throwing a big responsibility on many persons who cannot afford it, and I feel that that side of the question should receive consideration.

I am glad that the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. Abbott) has moved this amendment, and I myself am pleased to support it. The only criticism I have to make, if I understood him aright, is that it does not appear to me to go far enough. The hon. member wants domestic servants in small boarding houses to be entitled to workmen’s compensation, and he wants the employer to be compelled to insure them; but as I understand the amendment he does not want to apply it to private domestic servants.

I am prepared to do so.

I do not see the point of leaving them out. It seems to me just as important that a person doing the work of a domestic servant in a private household should be entitled to compensation in respect of an accident in the course of his duties, as in the case of those employed in a small boarding house. I am of opinion, as a matter of fact, that this exclusion of domestic servants from the industrial legislation of this country—not only in the Workmen’s Compensation Act—is not in the interests of employers. Here in the Cape employers are saying that they cannot obtain domestic servants. A domestic servant is not protected by any of the laws which cover other workers. It is a rotten type of job, in any event. I hope the Minister will make a Start now in protecting domestic servants employed by private employers. Any number of people are employing domestic servants who should not be employing them; they are not prepared to give them decent conditions or to compensate them for injuries sustained in their service. The same remarks apply with greater force to employees of the land-owners. I have never understood why the landowner is always regarded as a privileged employer in this country. His employees are excluded from the protection of every industrial law which experience has shown to be necessary for the protection of employees generally. In the workmen’s compensation legislation there is some breach of that principle in that, in the terms of the section that is being amended, a farm worker who is engaged on machinery is entitled to compensation for injuries sustained whilst engaged on such machinery. But why limit it to machinery? If the risks of the farm worker, whether he be European or nonEuropean are not great, the premium would not be very high and the extent of the employer’s liability would not be very great. But if, on the other hand, farm work is dangerous, then this protection is needed. I cannot see any logical reason, particularly in relation to workmen’s compensation, for excluding farm workers. The worker who has to work with animals, for instance, bulls, mules, etc. is very likely to be injured—an employee of a dairyman is very likely to be injured in the course of his duty, and I feel it is common justice to extend this protection to farm workers. The same considerations apply to employees of diggers. Diggers, because of the nature of their business, take risks, which fifty are entitled to take, but they should not be entitled to risk the lives of their employees. The employees of diggers should also be covered therefore. I do not know why enlightened employers resist the application to them of laws which long experience has shown to be necessary both in the interest of the worker and of the employer. Land owners are the very type of employers whose representatives are often complaining in this House that there is a shortage of labour and some of us have frequently replied to that contention that the reason is that the conditions offered to the employees are not competitive as compared with industrial employees, and it seems to me that here in a small way is an opportunity to make a beginning in meeting that contention, of giving to the farm worker that security which experience has shown should be conceded to workers generally.

I am sorry but I cannot support the view of the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. Abbott) nor that of the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno). The hon. member who has just resumed his seat must know why agriculture stands in such a peculiar position as an employer that it has always to be excluded. But I want to ask that hon. member whether the public will be prepared to pay the increased price for the commodity that the farmer produces if all these burdens are placed on the farmer. They are not prepared to pay for them, but I want to put another propostion. I want to welcome the amendment of the hon. Minister. The farmer realises more and more that he is responsible for his employees who work with machinery, and our farmers are quite prepared to accept that responsibility to a degree in order to obtain the necessary protection for their employees. But I do not entirely agree with what the hon. member for Caledon (Mr. H. C. de Wet) has stated. We cannot just suddenly force the farmer to insure his employees. Where the farmers have no mechanical power on their farms it is unreasonable to apply this law to them. I have previously asked the Minister not to apply this legislation generally to the farmers. If I have workmen engaged with tractors and other machinery I am absolutely prepared to pay the premiums. As a farmer I do not want to accept the responsibility for those people’s lives. I am prepared to pay a couple of pounds every year to insure them, and I welcome the fact that the Minister has seen his way clear not to make this compulsory for the farmers. But the hon. member for Sea Point now asks that in any case it should be made compulsory. The hon. member for Cape Western wants to go further. He wants even to include domestic servants. I adhere fully to the viewpoint that there is no danger connected with the ordinary daily work on the farm. Why then should the farmer accept responsibility? But if I put a native on work that a semi-skilled labourer should be doing, it is my responsibility if he is injured. I want to repeat that I cordially welcome the option that is here left to the farmer.

I would like to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. Abbott); I think that since workmen’s compensation has advanced to the state to which it has now advanced, it should be made compulsory upon all employers to insure those employed by them. I think it is fair that it should be made compulsory for this reason, that it’ does not seem to me to be reasonable that one man should have the employees insured while another man is not obliged to insure them. The fundamental reason for having workmen’s compensation is to see that the workman who is injured in the course of and arising out of his employment receives compensation during the period of his disablement. That is the point from which we start. I think that is a point that has the wholehearted support of the House, and if that point is correct, then I feel that the time has now arrived when workmen’s compensation should be extended to cover those employers who have up to date been exempted, and to cover them in the same compulsory manner, and not to make it voluntary. I understand the argument of the hon. member opposite who has pleaded that workmen’s compensation should be left as a voluntary matter for the farmers. They have not been accustomed to workmen’s compensation, but we must remember this fact that workmen’s compensation was started in the Union of South Africa as long ago as 1914—I believe I am correct in my date—which is now 30 years ago, and after 30 years it is about time that employers of this country should come to know more about workmen’s compensation and that they should fall more into line in this matter. I think the time to make workmen’s compensation compulsory to cover the farming community, to cover domestic servants, and the other sections named here which the hon. member for Sea Point now seeks to embrace in his amendment, is overdue; and I think the Minister will do a very good thing indeed if he will consider this further amendment and so afford all employees equitable treatment in respect of workmen’s compensation. I do hope the Minister is going to give very favourable consideration to this amendment. It is not a question of supporting any particular interest. I hope the Minister will believe me when I tell him so. I am looking at this matter from the standpoint on which workmen’s compensation is based, and I repeat that if that standpoint is correct, then it is correct that workmen’s compensation should be applied equally to cover those employed on the farms. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno), I think, put the case very well. It is not only machinery that can bring about accidents on the farm. In dealing with animals and in other ways the worker may meet with an accident, quite apart from power-driven machinery. Why should the unfortunate employee who has met with an accident caused in a manner other than by machinery, not be entitled to receive compensation, when he would have received compensation if he had met with the accident while driving machinery? The argument in favour of workmen’s compensation is overwhelming. If the Minister is not prepared to accept this amendment, I hope he will tell us so, because I have a further amendment to move. It is a contingent amendment and I will hold it over until the Minister replies.

We must be practical when we are dealing with the workers on a farm. It would be absolutely impossible to introduce compulsory insurance on a farm.

Why?

With the exception of one here and there all the farmers on that side will find that this is absolutely impracticable and inoperative.

What is the reason?

The reason is that the work on a farm is of such a nature that this is impracticable. The farmer has a shepherd for his sheep; he has a herd for his calves. How is he going to insure the herds? Then you have the making of raisins. This month one requires 20 or 30 people. Are you going to insure their lives for a month? When this seasonal work is over there is no further work for them and you may only require four or five. It is absolutely a different matter when you go to industry and to other great enterprises where persons are doing special work from January to December. The industrialist has a fixed income, and it can be said that there is a continuous risk to his workers. In a large factory you may have 100 people. You insure them all; that is all right, we are in agreement with that, it is just. But at the same time the industrialist accepts no risk when he pays that insurance premium. His products are sold at a fixed price and he is producing the article knowing what his expenditure is. He is not going to manufacture at a loss. The farmer, on the contrary, has no guarantee that he will make a profit or that he will not suffer a loss. The farmer does not enjoy the right that the industrialist has to say: “That is my price and I am not going to sell below that.” The farmer must be satisfied with the price that the merchant gives him. If the farmer has to insure his workmen he will have to pay those premiums though the hail may destroy his crops or the locusts consume them. I say that the farmer cannot work on that system. He continuously runs the risk of heavy losses, and broadly speaking I maintain that no farmer in this country has enriched himself out of farming. I have struggled hard to get a little bit together out of farming, and I say it is exceptional when a farmer becomes wealthy through his farming operations. I am convinced that all the farmers on this side of the House will vote against the amendment. It is impracticable; it cannot be carried into effect. We would like to insure those workmen on our farms who run risks while at work. There are the people who work with tractors, but we have not always the same man on the tractor. Today it may be one boy and the following day someone else, or possibly four or five of them may be working during the one day with the tractor. How are you going to insure the five of them?

Provision is made for that.

If the driver who is insured is sick in the morning, or if he is being used on other work, and a second or third or fourth boy takes his place, then he does not fall under the insurance scheme if he is injured.

Yes, he is covered.

Well, I accept that. But on the other hand, if this amendment is adopted you will be making it very difficult for us and you will thereby be increasing the burden on the farmer. I know your intention with this amendment is not exactly to oppress the farmer, but although you may not have that intention the effect of it will be that the farmer’s burdens will become heavier.

I am rather sorry that the hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Boovsen) has advanced the argument which he did, and I feel sure that the Minister of Labour will accept this amendment. He has been fighting for it all his life. I fought with him Why does he now go one way and we have to go another? Why does he part?

You parted long ago.

That hon. member should have been here on Friday. Why should we part now? This is one of the basic principles of insurance, and the only reason why we have not introduced it before, is because of power pressure by the farmers. There are quite a number of farmers on this side who compensate their natives, and they are good men. I dare say there are quite a number on the other side as well. I should not be surprised if every member on that side, when his native employee is hurt, immediately takes him to the doctor for treatment. There is not a farmer on that side who would not do it; I feel sure of that. We know that if anybody got hurt on their farms, they would look after them. Why be afraid to accept this amendment then? The farmers on both sides are afraid of politics, and if they only knew it, if they had this they would get better men and produce better goods. We introduced the Factories Act some years ago, and what was the result? Today the men are more careful; the overseers are more careful. It works in Australia; it works in the Argentine; it works in New Zealand. Why then should it not work in South Africa? We are just as civilised as they are. It has been said here that the farmer does not always know whether he is going to make a profit. That applies to everyone. There are many factory owners who do not make a profit. The basis of civilisation today is that the man who is hurt in doing his work shall be compensated. I want to ask the hon. member for Namaqualand, who has a heart of gold, to put aside party politics for one moment. I know what he would do on his own farm if one of his labourers were injured. He would rush the man to the nearest village for treatment. He has done it all his life. Why should he oppose this amendment now? I think our farmers will agree to this amendment. This principle has got to be fought out in this House, and if the farmers are not here to discuss it, let the Minister adjourn the debate for a few days. The country wants this. One of the things the country does want is social security, and every man who is hurt should have the right to have the best doctors and nurses. The country is calling out for it. The country is not calling out for bilingualism, but it is calling out for social security. My hon. friend, the Minister of Labour, has been a pioneer in this work. I take off my hat to the Minister for what he has done. He has suffered for it right throughout his life. He has been turned out of jobs because of his attitude. Now like a bad girl he is taking the wrong turning. I ask him why? Now is his opportunity to get it, and I ask the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) who has also been a pioneer in this type of work to see that we get this amendment through. It will be a great thing for us if we can say that every worker in South Africa, no matter what his colour or creed, will be compensated if he is injured in the course of his duties.

I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. Abbott). I think if the Minister accepts it he will find a great deal of dissatisfaction outside, not only amongst the farmers but the alluvial diggers.

That is why they want it.

The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) said alluvial diggers ought also to be included. I wonder whether the hon. member has ever been on the diggings? I wonder whether he knows under what conditions the people work there? I do not believe it is practical to include the diggers under the provisions of this section.

Why?

Because the diggers engage their boys every Monday. They do not work under contract.

You have that in the towns as well.

The alluvial digger engages his boys every Monday. Some of them even engage native women when washing their machines. How can they insure these people? The poor diggers already find things difficult enough. I was glad when the hon. Minister told me the other day that the choice would be left to them whether they would insure their workers or not. If the hon. Minister makes it compulsory the diggers will have a rougher time than they are having today. I trust that the Minister will not accept the amendment, and that he will not be impressed by the argument of the hon. member for Cape Western.

I want to identify myself with the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) and the two members who proposed and advocated this amendment. Hon. members on the Opposition side appear inclined to fall under a misapprehension as to what the amendment really implies.

You are ignorant of the conditions on the farms.

I grew up on a farm. The hon. member who has just sat down has just referred to the alluvial diggings, where a man may today have A., B. and C. in his service and the following week X., Y. and Z., but the names do not represent the big question in the compensation of workmen; the question is the principle of insurance, and when such a farmer or contractor insures six people and the average number of workers on his farm or on the diggings is six, it makes no difference what the names of these people are. That is one aspect of the matter. Another aspect of the matter I think hon. members must accept is this. I am certain there is no hon. member sitting on the Opposition benches who would not do his best for a worker who has been injured. I am absolutely certain of that and on that account I see no reason why they should object when State insurance is being provided to a certain extent for these people. I think they will also agree with me it makes no difference whether a man loses his leg when working with a lorry or with a span of oxen, or whether he breaks his leg when the wheel of a waggon goes over it and he is perhaps carrying lucerne, hay or oats. The load falls over and it breaks his leg or arm; the fact remains that man has disabled himself as far as his earning powers are concerned. That is the question; it makes no difference whether the man has broken his leg behind a machine or under a load of hay. The principle of the thing is, as I said last Friday, that man has only one commodity to sell, his labour, and whatever the circumstances may be if his earning powers are reduced it comes down to the same thing. I am certain that if hon. members reflect on the matter they will agree that the man should not lose his one commodity. I am certain that the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick), if a worker on his farm lost an arm or a ’ leg, would not like that man to leave his farm. He would look after him. I am certain he would do everything in his power to help that man.

There is still the common law.

This is what the farmer should take into consideration. When it comes to a domestic servant, if such a man is injured and he can prove any negligence he can, under the common law, claim compensation from his employer. What does this mean? It means that the householder is landed in heavy expense. There is just this difference. The difference is under the law today the worker will have an easier and cheaper procedure to secure his dues than he would under the common law. That is the difference, but he can still present a claim against his employer. In connection with domestic servants, I want to say hon. members should not think that domestic servants are always native girls. I myself have a European woman in my house; so have many other families in places like Cape Town and Johannesburg, and those European women can be injured just as badly as native girls. But here we are dealing with the principle. Damage to a person’s working capacity, or loss of it, means the same to him whether the injury has occurred in a factory or in a house or on a farm. In these days we talk a great deal about social security, and we have to provide that kind of social security to the lowest paid of our workers. No, I think all members in this House will agree that the workers in the very lowest income group require this protection the most, because they are the people who suffer most if their working capacity is impaired in one way or another. We must not think that we are only dealing with black people in this connection. We must be prudent; and I hope the Minister will accept this amendment. The constituents of the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter) can work out what the people earn in the tobacco industry. The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) can calculate what they earn in the maize industry. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) can ascertain what they earn in the wheat industry; and on that basis the premiums can be determined. It will be found that the farmers will only have to pay a few pence per month in respect of each worker.

I also rise in the hope that the hon. the Minister will consider the acceptance of this amendment. It will have to be a wider provision. You cannot accept responsibility for State insurance to include farm labourers if you are going to exclude domestic servants. They must come in. Why the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. Abbott) has excluded them I cannot understand. The hon. member for Sea Point seemed to suggest that to deprive them of their common law rights was to deprive them of inherent and intrinsic value. What are a man’s common law rights, that we hear so much about? Surely the common law right means this, that if through the negligence of the employer I am injured, I can get compensation. I venture to suggest that if, through the negligence of my employer, I am injured, it is 50 to 1 against my being able to prove it was his negligence which caused it. But quite apart from the employer’s negligence, I venture to suggest that the chances are 50 to 1 or more that a man is injured not through the negligence of an employer, but through one of the chances that ordinarily come a man’s way. Let us deal simply with the type of servant who is being excluded from the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point, because of the intrinsic, inherent value of the common law right. A domestic servant in my, or your, or any other member’s household is carving something in the kitchen and injures her hand. Surely it cannot be alleged that it is the negligence of the employer which is responsible for the injury.

We want to bring all the domestic servants into the Act.

But your amendment does not bring them in.

I am prepared to have them included.

I am merely saying that I wish to support the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Sea Point in so far as it goes. But I am entirely at one with the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) and the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow), who say that this is a fundamental step of all social security. They will be assured of compensation for injuries which are not the fault of the employer, if the hon. member for Sea Point will widen his amendment, and I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister will then be very much more likely to consider it than he will be to consider the amendment as it stands now. There can be no justification for the inclusion of farm labourers if domestic servants are excluded. They must be included. The hon. Minister has gone as far, probably, as he has been permitted to go’. He has included farm labourers who work with machinery. The hon. the Minister, I know, is well aware that the hazards of machinery are infinitely more determinable than the hazards of bulls or steers.

He refers to power-driven machinery, not ordinary machinery.

Power-driven machinery is much more reliable than a mule or a bull. The moment power-driven machinery is set in motion, a person who has only had a few days’ experience with it can anticipate what will happen.

Ha, ha!

You say ha, but I will tell you that machinery will always act in a certain way.

It depends on the machinery.

Machinery will always run true to form.

Perhaps in Swellendam it does not.

I want to ask the hon. Minister: Domestic servants and farm labourers are entitled to security and to help and medical services as a right. The member for Hospital has made the point, and I agree with him, that hon. members opposite will be prepared to give these rights and this protection and security to servants in their own employ. Then why are they afraid to relieve the responsibility for such security from their own shoulders and put it on the shoulders of the State? They claim that they, or at least, some of the farmers, cannot afford it. If a man cannot afford it, the State will carry his risk, and that at a much less premium than he will be able to pay. The law of averages runs true even if machinery does not. We are all thinking today that any servant who is in our employ and suffers injury should not be thrown on the scrapheap and be allowed to rely on the uncertain qualities of the common law right. In 999 cases out of 1,000, where accidents occur, it does not occur as a result of the negligence of the employer, and in the one case where it does, it is impossible for the employee to bring home to the courts the proof necessary to make the employer responsible, so that the common law rights really amount to very little. I hope that the hon. member for Sea Point will so change his amendment as to include domestic servants, and that this House will accept this principle which we have been clamouring for for years., I hope that the Minister will include even the employees who earn £800 instead of limiting it to £400. Those employees who get that salary will be insured and their premiums will go up and out of the surplus one receives from the premuims paid by those who can afford to insure employees earning £800, we will be able to pay for those who cannot afford it.

It was jocularly, and perhaps with a certain substratum of real intention, suggested to me from behind just now that we should insure members of Parliament against the scrapheap. I think that might be considered, although the premium would be high. I am afraid that in spite of all the left-handed eulogies handed out to me, especially by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) I am afraid that I must refuse to accept this amendment. Why do I refuse to accept it? The hon. member for Hospital, wily old bird that he is, has fallen into a trap.

He has fallen into the nettles.

My hon. friend behind me was very inconsistent. In the second reading debate, when the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. Abbott) let himself go, supported by the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell), he did not want the insurance companies to be deprived of the right, as they undoubtedly would be, of continuing their insurance for the £750 a year man in what he called the stated benefit policy. He did not want that. That was the basis of his argument.

I did not say that.

You did, and every hon. member who listened to my hon. friend read that meaning into his remarks.

We do not agree with that.

That is what he intended, but he shifted his ground after I pinned him down to that point, and he said: “If you are going to make insurance for these people compulsory, let us raise it to £850”.

Why not?

The point was this, originally, that the £750 a year man was insured on the basis of £400 only. How much greater is the disparity between £800 and £400 than between £750 and £400?

There will be a further amendment.

They are feeling their way. They know perfectly well ….

Let us have it. What is the trap I fell into?

They know perfectly well that if we force this insurance upon the farmers for all their labourers and upon householders for all their domestic servants, you are going to make it impossible to carry out.

Why?

You may question it as much as you like but I know the working of the Compensation Fund.

That is what they want.

Yes, they want it to break down. These are the same people, or people of a similar kidney, who opposed the original institution of a State fund.

That is true.

Therefore I have the right, especially in view of the circumstances of the moving of this amendment, to suspect the underlying motives.

But where is the trap?

That is the trap, that if I accept this, or the House passes it in spite of my non-acceptance, the insurance fund, in the present circumstances, would find it impossible to carry it out.

Why?

There are hundreds of thousands of householders. Be sensible for once. You have over 50,000 farmers and 200,000 householders, and we have not got the staff or the experience, so that the scheme will break down, and that is what is desired.

But they will have to contribute.

No, they will not.

You are too irritable this afternoon.

Do not be silly. It is easy to make remarks like that simply because I realise how difficult circumstances are. Since I have been in office I have had an opportunity of entering into negotiations to a very large extent with all sections of the community who hitherto have been prejudiced against the point of view I have held all through my life. The result of the negotiations is what we see on the part of the farmers today. The farming community today is prepared to consider the insurance of all their workmen. At one time they were inclined to oppose even State insurance of those engaged in handling machinery.

They like cheap labour.

What do you know.

Please try to follow my argument.

Don’t expect too much from him.

My argument might be bad but my hon. friend must at least agree that I have had a vast amount of experience, and what I have experienced amongst the farming community, particularly now, is a growth of the realisation of their responsibility. I am happy to have been able to have been the cause of that, and in having a very strong farming representation upon the Advisory Council of Labour. What is the result? They are liaison officers, so to speak, between my point of view and what has hitherto been the conservative point of view of the farmers, and the farmers are gradually being brought along. Which is better, apart from other considerations, to ask the farmers to pay insurance for their employees, and gradually to bring them along, on the one hand, or to endeavour to force them to it and to build up prejudice from the start? Which is more desirable? My hon. friend is right, and he knows it. He can jeer as much as he likes. He knows that there is nobody more concerned than I am in getting everyone under the State insurance scheme, but I realise the limitations, and because I am anxious that it shall be successful I am taking this way of bringing it about. Whatever you might say, I am sorry, but I cannot accept the amendment. Again, my hon. friends raised the point of its being against the committee’s recommendation. Nothing of the sort. I have read that recommendation.

Why do you not alter the law?

Good gracious. The fact is that the committee’s recommendation did not debar us from doing it, but it did not say we should do it, and consequently, in order that there might be something positive done, we had to amend the Act to make possible voluntary insurance; and I make no apology for having voluntary insurance. I would rather bring it about that way. Again they trotted out this argument of taking away common law rights. What are those rights?

There ain’t no such thing.

That is so. There is no common law right for the worker. The common law right which is taken away exists only when there is negligence on the part of the employer. My hon. friend has not read the Act. Under the Act the workman can be compensated for disfigurement Or anything else. Who said that it is only confined to his loss of earning power? That is not so. Again I must return to this point. This talk about taking away the common law rights of the workmen is so much balderdash, because in theory every man can go to the courts but in practice what hope has the unfortunate worker of going to the courts and proving negligence against his employer? It is almost impossible. So do not use that argument that we are taking away the common law rights of the worker. I want to repeat this point, and shall do it so as to put it as firmly as possible in the minds of hon. members. My learned friend’s amendment seeks to impose this compulsory insurance on all workers, although one hon. member objects to the fact that it does not include domestic servants.

I was prepared to include them, but I thought you had difficulty in arranging the insurance.

We have difficulty in arranging the farmers’ insurance also. But the point is that my hon. friend proposed at one fell swoop to throw this burden upon the organisation, which is only in its initial stages, at a time when we do not know where we are financially and have not got the staff. He wants the insurance of all these workers to be thrown on to it.

The insurance companies did it when thé Act came into force.

Yes, they did it in a form which put unlimited money into their pockets. And they would willingly take over all this insurance if they were forced to do it. If we forced all employers to insure all their domestic servants and all their labourers, the insurance companies would be only too glad to do it, if they can fix the premiums.

Why do you not do it?

Because we have not got the staff. Therefore I suspect that it is not so much altruism which moves them, but a desire to wreck the whole concern.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to hear the hon. the Minister say that the State fund is unable to tackle this business.

I did not say that.

He said that they have not got the staff and could not consider it. He also made a statement which to me was rather remarkable namely that he did not know what the financial position of the fund is. We know that the war is almost over. We know that a large army is to be demobilised, and we know what problems we are facing in finding work for these people, and I fail utterly to understand how the Minister can tell this House that there will not be employees to carry out the work of the fund.

I said the organisation.

That is only a matter of building up. We are not asking the Minister to put this into effect tomorrow. We are asking the Minister to work up to the point. There is no need to put it into effect tomorrow. No, that argument, I am afraid, will not wash. The State fund is quite able to tackle the job. The hon. the Minister made another remark with which I want to deal. He referred to the fact that certain unembers here were not being altruistic and that there was a trap and that we have ulterior motives. I want to make a plea to the Minister to come up to date, up to 1944-’45, and to deal with the situation as we see it here. I was opposed to the State taking over this fund. I say so candidly and I still stand by that, but I say this, that the State having taken it over, it is the duty of the State to see that it provides compensation for all, not only applying it to a portion of the workers but to all the workers. I hope the Minister will accept my sincerity when I make this statement.

But we propose to do it. It is only a question of jockeying.

There is no horse-racing here. Let me say this. We do not question what the Minister has done for the workers. The Minister says he cannot accept the amendment. I am very sorry that he cannot, and as he cannot, I now propose to move a further amendment. My amendment is—

I am referring to Section 2 of the Bill before the House in line 14, to delete the words: “paragraph (b) of sub-section (2)”. That will entail a consequential amendment, if it is agreed upon, to sub-section (2), in the following line, but we will leave that for the moment. The simple effect of my amendment is to avoid a fund which is a compulsory fund being used to insure employees whose income exceeds £750 a year. I am asking for the retention of this principle that all those, who earn less than £750 a year can be included either compulsorily or voluntarily, but that an employee earning more than £750 cannot come under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. My reason is I feel that a distinction can well be drawn between such and insuring voluntarily persons like farm workers and domestic servants, seamen, airmen, and those employed on alluvial mining, gold or corundum diggings. At the present time it is competent for any employer to insure those persons under a stated benefit policy with an insurance company, so that it is possible for an employer voluntarily to cover an employee earning over £750. That cover is far in excess of the cover which is possible to be given under the Act today. The Act as it is limits the payment of compensation to an income of £400, and a man earning over £750 would be paid on that basis. I think it manifestly unfair to say that an employer may voluntarily insure workers earning more than £750 in this fund ….

Have there been any of these policies?

Many of these policies have been taken out. I would not say every employer takes them out. I do not know whether there are any statistics available on the point. But this is the point. I think it manifestly unfair to limit to £400 the scale of compensation paid to an employee earning over £750. The compensation in a case like that is entirely inadequate. The stated benefit policy gives a benefit of 75 per cent. irrespective of income. I think the Minister has my point. Then there is the further point, and that is the question of the common law benefits. I am inclined to agree with the Minister when he says that the common law benefit is of negligible value in the case of the low paid worker, but when we start getting over £750 with no limit but the sky I want to ask the Minister whether he thinks the same argument applies. Such a man is quite capable of bringing an action in law. Those are the two main points I have in mind in asking for the deletion of this clause.

I must say as one who has consistently favoured and fought for improved conditions for the workers, I am amazed to find that hon. members who on one occasion attacked the Minister of Labour because he is too extreme are today very busy attacking him because he is too moderate. After all, the question at issue is a very simple one. Those of us who are anxious to see the Workmen’s Compensation Act applied to every individual worker in South Africa must realise today, as we did when the Bill was originally before us, that we cannot go as far as we would like to do until we have the machinery available.

Another old conservative.

My friend there who wanted to do away with all the control boards, talks about another old conservative. I am afraid that his idea is that anyone who supports the Government is conservative. The position is that unless we can all revise the machinery of compensation so as to be able to carry out work of this kind it becomes very difficult indeed and jeopardises the whole position. In the Public Accounts Committee every official complains he is understaffed and that he has not the necessary officials; that even if they apply to the military to release people they cannot get the number of people they want, and sometimes they cannot get people at all. It is perfectly true that in a few months time or in the future, more people will be available. But I submit the machinery has to be organised before we can place the fund in the position of having to meet all these requirements; we cannot do it without the preliminary machinery. Now there is another point we are being told about, the taking away of common law rights. I want to remind the Committee that when the Bill was before us on a previous occasion, the original Bill that was passed, all the “conservative” members voted against the Bill because they said we are taking away the common law rights from the workers. There are two points at issue. One was the point made by the hon. Minister that in many cases the working man is not in a position to pursue an action at law in order to establish his common law rights. But there was another factor which influenced the House in accepting the position of limiting those rights as they are limited today; and that is that the worker is bettter protected under the law as it stands than under the common law rights, because many employers were not in a position to meet compensation claims, or even to meet the judgment of court made in respect of such claims. The consequence was the worker was faced with the costs of bringing the action; and secondly, if he succeeded he was faced with the position that his employer was not able to meet the judgment. But in this law he is definitely protected as far as that is concerned, and I submit in these matters however fast we may want to go it is as well that we go only so fast as to keep pace with the organisation, and that we should not jeopardise the whole principle.

In connection with the strong appeal that the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) is putting up on behalf of the men who earn more than £750 a year ….

Another old conservative.

If the hon. member will listen to the old conservative he will learn something. I think I can speak with a little knowledge on the subject. We had the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1914, which also limited the earnings to £400. But let me tell hon. members, and especially the hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) that one of the big employers, Central Mining, had a similar policy for everybody earning more than £400 a year which was based exactly on the Workmen’s Compensation Act, on the same scale, on the same cornerstone; so everybody who earned beyond £400 was covered on the same basis. Because the hon. member is trying to put up a fight for those who earn more than £400, because he pleads for them, I would expect him to mention any case of a workman or of anybody belonging to a trade union today, earning more than £400, who is not covered with an insurance policy taken out by his own employers.

What about the farmers?

The hon. member must not make silly interjections. He knows the farmers are not employing men in receipt of more than £400 a year. There would not be more than a couple of dozen being paid more than £400 a year, but they are all covered. I challenge any of these champions of these highly paid men to mention any type of wage earner who is not protected by a policy on the basis of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. They are championing the cause of men earning between £400 and £750, and I think this is a reasonable question to ask them. I do not think any employer would be so silly as not to have these people covered knowing that if they are not covered they will not keep on working.

What about the farmer ?

I challenge the hon. member to mention any farmer who employs any number of men beyond £400 a year who have not had these men insured on a similar policy to the 1914 policy, which the Chamber of Mines then had in effect to cover everybody who was not covered under the 1914 Act. If they champion the cause of these people they should at least’ be in a position to say: I quote this instance, or I quote that individual. If they are not in a position to mention those employers, to specify those individuals so employed, I do not think they have any grounds for arguing along these lines any further. All these people who do not fall under the Workmen’s Compensation Act are protected by a policy for the same benefits held by the employers.

The hon. member is now talking about the difference between employees getting £400 and £750. I am talking about compulsory insurance for farm labourers and domestic workers. The hon. member has forgotten and is trying to side-track me and the country. When I look at my old friend the Minister of Labour, I say: Oh Lucifer, how hast thou fallen, proud son of the morning! For years and years from these benches he argued what I am arguing today. Now he is mixing with the mighty and the rich and the powerful. What is happening to him in his old age, now he is a septuagenarian he is becoming a capitalist in his talk. The Minister may remember how in 1934 he and the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) and Gerry Bouwer sat up all night, until dawn, arguing these very things in the House, the rights of the poor man. Today he says, like all the capitalists always say, “We cannot do that, we have not got the men to do it; we have not got the money to do it”. Right through the ages that has been the cry of the master, from the time of the masters of the coal mines in England and their fight with the trade unions. When De Beers fought my friend many years ago they said: “We would like to carry out these things but we have not the staff”. Here too is my friend, the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) on the front bench, another old warrior, another old Labour stalwart, making common cause with the conservative gentlemen on the other side. Once when I was in Aden I saw a camel and a donkey harnessed together pulling a water tank, but I never knew I would live to hear the Minister of Labour and the hon. member for Troyeville arguing as they do today. If I had to give five guesses I would have guessed wrong every time, because I would have said those would be the last two to argue as they did today. It just shows what comes of mixing with the wrong people. There is my friend on the other side, one of the most conservative farmers in South Africa, and he is preaching the same doctrine as the radical from Troyeville and the socialist from Benoni. The socialist from Benoni! Walter, Walter, Walter! What has happened, Mr. Chairman, to the socialist from Benoni, who stood on many a platform and who has preached the very thing I am preaching today? Then there is my friend on the other side, the Deputy-Leader of the Labour Party. Just look at him—and he is fighting us two socialists, the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) and myself, because we plead for the poor woman in the kitchen who cuts her hand and is laid up with blood poisoning, and has no compensation to help her to keep her two or three children. He fights us because we ask that the ordinary ploughman who might have his leg cut by a plough-share in an accident and who has children to keep, should be compensated if he loses his earnings. I ask the hon. member for Dinban (North) (Rev. Miles-Cadman) who sits behind him, to put up his hand as a parson and to bless him. The Deputy-Leader of the Labour Party! That is what South Africa has come to. Young people are knocking at the gate; they have been complaining they have no representation in this House. I say to them, what about the members of the Labour Party, what about the old stalwart from Troyeville? They reply: No, they have forgotten us. The young men are knocking at the door and they will come in before long simply because of Bills like this. The country is being let down.

You are falling into a trap.

No, I will not fall into the trap; I would not be seen dead with the economics of those hon. members who in public life are largely representing insurance companies, and my friend must have his own fight with them. But when it comes to the hon. member for Green Point and myself he has to find quite a different case. He must not come with the case that he cannot find the people for the administrative machinery. He must go to the Acting Minister of Defence, that gallant sailor, the hon. member for Turffontein, who will help him with men. There are lots of men. That is why I am surprised to hear these arguments from my dear old friend the Minister of Labour. It almost makes my heart stop when I see this great socialist who brought me into the socialist movement …

You jolly soon got out of it.

He has fallen by the wayside, and here he is getting up with his deputy-leader and pleading with the conservative parties to come and help them so that they shall not pay compensation to the unfortunate and sometimes starving workers. What has South Africa come to? The Labour Party lets down Labour.

One would have thought from the pathetic and heartfelt appeal from the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) that he himself would have initiated this debate. He never thought about this amendment until it was put on the paper by the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. Abbott).

You know I cannot initiate a debate.

Yes you can. One would have thought, at all events, that he would have, tried as hard as he did on Friday to get the consideration of this House.

That is unfair ….

I do not know what is the matter with the hon. member over there, the whispering baritone. I still adhere to my point. If the hon. member for Hospital feels as strongly as he says he does that every working man should be insured against accident, why was it necessary for someone in the insurance world to bring it up in the House? Then my hon. friend says he does not fall into the trap. But I have not got up to say that. I have got up to say I am not accepting the amendment. The House is faced with this most extraordinary situation. We have these two hon. members saying at the beginning that all workers should be insured, and when they find they cannot get all insured—which incidentally would make it very difficult to administer—they ask us to cut out that very section for whom the insurance people are offering a special rate.

On better terms.

My hon. friend says they give it on very much better terms. I ask how many of those stated benefit policies have been taken out? I thought the hon. member would be able to let me know. Shall we say there are quite a few. Those stated benefit policies have been taken out with the goodwill of those employers. Is it reasonable then to expect that any one of those employers will refuse to continue such policies? Why should they refuse? They took out the policies, without any pressure, on behalf of their employees with salaries of over £750. Why should we for a moment suggest they are likely to refuse to continue these policies any longer? But this is the point, and again it hinges on the number who may or may not have taken out these policies. There are many hundreds of people earning over £750 who were not insured under this stated benefit policy but who under our present amendment will be given the opportunity of taking out a policy at a lower rate and with better conditions and with greater security; and the probability is that hundreds of these people who have not hitherto been insured, will get an insurance they never had before. I cannot understand why the hon. member has moved this amendment. I could understand him sticking to his guns and continuing along the line he advocated originally. But when as a result of refusal to accept the amendment he now moves that section be deleted, I cannot understand it, because he is making it impossible for many hundreds of people not previously insured to be insured.

Do not tie us up with that.

No. I am not doing that. For the reasons I have given, I do not accept the amendment.

In replying to the proposal made by the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. Abbott) the Minister said, in effect, that the inclusion of domestic servants farm workers and employees on diggings within the purview of the Workmen’s Compensation Act would have the effect of breaking, the fund, because of the lack of administrative staff to carry out the work involved in this proposal. The Minister went further and indicated his view that that, in fact, was really the object of the initiators of the amendment. It is not for me to speak for the hon. member for Sea Point, but I am certain the Minister will accept it when I say that that was not my object in supporting this argument.

No, I think you are mistaken; that is all.

The Minister will recollect that five years ago I sat with him on the Select Committee that initiated this legislation, and the principle of a State fund had my full support. The Minister makes the point that the sudden inclusion of this vast number of workers within the purview of this Act would be an administrative impossibility. I do not think it is implied in this amendment that that should be done. When this legislation was originally passed there was no fund and no staff, and in terms of the Act passed it was left to the Minister to bring the Act into operation by proclamation at such time as he had collected the staff and accumulated the fund.

I was reproached for the delay.

The Minister may know what happened behind the scenes; however, I do not know. I assume that that was the time that was necessary to collect the staff to launch the fund. Now, if this amendment, by which farm and domestic workers would be included within the scope of the Act, by this amending Bill, is accepted, automatically there will be applicable to the amendment Section 36 the final clause of this Bill. Section 36 reads—

In other words, if this principle of insuring farm, domestic and the other classes of workers is accepted, it will not involve a sudden throwing of these masses of workers upon the administrative staff which the Minister has at present. The matter could be dealt with in the same way as the original classes of workers were brought into the scope of the Act, i.e. the proclamation of this amendment could be delayed until such time as the necessary machinery will be available. But if we delay the inclusion of what is admittedly a vast number of additional workers and employers in the machinery, until we have the staff, it will never be done. There is no purpose in starting to accumulate staff for all these additional workers until such time as they are included in the Act. Once they are included, it will not be a matter of suddenly throwing upon the fund this additional and heavy burden, and upon the existing staff this additional work of making assessments. That could all be delayed until such time as the Minister feels himself to be in a position to do so. So I do wish that the Minister would at least accept the principle. I know it will be an administrative impossibility at present suddenly to throw such a number of additional workers upon the fund, but it would have been possible to accept the amendment and to delay action until such time as the necessary administrative and financial arrangements had been made. Now, another point was also made by the Minister in connection with the farmers. He said in effect that it is a great advance that they have agreed to the principle of voluntary insurance. I am with the Minister there. I would prefer to have it in the Bill, as it stands at present, than not to have the Bill at all, but I do hope that the Minister did not mean to imply by that that he wants to wait for the inclusion of this particular class of employees until such time as he gets the consent of the employers. If industrial legislation in the past had had to wait until the employers consented, I am sure that the Minister will agree with me that there would not be much industrial legislation on our statute book today. That fact is reinforced by the kind of arguments that have been put up, particularly from the Opposition, as to why farmers should not be subjected to compulsory insurance. The first was the price of their products; they could not be sure of that. We have an enormous mass of legislation designed to ensure that very thing, to stabilise prices, and if it is necessary to go further in that direction, I have no doubt that this House will do so. Another hon. member referred to the fact that farmers suffer from pests. I know that, but there again special State assistance is given in that direction. The most curious argument of all was that the farmer did not know what his profit would be. It is of the essence of privatte enterprise that the individual employer or capitalist does not know what his profit will be, but if he wishes to take a risk, he must accept the conditions which public policy requires for protection of the workers.

But he knows what his wages are.

Yes, he knows what his wages are, and one of the principles accepted by public policy, is that employees should be compensated if they have accidents. One hon. member went so far as to say that many farmers engage casual labourers. That applies to many industries in urban areas also. But if it is casual labour, the employer is not liable for compensation under this Act. My point is not so much to answer hon. members over there, who put forward these points, as to indicate to the Minister that the representations of these employers are without any rational basis at all which could not be applied to any other class of employer. I sympathise with the Minister’s difficulties, or with what would be his difficulties, if there was a sudden addition of a large number of workers having claimed on this fund, but that is not the intention of those of us who are wholehearted in our efforts to include these classes of workers.

I would like to support what the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) said, that one would appreciate from the Minister compulsory insurance in respect of the type of employee who is excluded from this Bill. I well remember the hon. Minister. I remember the stalwart three, he, and Gerry Bouwer and Duncan Burnside, bringing up the question of domestic employees, as to whether they should come within the scope of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and sitting here until 3 o’clock in the morning fighting for that principle. The hon. the Minister knows it, and all we want here is an indication from the Minister that this type of person who earns the least, who is more dependent, should be included. The domestic servant gets a meagre wage. Together with that she gets board and lodging. She has no opportunity of building up any reserve fund against accidents which may be the result of her own negligence. If she gets hurt she gets out and she is deprived not only of her wages, but also of her food and lodgings. She is one of the people who is least sheltered from the effects of loss of wages. Therefore I ask the Minister to include domestic servants, and to say he is prepared to accept as a fundamental principle that these people should also be considered. The Minister has said that the insurance companies are making an attempt to break down this Bill. The Minister has accepted that farm labourers who work with power machinery should be included. Personally I cannot see any difference between power machinery or any other machinery. If the Minister is willing to accept such employees and to force the employer to insure a person who works with power machinery, any other employee on that farm could come on exactly the same piece of paper. You have one employee working on farm A, with power machinery at £x a month. He must be insured. That farmer may have four other employees in his service. It is not going to take so much more staff to ensure their protection and to cover them. It is done at exactly the same time. They are entitled to it. What is there to justify the Minister in excluding them? I agree with what was said from these benches, by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) who said: I accept all that is given in this Bill, but it does not go far enough; it does not cover many individuals who should be insured. Many of us agree with that. The member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) and I and others could have got up to support that hon. member and to prolong the issue. Had we got up and supported it we would have delayed an opportunity of giving an extension of this Bill which we all welcomed. Surely the Minister cannot say that our sincerity is questioned because we did not fight on a previous occasion for the extension of the Bill or for the amendment. The Minister knows that, and all I want is that assurance from the Minister that he is in favour of compulsory State insurance for domestic employees. Will the Minister reply? It is not often that we find the Minister so silent. Let me answer for the Minister, from his past utterances. The Minister is in favour of State insurance for domestic employees and compulsory insurance of farm employees. He said so repeatedly and he has not changed his mind. No one questions the Minister’s sincerity. All I want to know is whether the Minister’s fears are justified when he says that if he includes domestic servants it will be the death of State compensation in this country. I do not believe that will be so. The Minister may say: Let us introduce one Bill and make it obligatory; let us give the domestic employees the security they are entitled to. Let us give them the right to some compensation at the hands of their employers if they are injured whilst in their service and during the terms of their employment; let us give them that cover and force the employer to cover himself from the liability which the State imposes; let them be included in this Bill. Let him throw the obligation on the employer to safeguard himself. They will run to the insurance companies to cover themselves, but what we are asking for, and what the Minister would like to give, I know, is the assurance to domestic servants that they are no different from their brothers and sisters who work in industry. It is the only way of getting the best out of them. We are always going to have domestic employees, so why should they be denied this tremendous benefit at the hands of the State which says that other employees will be compensated if they are injured. Why exclude the two types of servants who are less able than any other servant in industry to look after themselves? The servant in the kitchen who cuts herself and cannot continue her duty gets a day’s notice and is out. She cannot get a job. She is not insured. That is the type of servant who for years has been giving the Minister concern. It is causing us concern today. The farm labourer who does not work with power machinery, when he is sent along the road with a wagon and has an accident has no security whatever. The Minister would like to give him that protection. He was asked to accept the principle that they are entitled to it. I ask the Minister to be consistent and to give it to them. The Minister is always out to protect the underdog. There are no people under this dog. They are as low and as down as they can possibly be. I ask the Minister to include them in the Bill. The Minister says he has not the staff to look after them. That statement is a reflection upon any constructive social service in this country, that we are not prepared to give a benefit to people whom we know are entitled to it simply because there is no staff available.

I have listened to this debate with attention, and as between the Minister and the proposers of the amendment, I am rather inclined to think that the ayes have it. The hon. the Minister, it is clear, would in his heart like to concede the amendment, but sees certain difficulties.

I have given it the most serious consideration.

The main reason he gave in reply was that he was short of staff and that there would be administrative difficulties. I concede that, and I concede that there will be serious difficulties. But the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mr. Molteno) has suggested a way out. He has suggested that it is possible to do this thing in stages, to take powers under the Amending Bill to put the various classes of new employees to be insured under this Amending Bill in at different stages of the operation. That, Sir, does seem to be a fair way out.

I told the House that that is not the only reason.

Yes, but I understood that the most important reason was the administrative difficulty, and in view of that fact that it would be possible, under the Bill, to include the different classes of employers at different stages, it seems to me to dispose of the main difficulties of the Minister. I would like him to consider the opening suggested to him in this way. I frankly feel that the time has arrived for domestic workers in particular to be included in the orbit of Bills such as this. I raised the point last week on the Workers’ Registration Bill, and I would like to emphasise it again in the debate on this measure, but as regards the suggestion of the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen), that if the Minister would like to make it incumbent upon the employers to insure domestic servants, he need not necessarily put it under the State insurance, but he could make it incumbent upon them to insure and they can go to private insurance companies. As regards that point I do not agree. All employers should have access to the State scheme but I do feel that the Minister should reconsider the possibility of including all employers who are now excluded by this amending Bill, at different stages. If he would do that it would obviate his coming back to Parliament with fresh amending Bills to include each fresh class of employer that he tries to put under the Act. It is important that employers should know that in time all classes of labour will fall under the State scheme and obtain social security against hurt in the course of their employment and that that is the policy proposed by the Minister, and I hope he will promise now that eventually all classes will be covered by the measure.

The Minister must not become rattled. He is faced with a very great principle. I know his difficult position. There are three Labour members on the other side for whom I have great respect. I wonder why they did not help us. I refer firstly to the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne). He went overseas to fight for the rights of the working man. He had a free trip to do it. He had baquets and a lovely trip and he came back and forgot about the working man. I am trying to wake up that hon. member. And we will. The country will know that the Labour Party has failed hopelessly when it came to protecting the underdog. Yes, the Labour Party failed hopelessly when it came to protecting the workers on the farm. They never said a word. When they did speak, they went to the capitalistic side and said that they have not the people or the machinery. That is the sort of story that has been told right down the ages by the capitalists. I welcomed what was said by the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) although she was only half-hearted about it. There are four of us in this House fighting for the basic right of the people, that a man is entitled to get his wages when he has been hurt at work. That is what it means. That is all we are fighting for. The member for Germiston is a leader in the Labour Party. He goes overseas and has a good time. He is a trade unionist who should look after the poor. But like in Jack London’s book we here find an aristocratic trade unionist. I can understand our friends opposite forgetting the poor, and some of us on this side, but when the Labour Party forgets the poor I say there is something rotten in the State of Denmark. I want to ask the Minister this: Will the Minister tell me this when he has finished with his conversation? If he were sitting on the Labour benches in a Labour Government would he agree with us or not?

Of course he would.

That is the question I want to ask him. Would he agree to this amendment of compulsory insurance for the farm worker and the worker in domestic service?

The Labour Party would have the same difficulties.

Yes, that Labour Party but not the one we will run one day.

I have had enough of your infernal remarks.

No, that is not the Minister whom I have known for many years, who fought many a hard-fought battle.

Do not talk such tripe.

The Minister sits amongst the Pharisees today. He fought for many years but now he is at the top and does not fight. The Minister knows, and the country knows, that the basic principle of social security is the protection of the lowest paid worker, who should get his wages when he gets hurt at his job. The hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) has been very quiet on this question. He is another one who goes round the country preaching what should be done for the poor, but when something is done for the poor he remains quiet. He is still licking his wounds from Dongola. I am sorry for him. Those gentlemen, the Nationalists over there, are also licking then wounds.

What about your wounds? Are you not licking them?

His wounds are behind him.

I cannot waste my time on an hon. member with a voice like Donald Duck. I am putting up my fight. The Minister will know how 40 years ago some of us put up a fight for the old age pension. But old age is coming over the Minister now. If there are three men in the House who are prepared to put up a case for the poor …. [Time limit.]

There are a couple of points that I do think should be cleared up in the consideration of this matter. I would like first of all, to deal with the point made by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg). I think there is some misunderstanding in this matter. The position is this. A workman is defined as a person earning under £750 per annum. But his compensation is based on the maximum of £400 per anuum. Section 36 provides that up to £20 per month compensation shall be two-thirds of the earnings, from £20 to £33 6s. 8d. per month at the rate of three-eighths, or 37½ per cent. That brings us to £33 6s. 8d., which is equivalent to £400 per annum. Over and above that figure there is no extra compensation. There is no extra compensation from £400 up to £750. In other words, the person earning £400 per year and the person earning £750 will get the identical compensation. And how much is it limited to? This scale brings us up to a little over £18 per month. The most a worker can get is £18 a month, whether his earnings amount to £500 or £750 per year. That is as the Act is today. There is no question of supplementing the compensation between earnings of £400 and £750 by an outside means such as an insurance office. To my knowledge there is no such thing in force in the country. The Act makes provision for earnings up to £750, and leaves the field about £750 to be looked after, and that is at the moment looked after by stated benefits policies by insurance companies, and everyone is entitled to insure under them. Under those policies compensation is provided for up to a rate of 75 per cent. There is this vast difference between the workman earning £750 getting compensation under this Act….

I do not want to put you off your point, but there is a vast difference between what you say and the provisions of the Act.

I stand open to correction, but I think I am correct. There is a vast difference between a workman earning £750 per annum who receives compensation under this Act and a person receiving compensation under a stated benefits policy. The hon. member for Krugersdorp also referred to a policy issued by the Chamber of Mines in 1912. At that time a workman was defined as a person earning up to £400, and above that figure he was not regarded as a workman. On the one hand we know that the limit of the scale of earnings has been increased, but it has not been accompanied by a corresponding increase in the compensation. The two have not kept pace with each other. The position of the Chamber of Mines at the present time is that they insure all their employees under the terms of the Workmen’s. Compensation Act, but those who are earning over £750 are insured under a special policy. I think I am correct in saying that that policy goes to the length of giving 100 per cent. compensation.

It is not 100 per cent.

The hon. member can correct me if I am wrong. If it is not 100 per cent., it is very near 100 per cent. In other words the compensation received by a man earning £750 per year, under that policy, differs vastly from the compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Now let us go on. Under this Bill there is no limit to income ….

That is the trouble.

Take the case of a man earning £2,000 a year. He can be insured under the Act. The employee would still be getting compensation provided for in the Act, Then I would like to clear up a point which was made earlier by the hon. member for Namaqualand. I would like to address myself to my farming friends on all sides of the House. This compensation is based purely on income, and whether the business be a farm, or factory, or industry, if it suffers a loss, it does not affect the question at all. The position is that when your workman becomes injured and lays off work, he is probably not entitled to claim payment for wages. The employer is absolved from paying wages in a case of that nature. Instead of the wages the workman receives compensation under the Act, so that when it comes to a question of being able to afford workmen’s compensation, I submit that the argument of the hon. member for Namaqualand falls away completely, because the cost of workmen’s compensation in relation to wages, is a small amount. The premium on a farm may be a few shillings for every £100 of wages. It probably would be, and it would be a poor state of affairs if an employer of labour could not afford a few shillings for every £100 of wages to cover his workmen against injury.

Nobody argues against that.

The hon. member for Namaqualand argued today that the farmer does not know whether he is going to make a profit or suffer a loss and that is a misconception which has to be cleared up. The workmen’s compensation is based on wages, and where you are absolved from paying wages you should then pay compensation, and compensation is never 100 per cent. I do submit that the compensation provided for under this Act is not adequate at the present time. Now that we have got so far as to open a door in a voluntary manner to those earning more than £750 without in any way making an increase in the amount of compensation that can be paid, I feel we are not doing justice to the workmen’s compensation department. I agree with what the Minister said that the employer will be able to insure at lower rates. But he went on to say that he will be able to insure under better conditions and with better security. I think we can cut out the question of security. For all practical purposes the security up to the present has been equally good. But the better conditions are not there. [Time limit.]

It may be understood that as far as my hon. friend and I are concerned, we are not going to vote for this amendment unless the words “domestic servants” are included.

That is your affair.

It is our affair; that is why I am saying it.

Why don’t you move an amendment yourself?

Amendments proposed by Mr. Abbott and Mr. Bell put and negatived and amendment proposed by the Minister of Labour put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 19,

In Clause 19, power is sought to give the Commissioner the right, with the approval of the Governor-General, to amend the compensation which is set out in the first schedule of the Act. The amendment is to be by way of a Gazette regulation, and a distinction may be drawn between disablement for any injury or class of injury in respect of specified occupations or classes of occupations. I want to ask the Minister seriously to consider the advisability of deleting paragraph (c) from the Bill.

Why?

Let me just put it to the Minister. As explained in the White Paper, the schedule of compensation is approximately the same as that contained in the 1934 Act. It is obvious that a schedule of this nature is not going to undergo frequent or rapid changes; a schedule that has remained substantially the same since 1934 bears out my contention, and I for one feel that it is asking this House to go too far to allow a schedule which was determined by the original Bill to be amended in the future in this wide manner by a notice in the Gazette. I think that the correct procedure is to come to this House with a Bill amending the schedule if it is deemed fit and proper that that schedule should be amended. In any case, the Act provides that the Commissioner may use his discretion—and I say rightly so—in awarding higher rates of compensation having regard to the occupation of the individuals It is quite obvious that a person, whose index finger is of particular importance to him must suffer more severely if he loses his index finger than a person to whom his index finger is not so important. Take the case of an artist, for instance. Just think of the effect of an injury to his fingers. The Act allows the Commissioner to use his discretion in the individual’s case. Here we are coming to classes. This can be given effect to quite easily in an amending Bill if it is deemed desirable to amend the schedule, but having regard to the sentiments which have been expressed in this House in recent years, and having regard to the motion of the hon. member for Wood-stock (Mr. Russell) it is asking this House to go too far to allow important changes of this nature to be made in workmen’s compensation by way of a notice in the Gazette and I ask the Minister to consider the advisability of deleting the whole of paragraph (c) I would like to move an amendment accordingly—

I think my hon. friend will not press this amendment. I know he is somewhat of a purist in the matter of democratic rights, and so am I, but after all this is a compensation measure, and we have already agreed that the schedule may be altered from time to time in the matter of industrial diseases. If we have accepted that, which after all has a very wide range indeed, I can see no reason why we should not accept this, the more so since it is the practice in other countries. Great Britain follows this line.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

The remaining clauses and the Title having been agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported the Bill with an amendment.

Amendment considered.

Amendment in Clause 2 put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill to be read a third time on 17th April.

Mr. Chairman, this Vote covers an amount of £1,670,900, dealing with education in all its branches from nursery schools to universities and research bureaux. I want to suggest to the hon. Minister this afternoon that the time has now arrived to review the whole education system of the Union in regard to administration, curricula, school organisation and finance. I suggest that as being an essential part of our postwar reconstruction. I would, therefore, urge upon the Minister to appoint a representative commission not only to make an enquiry into education in all its aspects; but to come forward with recommendations for the complete reform of the whole system of Union education. I think I cannot do better than to state first, briefly, the general aim of a national system of education; and then to state those particular aspects which call for co-ordination, reform, and extension. In regard to the general aim the words of the British White Paper 1944 in that connection are both relevant and admirable—

That means, of course, that education is distinctly and fundamentally a national matter. In regard to the particular aspects, I have set them out in the form of a sort of illustrative terms of reference which I think might well be placed before such a commission. I would like to call the attention of the House to these illustrative terms of reference. Firstly, we need a Union Education Board, and while retaining provincial functions as now, to adjust provincial and local education administration to the new educational layout in order to secure a unified Union system. Secondly, the reorganisation of statutory education in South Africa into more scientific stages, e.g. primary, secondary and further education. Secondary schools to be three types: Grammar, modern and technical. The revision of the examination system, particularly in our secondary schools, is also a necessity. (3) The compulsory provision by all education authorities of nursery schools for children under five years. In these suggestions I am making I have in mind our obligations to all races in the country. (4) Review of the school beginning and leaving age with a view to uniformity. (5) Consideration of the importance of extending compulsory part-time education in working hours for all young people up to the age of 18 years. (6) Provision of adult education as an integral part of the Union system. (7) Extension of the facilities to secure the health and physical well-being of all children and provision of free medical treatment at all schools and colleges. (8) Examining the necessity so to design and equip our primary and secondary schools of all types, that education will be available without tuition fees for all children. (9) Deciding the place and function of technical colleges in Union education, with special reference to apprenticeship training. (10) Co-ordinating all branches of agricultural education. (11) Considering the importance of religious instruction as an essential element in education. (12) Determining the place of private schools in the scheme of national education. (13) Improving the system of recruitment and training of teachers with a view to uniformity and co-ordination, and in relation to universities. The question of uniform salary grades would come under this section. Finally, the necessity to improve and increase opportunities for university education for all children. One need only state the important requirements in that way of a good national education system, to realise how essential it is at this stage in our country’s development, to overhaul the education system from top to bottom. There is no one who appreciates this need better than the present Minister of Education whose long years of service have enriched the educational life of this country. No one understands better the magnitude of the issues that are involved in a complete re-organisation of our educational system. I urge upon him this afternoon to appoint a commission without delay to report on some such lines as I have suggested, and if possible come forward with recommendations for legislation. Educationists throughout the country will welcome such a thorough investigation. Certainly the growing consciousness of nationhood in South Africa and the rapidly changing social conditions—for a war of six years is nothing less than a social revolution—call for a new assessment of educational values. These things can only be harmoniously and efficiently adjusted by a more integrated and purposeful system of Union education. A commission, it seems to me, is the obvious way to approach this big question.

I should like to touch on a few matters that I also touched on last year; and I shall be grateful if the Minister of Education would give us a little information today in connection with technical colleges and the industrial schools. I am mentioning this in connection with the subsidy that is given to the technical colleges and the industrial schools, and I want to bring it up specially in connection with the Witwatersrand. I am referring also to the trades school section of the technical colleges. One does not, of course, know to what extent the Minister has the right to exercise control over expenditure after it has been approved by this House. We do not know, for instance, whether the money is used on salaries and whether it is used for the purchase of books and the purchase of buildings, but it does not permit of doubt that this section of the educational system requires more encouragement from the State. Last year I stated, and I now wish to repeat it, that the poor man’s university in the country is the technical college and the trades school, for the simple reason the average workman is not in a position to let his son or his daughter enjoy a university career, and in many cases no matter how intelligent a child may be, or how anxious and desirous he is to have a university training, he or she simply cannot do it; and to be independent the second best thing then is to attend the technical college, the trades school, and in the circumstances I feel more should be done on our side to help these people. I do not want to repeat myself, but I stated the other day that it appeared to me the man in the intermediate class, the middle-class man, always suffers most in connection with these things. Then there is the other aspect of the matter, control of financial disbursements. One does not know whether the money can be used for expansion. I do not want to cast any reflection on any of the colleges. I may just say that on the Rand the Witwatersrand Technical College and the Trades School do excellent work. Many boys and girls have already been trained by them; but the place is absolutely too small, especially the Trades School. There is such a big demand from lads who want to go through the Trades School that there is simply not enough accommodation for them. Room cannot be found for the lads. That is to be deplored. I think that we want to get rid of the idea of European unskilled labour. I believe lads today do not want to follow in their fathers’ footsteps and become unskilled labourers. They would like to fit them selves for life. When such lads have done everything in their power to prepare themselves and obstacles are placed in their way, I think the lads will have done their duty and when they have done their duty and no facilities are provided for them it is time the State intervened. I think the Minister of Education promised last year to give favourable consideration to the matter and to go deeply into it, and probably he will be able to furnish us with more information today. I should really like to make a friendly but earnest appeal to the Minister to review the position, particularly in Johannesburg, in regard to trade training in the technical colleges and in the trades schools. It is very regrettable that our lads have no opportunity to get the training where they wish to go. There is a further aspect of the matter that also merits attention, and that I hope the Minister will take into consideration. It is in reference to the provision when a child joins the school, especially a Trades School, he must give the name of an employer who is willing to employ him when he has completed his trade course. In other words, if for instance he wants to become an electrician he has to state the name of the firm that will indenture him when he has completed the course. That applies to other trades as well. One understands the motive behind it. The Trades School does not want to flood the market with people who have been trained, while on the other hand they do not want to see trained persons on the streets. Nevertheless it can be realised how difficult it is for parents or employers to say three or four years in advance that they are going to engage a lad. The final aspect of the matter I wish to bring to the further notice of the House is also in connection with the necessary accommodation. On the Rand there is the great mining industry as well as other industries and the municipalities on the Central Rand, East Rand and West Rand, and these bodies support the schools and take up the lads in their employment. Even girls are engaged by them. To an extent they give preference to boys and girls who have passed through the Trades School, and on the mines preference is even given to the sons of mine employees. There are instances where the mines cannot engage the sons of their workers because they have not passed through the Trades School, on account of the lack of accommodation and facilities. This is a matter of great importance to the middle class and to the poor people, and there is a strong feeling about it, and I am convinced that the Government will render a great national service if they take steps to provide adequate accommodation in our industrial schools and trades schools and technical colleges, and if in the second place everything in our power is done to lighten as far as possible the financial liability to boys and girls that wish to attend them. As I stated in my opening remarks: Remember, here we have the university of the poor man in South Africa.

I should like at the outset to endorse the suggestion made by the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) with regard to an enquiry, the appointment of a commission, for enquiry into the content of education in South Africa and the whole administration thereof. There is an old-fashioned truth which still remains true, that where there is no vision the people perisheth; and there is a very grave danger today of the development of intellect merely at the expense of the character of the growing citizen; and therefore I particularly join myself with the hon. member’s suggestion that religion should have a fuller place in the various curricula in the future than it has in the past. I do not want to deal with it at any length. But I attribute the difficulties of the world today largely to a wrong emphasis having been placed on education. I appeal to the Minister that if we must have one or the other, strong character or well informed brains, the former is much the better. It is possible to combine the two, but we have not been very successful in that combination up to the present. I have lately received several letters from Northern Rhodesia, expressing some anxiety on the part of parents in that territory whose children are presently being educated in the schools and in the universities of the Union. Reports have appeared in Northern Rhodesia, certain Press reports, to the effect that in future a decidedly higher standard of education will be required of such young people, particularly in certain aspects. Everyone knows I have a great love for the Afrikaans language, although I cannot speak it as well as presently I shall be able to do, but there is perhaps a danger even in that respect, and it seems to me it would be a tremendous pity if these children who need so much to come to us for education should have any sort of restriction placed upon them. It has been said that unless they attain a higher standard our educational institutions will no longer be open to them; they will be bundled back to their own country.

Are you referring to schools?

To schools, and universities more particularly.

As far as schools are concerned, I have nothing to say.

The schools I am referring to are public schools, the church schools of South Africa.

I have nothing to say about them.

I beg the Minister’s pardon, humbly if not abjectly, but I was under the impression that the majority of the public schools, of the church schools, were State-aided today.

They may be provincially aided, I do not know; but they are not aided by the Union Government.

Since the Minister, whose goodwill we know, cannot do it directly, nor through his Department, may I hope he will use his influence, which is very great, and which is very wise, and through the provinces do what he can in this matter. These children from the north of the Zambesi, from the various territories there, come here for two reasons really, partly for the health of the children, but more because here in our country they can establish contact with a higher culture than is accessible to them anywhere else. It is very important from their point of view, and from our own it is important that we shall retain as long as we can, some share in the educating of the future citizens of territories like Kenya, Tanganyika, Nyasaland and the like, because many of us have ambitions along the line of the United States of Africa. If we are going to talk and make propaganda about our being the “big brother” of those countries, we have got to do what big brothers do in other directions, carry the little ones to some extent. This ideal of pan-Africanism appeals to us all. I suggest that in future the Education Department can help even more towards that, and I trust that the Minister will be able to give some reassurance to the parents concerned, in the Rhodesias and further north. I should like to mention very briefly two other ways of helping. In this vote there is a grant-in-ald to the University of South Africa. The annual grant-in-aid is merely £2,000. The Minister need not trouble himself to remind me that the University of South Africa is composed of constituent colleges which are helped very directly and which are receiving more help this year than heretofore. But I come back to the £2,000 directly provided for the university itself. That is in regard to its functions as an examining body. This university is doing a magnificent work already. I would like to see its examining work extended over those territories I have already mentioned. In those countries north of the Zambesi very largely the Cambridge senior examination and London University examinations are being taken by the students; surely our own examinations are not less suitable, and one can see there an opportunity for everybody, an opportunity for doing a great service, by means of the University of South Africa, to these young nations, and at the same time of increasing our influence in those territories. I come to another point, with regard to the medical school that has been suggested to be established at Durban. That school would be in connection with the University of South Africa and form a constituent college thereof. South Africa is greatly indebted to older universities, but the time has come when we can liquidate the debt to a large extent. It is no longer necessary that we should look to Europe for guidance in regard to research in tropical diseases, or at least the time has certainly come when we can make our own contribution in that direction. It seems to me that at Durban there would be closer touch with that particular avenue of research than in the case of any overseas university. I can mention that local research to the Minister as a very great desirability; and the second half of that recommendation is this—still trying to bind together Southern Africa with Central Africa. Every Health Commission report tells us how necessary it is that the Bantu peoples shall have their own trained medical officers. I suggest that that is a need which can be met by the medical college or medical faculty or school to be established at Durban, and we could expand these services not merely through our Union but throughout all those territories north of the Zambesi. [Time limit.]

I should like to refer briefly to the grants to universities and university colleges. In this connection we put this question to the Minister—

His reply to that was—

Unfortunately the figure for 1945 in regard to the Natal University College is not available. A second question was put to the Minister, namely—

To that the Minister replied—

I shall be glad to learn from the Minister the difference between “geriewe” and “fasiliteite”. He further replied—

Then he replied further—

The question is also whether separate buildings are being used at the University of the Witwatersrand, which is not mentioned in this reply. I think it is not the case. That, briefly, is the state of affairs at the various universities. Now I want to ask the Minister, in refernce to a certain Press report, whether he is aware of the strained relations subsisting today between Europeans and non-Europeans at the universities, as for example the University of the Witwatersrand. A very rowdy mass meeting of students was held there at which feelings ran high and the following resolution was taken—

I do not believe that such a Bill has been before the House, but I think it alludes to a motion on the Order Paper asking for segregation at the universities, a motion by the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel).

Did he not say that he wanted to introduce a Bill?

He may have held out the prospect of it.

I think it is connected with that.

Then the report says further—

I only want to say to the Minister that the motion was accepted by a majority of 583 votes to 344, but an amendment was also proposed at the meeting in which a certain group of students advocated proper facilities for the instruction of non-Europeans, and in connection with the amendment consternation was expressed that the University of the Witwatersrand—at any rate by a large section of the students—(it appears to me to have been the majority) was ranging itself on the side of the liberal outlook in connection with the colour question, namely that non-European students should be treated on an equal footing with Europeans. In the Press report it was stated this was a very rowdy meeting. But the persons who moved this amendment and who there announced the policy of separation and segregation emphasised that separation and segregation do not in any way at all imply the oppression of the non-Europeans, but that it is really in the interests of non-Europeans that there should be separation in the sphere of education, and that education and training facilities should be provided to them on the basis of separation. This is what struck me in connection with the University of the Witwatetrsrand. But I have also before me a Press report of a meeting of the Students’ Council of the University of Cape Town. It is to me amazing that at this meeting of the Representative Students’ Council of the University of Cape Town we had the position that a non-European student was sitting on the Students’ Representative Council, and I want to say he had the audacity to introduce a motion in which he asked for social equality between European and non-European students. It was pleasing to me to note that an ex-soldier who has re-entered the University of Cape Town and who is also a member of the Students’ Council, Mr. P. Smits, moved the following motion—

This motion was accepted by five vote’s to two. It thus appears that the old traditional standpoint of the Afrikaner triumphed and was accepted by the University of Cape Town. At the University of Cape Town the majority were thus in favour of the old traditional standpoint of segregation, separation and trusteeship as far as the non-Europeans are concerned, which does not imply oppression but which is in their own interests. In the North, at the University of the Witwatersrand, there is, another set of champions of the liberal philosophy, a liberal outlook at the university, that regards the non-European student as a potential European and who in the educational sphere wishes to provide him with facilities that will make him an imitation European. That does violence to the traditional standpoint on this side, and of all Afrikaners who still cherish racial pride and racial honour. We feel that this liberal attitude is a violation of the racial pride of the Afrikaner, and what is more, it is dangerous not only to Europeans but also to non-Europeans. I consequently want to put the following questions to the Minister of Education: Does the Minister think this strained relationship between Europeans and non-Europeans at the University of the Witwatersrand is calculated to promote good relations between the two races and at that university. I notice there are also non-Europeans at the Natal University College. The Minister states they are in separate buildings and where the principle of separation is applied at that institution we find no friction or clashing between Europeans and non-Europeans. Now I ask the Minister if that is the case, why cannot that also be done at the other universities. I put this question to the Minister. Does the Minister not believe that separate educational facilities for the non-Europeans will operate indirectly in their own interests? I put these few things shortly and hurriedly to the Minister to obtain an answer from him in connection with these matters that are under way at our universities, with an eye on the grants that are proposed here to these universities. It is remarkable that just at these two universities that receive the largest grants we have had the most difficulty between Europeans and non-Europeans. The University of Cape Town receives £115,500 and the University of the Witwatersrand receives still more, namely, £129,750. It is there where our racial difficulties arise, and as we have the position that we have these racial difficulties at the universities that receive the largest grants, I want to ask the Minister whether he does not feel that the time has arrived to carry through the policy of separation consistently at these universities. Then we and those students could feel that those European universities are not in danger of the Europeans there being supplanted by the NonEuropeans. [Time limit.]

I think there will be a further opportunity to mention the important point the hon. member for Brits (Mr. Potgieter) has now broached, in connection with the Native Education Vote, and I shall leave that over till then. But on this occasion I want to put a few questions to the Minister with a view to obtaining certain information from him. Under Item H provision is made for a contribution to the Fuel Research Institute. A Bill will of course be introduced for the setting up of a National Research Bureau, and I assume that the Minister will make that money available with that object in mind. We trust that he will be able to give us further information about this. The question that arises is whether the amount that was here made available for the Fuel Research Institute is merely intended for the purposes of that body until the National Research Board commences operations.

This is only for the current year. This board continues with its activities pending the constitution of the new body that will have to be created.

Then I come to Item K, where provision is made for an economics survey. The sum of £720 is made available. This will apparently be a function, quite apart from the research bureau.

I shall explain that point later. It is a special matter.

The third point has reference to the Afrikaans dictionary, for which apparently no funds are being made available. In the course of the Session the minister gave some information in reply to a question, but as no provision is made for further grants we should like to have some more information. I assume that the plan still holds good to continue with this work which has advanced so far, and we should like to know what will be done in future. Has any plan been made of which the Minister has knowledge through the bodies or persons concerned, or whatever organisation it may be, for provision to be made for the work in the future. After all these years of contributing we learn with a certain measure of disappointment that the matter has not been carried any further. But let me say here today that with the knowledge that we have regarding the compilation of a dictionary, especially of a standard work, we do not wish to level any reproaches at anybody that has been occupied in that work. The compilation of such a standard work demands a lifetime and longer. I have no knowledge of the extent of the work that has already been done by Professor Smith, but with my knowledge of him at school and as a student I know that nothing that he tackles will not be done soundly and thoroughly. Accordingly, I hope that there will be no one to cast reproaches at him. But I want to say again that it will be regrettable to allow such a work to remain fragmentary. That would not be right towards posterity, and accordingly I would like to have some information on this matter.

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on 25th January, 1945, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 17th April.