May I avail myself of the half-hour privilege? I should like to take the opportunity in the short time I have at my disposal to state briefly the policy of our party in connection with mining as a whole, and more particularly in regard to gold mining. I hope the Minister will be able to follow me and to understand me, otherwise I do not know how we shall be able to discuss things. It is frequently represented that our party is inimical to the mining industry and specifically to the gold mines, the reason being that we adopt a certain standpoint, specially in regard to the gold mining industry and the place that industry occupies in the economic structure of the country. This is one of the erroneous, one might almost say ridiculous allegations, that is made against this party, and consequently I should like briefly to set out our position. We, as a party, and the country as a whole, naturally realise the importance of the gold mining industry in relation to our national life and our whole economic structure. In the first place the gold mines create wealth by exploiting the gold in our earth. They create wealth that contributes to the national income. They represent an element that produces work on a great scale, to tens of thousands of Europeans and to hundreds of thousands of non-Europeans who derive a living from it. Viewed from this angle the gold mining industry is of the utmost importance to the country as a whole. In a great measure the gold mining industry furnishes a market for the farmer’s produce. If it was not for the mining industry having created a local market the farmers would in a much larger degree be dependent on the overseas market, which in many instances is a fluctuating and uneconomic market. That industry provides an outlet for another great industry, namely, coal mining. If it was not for our gold mines our coal mines would not be able to accomplish as much as they are doing at the moment. Then the gold mining industry provides us with a source from which we can extract the equivalent of the foreign exchange necessary for such overseas purchases as are necessary and also for the overseas services we require. These are all reasons why we as a party, and why the country as a whole, do not adopt a hostile attitude towards the gold mining industry but really appreciate the value and significance it has to South Africa. Having said that I must, however, add the fact remains that gold mining, especially as now managed and controlled, has also a detrimental effect on South Africa and on our whole economic structure. In the first place it is what we describe as a declining asset. To the extent that the gold reef is exploited, and the gold extracted and exported, it is an asset that is vanishing. To the extent therefore that that development is taking place the gold mining industry is impoverishing the country. That in itself, if it is not done in a proper way, may have alarming consequences for our whole economic life and structure. So long as the gold is there and so long as the ore can be developed, work is provided for thousands of people, and all kinds of activities in the country are based on the production of gold, alike in regard to those things that are manufactured for and sold to the gold mining industry, and in regard to the businesses maintained in dealing with the thousands of people who daily derive their earnings from the gold mines. And everyone can be placed in a disastrous position should that asset eventually disappear entirely or become exhausted, and should nothing of a permanent nature be built up to substitute in its place. I fear that to a great extent this is occuring in South Africa at the moment. We are engaged in exhausting that great asset, in consuming it and in selling it, and we are failing at the same time to make provision for other sources of wealth to take the place of the gold mining industry when, as must happen one day, it will have largely disappeared. Another disadvantage flowing from the gold mining industry is that it is the cause of thousands of the cream of our nation, from the point of view of physique, not only being enfeebled in health but completely incapacitated. I have in mind miners’ phthisis, an occupational disease which is the cause of thousands of meh, regarded as the flower of the nation in respect of their physical powers, very rapidly losing their value to the country and in many cases being completely ruined in health. From the survey that has been made of miners’ phthisis since 1911—the date from which compensation was paid to sufferers from miners’ phthisis—till 1939, the year of the most recent information available to me, the number of European mineworkers discharged from the mines on account of having contracted miners’ phthisis, and on account of their physical powers having been so sapped that they were incapable of further service, is the tremendous figure of 18,000, which one must consider in relation to our limited European population. They have become the victims of miners’ phthisis to such an extent that they have had to be discharged on account of physical incapacity to continue performing work of that nature. Then there is another matter which appears to us to be one of the greatest disadvantages arising from the gold mining industry as now administered, and this is that instead of the gold mine production being devoted to increasing and developing the wealth of South Africa on a permanent basis, instead of it being employed for example in the development of industries, the gold mines have hitherto in reality been a restrictive factor as far as the industrial development of our country is concerned, and that for various reasons. One of them is this, if we extract gold and export it, then in order to receive value for that gold, apart from the amount we have to pay for services such as shipping freight and interest payable overseas, I say that apart from these things, in order to obtain payment for the gold we export, we must make purchases overseas. The more we export the more we must import in order to obtain the value for that gold that if we set to work in an injudicious manner, without any control and without systematic direction, it must follow if we produce gold on a large scale that we shall have to purchase overseas things that can be manufactured in South Africa. In that way and to that extent we shall be impeding the industrial development of our country; that is also really what has been happening in the past. In the present economic policy in relation to the mines and our economic structure there is really no plan, particularly in regard to regulating imports, so that only those things shall be imported that not only are required but that cannot be made in South Africa. In this way our export of gold has to a large extent had a detrimental effect on the industrial development of the country. I can put this in a more definite way. The owners of the gold mines are in reality antagonistic towards the industrial development of the country. On that account South Africa has not developed as it would in the industrial sphere with the sympathetic support of the mining industry. When our country is developing in the industrial sphere it must necessarily contend with competition from overseas territories that have an outlet in South Africa. If we wish to have industrial development we must of necessity have protection. That implies higher costs of production for the mines, and because the mines are exercised only over dividends and profits and consequently wish to keep the costs of production at as low a level as possible, they seize on protection as a stick with which to beat industrial development in South Africa, and as a medium against those who wish to have protection for our industries. It is as clear as a pole standing up in the water—the mining industry is not well disposed towards the industrial development of our country. From their viewpoint industrial development entails higher costs of production in respect of the things that are made here, in the sense that they may be able during the early stages of local manufacture to import these articles more cheaply than they can be bought locally. The overseas shareholders particularly have no interest in our industrial development; they have no interest in the progress of South Africa, industrially or otherwise. As regards gold production the overseas investor is only interested in dividends. Until recently the majority of shareholders resided overseas, perhaps not in respect of the number of individuals but in respect of the value of the shares. Fortunately in recent years a change has occurred, but until recently the bulk of the dividends were paid overseas and those shareholders did not care a jot about the industrial development of South Africa. They wanted to keep the costs of production as low as possible with a view thereby to secure the largest amount in dividends. These two things are continually clashing with each other and it must be our policy to maintain equilibrium between them. The people who devote themselves to the production of gold envisage only one thing and that is gold itself, and the interests which in their judgment may impede the work of gold production must be eliminated. In that connection it may be of interest to read out to the House what an expert in this sphere has stated. I want to read out what Dr. Van der Bijl said on this point, namely the attitude of those who want to concentrate exclusively on the production of gold and to neglect everything else, what he said in order to point out that we in South Africa must attend in the first place to the development of our industrial life. We have those in this country who say that South Africa should not devote itself in the first instance to the development of industries but that it should devote itself more particularly to gold production. In one of his addresses as chairman of the Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa he said, inter alia—[Translation]—

I have stated that we must utilise our export to purchase such things, mainly what we require for the development of South Africa in the industrial sphere and that we are unable to make in our country, and that we should not, as has been the case in the past, utilise our gold to import on a large scale articles that instead of assisting in the development of South African industries, on the contrary impedes our industrial development owing to those goods being imported that can be manufactured here. As far as our standpoint is concerned we maintain that the gold mining industry must resume its legitimate place in the national and the economic structure of the country, but that it should not be the dominant factor to the extent that has hitherto been the case. Gold, with all other precious metals, is a national asset. As a result of the country’s legislation the State is the owner of four-fifths of the mineral rights. And this fact, that the State under our laws is the owner of gold and other precious minerals to the extent of four-fifths, is a point frequently lost sight of. It is simply accepted that the gold mines possess the gold and other mineral rights as their exclusive property, because it is the property of the individual who is the registered owner of the mineral rights with or without the surface rights. No, we must realise that gold with all other minerals is a national asset, the more so in the case of gold than in the case of the others. It belongs, in the first place, to the nation as a whole and not the shareholders only. What is more, for this and for other reasons we regard the mining industry as one of the key industries in the country; and because it is a key industry on which such a tremendous lot depends—until such time as we perhaps reach the stage of placing all gold mining development on a public utility basis, such as the Iron and Steel Corporation, so that it will not be exclusively the property of the shareholders, of a small group of large shareholders—I say that prior to our arriving at that stage we must in any event see to it that we obtain a larger measure of control over the direction and development of the gold mines. The State ought to have greater control of the gold mines, under the law. The State ought in the first place to derive a greater share of the profit the gold mines yield than is today the case, whether by way of taxation or by utilising the provision of the law that four-fifths must accrue to the State, or by both methods. The second proposition I want to make on behalf of our party is that just because we regard the gold mines as a national asset the mineworkers too, apart from the basic wage, must receive a share of the proit from the mines. The profit from the mines must be divided between the shareholders that provide the capital, the State which has a claim, in conformity wth our laws, to four-fifths of the mineral rights and the miners, who devote their labour and their health and, in many cases, sacrifice their lives to extract the gold from the earth

Will you make this applicable to the native mineworkers as well?

At the moment I am referring to the European workers. The hon. member can speak on behalf of the natives if he wishes to, but I want just to say this that our attitude has always been that the natives and the coloured people should also receive reasonable wages. I do not wish to enlarge on this at the moment. To this extent the mines must be regarded as the property of the State and the shareholders and the mineworkers jointly. Now the Question is whether the mine can afford as far as the State is concerned, to pay more in taxes or to surrender a larger share of the profit to the State! and the further question arises whether the mines can afford to pay the workers better wages than they are receiving at present, always in a relative sense. The hon. Minister of Mines during the Budget debate went out of his way, without there being any reason for it, to stand up here and to appear as the advocate for the mines, especially in respect of two matters. One can really say that he revolted against the Minister of Finance by sounding the warning that the mines can actually not bear any further taxation. In the second place, he gave a warning that the mines cannot pay higher wages. Without the slightest occasion for it he stood up as an intercessor for the gold mining industry in these two connections. Now one would rather like to put the question whether the gold mines are able to yield a greater proportion of their profit to the State, and whether they can pay wages on a better scale than has hitherto been the case. I have before me the most recent report of the Government Mining Engineer that I have been able to lay my hands on; unfortunately it is only for 1940. Subsequent to that, so far as I am aware, no further report has been published, and I shall therefore have to confine myself to the information as there presented. I shall refer first to the capital invested in the gold mining industry, and I am now dealing with the actual capital invested, not with the prices that people pay for shares for speculative purposes, nor with inflated values, but with the capital that has been invested in the mining industry in the whole of South Africa up till 1939, and it amounts to the sum of £87,450,000. The dividends that have been declared, that is to say after all working costs and all taxation have been covered, amounted in that year to £19,999,000, that is to say 22.9 per cent. on the invested capital. That is purely the profit after all taxation has been paid and all expenses have been covered. But if we take the gold mines on the Witwatersrand the position is very much worse. There the nett issued capital in respect of the gold mines up till 1939 is £58,268,000, and the dividends declared in the year 1940 amounted to £18,264,000, that is to say a dividend equivalent to 34½ per cent. I know of no other industry in South Africa which after covering all costs can pay its shareholders a dividend of 34½ per cent. per year, which is tantamount to the whole of the invested capital being repaid in the form of dividends in the course of three years. This is the position with the gold mines, and it is thus clear if we take that basis the gold mines are not only in a position to pay more of their profit to the State, but they are also in a position to pay the mineworkers a better wage than they are paying them today. Consequently the mineworkers are absolutely justified in the present circumstances in demanding they should be paid higher wages, and in demanding that the mineowners should do more for them in the way of compensation when they are suffering from miners’ phthisis. As regards miners’ phthisis I notice that there is at present on the Order Paper a Silicosis Bill. I will not go into the matter as this is not an appropriate moment. It is a matter of the greatest importance to the mineworkers. The Bill, as published and certain provisions that have been intimated, do not appear to be acceptable to the mineworkers in some respects. In some respects it is acceptable, but on the whole it is not acceptable to them, and I should like to ask the Minister in how far he is prepared, notwithstanding this Bill on the Order Paper, to take steps during the present Session to meet what I would regard as the reasonable demands of the mineworkers in reference to miners’ phthisis sufferers. I should like further to ask the Minister whether he is eventually going to place the Bill on the Statute Book without taking the mineworkers into consideration. As far as wages are concerned I also want to ask the Minister to make his attitude clear to the House. After a great deal of struggling on the Labour Vote we eventually obtained from the Minister of Labour a statement that he personally was of opinion that the miners are entitled to higher wages than they are receiving at present. I shall not go into that now, but I should like to know the attitude of the Minister in reference to the mineworkers and their wages. I am referring now to European mineworkers. The Minister knows that as far as native mineworkers are concerned an increase in their wages was granted, by way of a State subsidy, to the amount of £1,850,000. Perhaps the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) will take note of the fact that the native mineworkers have already by means of a State subsidy received an increase in wages representing a total amount of £1,850,000. But the European mineworkers have received nothing at all from the State; there has been no increase in their wages except the cost of living allowance all workers receive. The mineworkers pressed for an increase of 30 per cent. Eventually an arbitration board was appointed. I assume this action was taken through the intervention of the Minister of Labour. They had to go into the dispute between the mineworkers and the mineowners, but the arbitration resulted in a hopeless failure. Instead of an increase of 30 per cent., which might have run into £4,000,000 or £5,000,000 a year, they were fobbed off with promises and they received from the mineowners a concession of £100,000 a year for five years, on the understanding that in the ensiling five years, unless circumstances undergo a radical change, they cannot approach the mineowners for increased wages. One can only feel sorry. Now I want to mention the question as to what share the Minister of Mines had in regard to the mineworkers’ case coming to grief in this way. An arbitration board was appointed; they assembled. From the side of the mineworkers objection was taken to one of the members, and instead of the matter being rectified pressure was exercised on the mineworkers through the Government, and the chairman of the board, Mr. C. A. Cilliers, acted as umpire between the Chamber of Mines and the mineworkers, with the regrettable sequel that I have just indicated. Now I should like to know what attitude the Minister of Mines takes up towards the demands of the mineworkers for higher wages. Does he adopt the same attitude as the Minister of Labour assumes when he says the mineworkers are entitled to higher wages? Or is there discord? What is the standpoint of the Government? Unfortunately we have reached the stage with this Government that you have in the first place to ask a Minister what his personal standpoint is, then you have to ask what his standpoint is as a Minister, and in the third place you must ask what the standpoint is of the Government. Under the present Government you have to deal with three standpoints; the standpoint of the Government as a whole, the standpoint of the Minister concerned as Minister, and the standpoint of the Minister as a private individual. This was the case with the Minister of Labour. The Government has its standpoint, the Minister of Labour has a standpoint and then he has a standpoint as Walter Madeley. I should like to know whether the Minister of Mines is also placed in that unenviable position. I should like to know what his position is and what standpoint he endorses. I do not want to go into particulars. We have done that previously, but in view of the divergency of opinion and the unreasonableness of the treatment extended to the mineworkers I wish to ask the Minister to say very clearly to the House what his standpoint is so that the mineworkers may know whether it is he as Minister of Mines who protects them when they come along for their rights, or whether he as Minister of Mines is functioning in this House merely as the spokesman of big capital and of the mineowners, to the detriment, and in some cases to the very severe detriment, of the mineworkers. Another matter of very real interest to me is the position of those mines that are developing the so-called low grade ore. What is the attitude of the Government in respect of them. During the past year several mines, amongst others Langlaagte Estates, Van Ryn Deep and the Witwatersrand Deep, have in compliance with the statutory provisions of the law given three months’ notice to the Minister of Mines that they will close because their ore is no longer of a payable grade.

I would like to use the small amount of time at my disposal to make a special plea to the Minister with regard to the development of and finding markets for our base metals. I think this vote offers an opportunity to the Minister to make the statement which the country is looking for. When Mr. Wallach was in Parliament he used to bring this matter up periodically, and I think everyone knows that if we want to increase our national income and increase employment, this is one of the ways in which it can be done because the base metal industry is still in a very infantile state of growth and in a very lethargic condition. We want people to publicise what we have got, and there is no doubt that we want overseas some special representative, no doubt under the appropriate officials we have got, whose job it will be to look for fresh markets for our base metals. I see it is estimated that the United States alone is in a position to take over £10,000,000 worth of our base minerals every year. This would be a very fine foundation for future development, but of course it requires careful study and enquiry. We want to know exactly how much of our raw material can be taken. It may be that in some cases we can work the raw material in South Africa itself. The first thing that these people would want to know is what raw materials there are in the Union available either for export or for manufacture. I believe there is an extensive geological survey in process at present. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how far it has gone and when it is likely to be completed. Then there is the great question of markets. Here it does seem to those who are interested in base metals that the only way to get these markets is not by having the ordinary Trade Commissioner or the ordinary diplomatic representative, but to have an expert, a man who knows all about base metals. America is principally mainly concerned and we expect to find a big market there. This representative should be there, interviewing people and finding out who are prepared to receive our products and under what terms. It is not like gold. Gold has a fixed price, but base metals have not. Many countries besides South Africa produce base metals. It is necessary to fix up contracts. There is a lot of spade work to be done, which can only be done by a special Government representative. There is another matter which has been put up before, namely that there should be a special sub-department of the Mines Department to deal with base metals. It should not be dealt with by the same people dealing with gold, diamonds or coal, because it merits a special staff. The question of railway rates is also a matter which the Minister may go into with the Minister of Railways, because even if these things were transported at cost, or even below cost price on the railways, when they are exported, it will mean an enormous thing to South Africa, millions of pounds being obtained from other countries, and it requires special study and consideration, as I say, and I hope one of the first means of increasing the productivity of South Africa will be by the expansion and development of this very valuable base metal industry.

I should like to say a word in connection with the development of gold in the Orange Free State. Last year I mentioned the matter and I do so again today, and I want to express my disappointment that the Government permitted, where there is now going to be development of gold in the Free State, that it should be done as it was done on the Witwatersrand years ago, namely that the whole thing should fall into the hands of private companies. The State should have intervened to prevent that what happened years ago on the Rand should again happen in the Free State, namely that the owners of ground and the public should get very little, and that the real profits should go into the pockets of private companies. The policy of our Party is definitely that the State should not allow such an essential industry as the gold industry to get into the hands purely and solely of private individuals, or a private syndicate or company. Our policy, as was again reaffirmed by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) is that the State should there also apply the utility principle by saying: “No private company will make money out of this, but as far as possible only the State and the owners of the ground concerned will make the profits”. In 1942 the State adopted legislation in terms of which right of prospecting for and the development of crdue oil was reserved to the State. Why cannot it be done in the case of gold? The State does it in the case of oil, which it considers to be essential, but does not wish to do it in regard to gold, probably because the gold mining companies are too powerful for the Government. Here we let a beautiful opportunity go by, where the Free State is faced with great developments, to say that the benefits should not again go to individuals and to a few companies. The Minister let this golden opportunity go by, and it will again be individuals who become rich as the result. In the first place the State is deprived of the benefits and in the second place the benefits are withheld from the owners of ground in the Free State, which for the rest is a poor province. These benefits are withheld from the owners of ground, because we know that individuals, the owners of the ground, have not the means to devolp the gold. They cannot do it themselves. The State will not do it. Now they must simply sell options to the gold mining companies, and in the Free State the people are being misled and cheated. The owners of ground are being coldbloodedly cheated by the mining companies, and I want the State to intervene and to prevent its happening further. I can mention numbers of examples because I have much to do with it. In general the position is that a company submits an option contract to the owner of the ground or signature, a prospecting contract whereby the owners give the company the right to prospect and also the right to buy the mineral rights. Then certain option monies are paid to the owner. I just want to indicate what the position is at the present moment. For the period of the war a very small sum is paid. I have for example one instance béfore me which is typical of many. For the period of the war the option money paid is 1s. per morgen per annum. But what is the war period? The contract says—

In other cases Japan is also mentioned. Now, we know that it will be many years before a peace treaty is signed. The Hon. Prime Minister said that no peace treaty would be signed for years. There will be a period of occupation, an armistice, but no peace treaty. Now the companies misuse this by paying these low option monies for all those years and therefore to prospect cheaply. Because immediately peace is signed they will have to pay 2s. 6d. according to the contract, or 150 per cent. more. But they will use the condition that no peace will be signed in Europe, and they will say that no peace treaty has been signed and therefore they are only obliged to pay the low option money. The Government should step in and if necessary pass legislation to prevent the companies from misusing the war position in this manner by saying that no peace has been signed and therefore they do not have to pay the hgiher option money. People signed the contracts thinking that immediately the war is over there would be a peace treaty, as in the past, when they would be able to obtain their high option money, but now there is only an armistice and the companies will misuse the position. I hope that the Minister will prevent it. But apart from that option contract the owners of the ground also sign to the effect that they will later enter into a notarial contract for registration against transfer, and the companies then bring forward a notarial contract containing provisions never contained in the option contract. It is submitted to these people, and they are told that those are the terms on which they undertook to sign. They later discover that it contains matters which they never undertook to sign for in the option contract.

Did you draw up the contracts?

The hon. member must not be so stupid. It is the companies who draw up the contracts. In such a notarial contract it is for example provided that “the owner resigns his right to claim licence money and mine rentals.” That is only a small clause consisting of a few words, and in it they then deprive themselves of the rental in favour of the company. Not a word is said about that in the option contracts. These people sign it and discover too late what they have signed, and consequently they lose a considerable amount. According to the Gold Law the claim licence money is especially retained by the State and the owner of the ground, and the owner of the ground receives half of the 6s. per morgen per month. The law gives it to the owner of the ground but the company comes and by means of fraud has a contract signed to the effect that the owner does not claim it. It is a long formal contract and it is read out and the agent says: “It is just the same as the option contract”, and the man signs it. I blame the Department of Mines and the Minister and the Government for not having warned these people in time not just to sign any contract. The Government should have put means at their disposal in connection with the signing of such contracts for advice to be given by the Department to these people in an easy manner. By means of the Press information could have been given to these people to be careful of what they signed. It is very easy to say that people themselves must know what they do in signing the contracts. According to our legal system that is so, but here a new state of affairs arises about which these people know little or nothing, and the agent offers a sum as option money and eventually they find they have given away their valuable rights, as I have indicated, as the result of fraud—it is nothing else—committed on them. It will be of no use for these people to go to court, because the contract has been signed and they will simply be told that they should have seen themselves whether the contract is in agreement with the original option contract. There are still quite a number of these things which people sign away, but time will not allow me to enter into them all. I have mentioned especially these two points and I ask the Minister to protect these people, if necessary by legislation. He can for example lay down that the lapse of the option contract takes place at a determined time. It Gan be included in the Omnibus Bill. Otherwise the period of low option monies payable may perhaps be stretched infinitely, for ten years or more, until eventually a peace treaty is signed. In the second place I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the fraud taking place in connection with claim licence monies.

Mr. Chairman, I have a resolution here adopted by 21 branches in my constituency. This resolution asks that the Government takes into earnest consideration the high rate of taxation pertaining to mining and that measures be taken to afford the mines relief in order to provide for expansion and for the continuous employment of existing personnel.

I regret I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss a question which involves taxation.

I am departing from that subject now. Our immediate objective should be the lowering of working costs—the lowering of avoidable working costs. Certain recommendations were made by the Low Grade Ore Commission in 1931 which apparently have not been implemented and I shall be glad to hear from the Minister his views on the subject. I refer to the special gold realisation charge, the State’s share of claim licences, municipal charges and native pass fees. When I refer to the lowering of avoidable working costs I do not mean to suggest it shall be at the expense of the men working on the mines. I think the time has come when we should consider the principle of preferential treatment in relation to the mines of this country. Unless we are prepared to give the mines preferential treatment not only in respect of the items I have mentioned, but in other directions as well, our reconstruction programmes in the future will be seriously prejudiced. After all, the mines have carried us through the war and they are going to carry us in the future, and I think the benefits that will accrue in the future will depend on the extent to which the mines can be relieved of avoidable working charges. One of these days we shall have to consider increased benefits for the miners—benefits which must materialise—through our new phthisis legislation, and we shall be considering what the mines can carry in reference to these increased benefits. Another point on which I should like to have the Miniser’s views is this. Owing to the closing of certain mines on the Rand, what is going to happen in the Free State? Can the Minister give us any indication how the fields in that area will develop? Another matter I should like to mention is that there is a book published, “Free State and Rand Gold” written by Mr. Jacobson and published by the C.N.A. at 2s. 6d.; the proceeds are going to the Merchant Navy Fund. Besides its usefulness in stimulating interest in the Merchant Navy Fund, the book is a mine of information, and I strongly recommend it to anybody wishing to gain a thorough knowledge of many aspects relating to mining. For instance there is a chapter on this question of production, showing the time it takes and the costs involved before a mine reaches production. There are many other chapters of great interest. I can strongly commend the book.

There are two issues which I wish to put before the Minister, and both of them are increasingly urgent. One is the general level of payment to the native mineworkers, and the second is the question of the future of the native mine labour force. Various arguments have been put up on behalf of European mineworkers and their claim to an increase in the wage level. I want to press upon the hon. Minister the claims of the native workers; and I wish to do so in spite of the fact that certain increases were accorded to those workers last year. The hon. Minister will remember that what was given to the native mineworkers last year was only part of what had been recommended by the Native Wages Commission in its report. That commission proposed that there should be not only increases in the wage levels of native mineworkers, but that a cost of living allowance should also be accorded to the native mineworkers, who were the one great body of industrial workers who had received no cost of living allowance since the war began. It also proposed a boot allowance to cover some of the increased costs of this necessity for the workers. It was with great disappointment when we heard last year that the Government was not prepared to impose on the mines the additional benefits, the additional improvements in earnings, recommended by the commission, over and above the improvement in basic wage rates. I want to impress upon the hon. Minister again the urgency of improving further the condition of the native mineworkers. The commission itself showed that even with the improvements which it was recommending in this report the mineworker was not going to be in a position to meet the costs of himself and his family, that many of the natives coming to the mines are landless and without cattle and are entirely dependent upon their earnings, with the result that unless those earnings can be raised to approximate more closely to a family wage, there is bound to be increasing distress in the areas from which these labourers are recruited. I claim that there is a case for an improvement all round in the wages of the native mineworkers, and I trust that the hon. Minister will give this matter his sympathetic consideration and that he will now see that at least the full recommendations of the Mine Wages Commission are applied that the cost of living allowance is granted and the boot allowance is granted to help to bridge the gap between earnings and living costs. That leads me to the general question of the future of the native mine labour force. I know the usual argument against the improvement of native mine wages is that the majority of those natives who come to the mines are actually earning in another capacity, as peasants, that they have land holdings which help to subsidise their earnings. Apart altogether from the justice of that claim, apart altogether from the justice of balancing a man’s other assets against the value of his industrial services, I wish to remind the hon. Minister that increasingly the policy of the Native Affairs Department is now to develop the native reserves, which can only be done on the basis of a permanent agricultural population. If the Department proceeds in that direction, as we sincerely hope it will, as the only basis on which the land and the people can be saved, one of the inevitable results will be to reduce the size of the labour force which is available for industrial purposes. That is the situation for which the Government should in my opinion, already be planning. It is in fact a development which the Government should be planning for in any case. In recent years there has been continuously a shortage of native labour for the mines, and that shortage has been becoming more pronounced with every industrial development. In my opinion the shortage is going to become more and more pronounced, which raises the issue of what is going to happen to the mining industry if and when it no longer can continue its present labour pattern. That situation is going to develop with increasing rapidity if we continue to develop our secondary industries as we should do. And in that connection I feel that the obvious line of policy both for the Government and the mining industry is to explore the means of increasing the efficiency of the native mine labour force with a view to meeting its reduction in numbers. In other words, I feel that the policy of both the mining industry and the Government should be to plan for an increasingly stable labour force which by its stability and its higher standard of living will give greater efficiency in service to meet the decline in mere numbers. A lead has already been given to the Government in that direction. There are sections of the mining industry that are actually conscious of the fact that (a) the inability of the labour resources to keep up the demands on them will have to be met; and (b) the increase in efficiency will have to be pursued if the mining industry is to expand. I have in my hand the speech of the chairman of the Anglo-Transvaal Consolidated Investment Company at the last annual meeting of the company, in which after reporting that a severe shortage of native labour and the continued need for conserving stores and materials again militated against normal operations, he goes on to discuss the whole question of the possibilities of mining development in relation to the availability of native labour. In this connection, Mr. Hersov says what we have been saying in this House for years, but which has now become such an important economic fact that it can be no longer sidestepped—

That is the statement of a man deeply engaged in mining and who is hoping, I understand, to be interested in the development of new mining fields in the future. He goes on—

That is a reflection of a situation which is developing in the mines about which I feel the Government has a great responsibility. It is quite clear today that the traditional labour pattern of the mining industry cannot be sustained. We simply have not got the physical resources on which to sustain it. I want to know what investigation is being made, what research is being carried on to enable the mining industry to adjust itself to a different labour pattern which is going to be absolutely essential if the mining industry is to be maintained. I want to know to what extent the Government is encouraging and assisting, for instance, the development of technological research which will enable the mining industry to do without a great deal of the mere physical labour which is now being used on the mines and which according to Mr. Hersov himself, is grossly inefficient, partly because it is untrained, partly because it is unstable and has no interest in the future of the industry, because it has no prospects in the industry. That, to my mind, is of the very greatest importance, that the technological side should be kept under investigation so that the mines may be able to adjust themselves to a different and a smaller supply of native labour.

I wish to deal with an aspect of native labour on the mines rather different from that dealt with by the hon. member just now. I hope I shall have her support in the proposals I shall put forward. Twenty years ago when I first came into this House I urged the same point as I shall make now, compulsory deferred pay for native labourers proceeding to the mines. The hon. member has referred to the position of natives in the native areas, saying that they suffer from malnutrition, and so forth, caused by insufficient food. I wish to read a letter here written by a native in June of last year which appeared in the local Press—

In addition to that I wish to quote a resolution passed at its last session, a few weeks ago, by the Bunga—

They ask the Government to insist on a proportion of the wages earned by the mine labourers being remitted to their homes. In the Union we have a voluntary system started by the Native Recruiting Corporation, but it is not compulsory, and I think that the proportion is 70 per cent. of the young men who go up to the mines and squander practically all their earnings, with the result that none of their money goes back to the Territories. Again we are facing a very serious position in the Transkei and other native areas. Drought will undoubtedly cause a great deal of starvation; and to my mind it is wrong that the money earned by these young men should be spent wastefully in the concession stores on the Witwatersrand or squandered in riotous living. I have brought this up in the House many times. When Mr. Grobler was Minister of Native Affairs I advocated this policy, and his reply was that on the subject of deferred pay he had discussions with the concession stores on the Rand, and they were asking that the whole system should be abolished, that there should not even be a system of voluntary remissions. That is the position. We have pressure from the commercial community on the Rand who want the natives to squander all their money there, with the result, as I say that we have this complaint, and I think it is a justifiable and serious complaint. Often these young men do not go back to their homes after their term of service in the mines. Having squandered their money they are afraid to return, they are ashamed to face their parents and they do not go back at all. That is one of the chief reasons we have a drift to the towns. If these young men have some money at their homes to draw from after nine months service they will return home and maintain their connection with their tribe and their people in the district, and they will be saved from the ruination they are coming to by becoming permanent urban dwellers as is now happening. I would appeal to hon. members representing the patives to support me on this matter. Previously the Bunga has not supported this proposal. They have taken the view that they want the same privileges as the white people have. But since they have the experience of what has occurred in the army and of natives from the North remitting half their earnings, the native people themselves have realised the benefit that arises to the district and to the women and children, and they themselves have passed this resolution. I want to know what objection the Government has to it; it is definitely in the interests of the natives. The natvies are asking for it, and it is the one way, I think, we will maintain a connection between the rural native and his home when he goes to work on the mines, and protect the natives against the evils of town life; and I should like the Minister to tell me what he has against it and why the Government have not acceded to it. I have pleaded for it year after year. This principle has been carried out in the army, and in the Transkeian Territories the machinery is there. The Native Recruiting Corporation have the necessary machinery and they are prepared to enforce it, and I believe they would like to see it introduced.

For some time past various organisations in the Border area of the Cape have been discussing the question of establishing certain industries, but there are snags and one of the snags is the question of coal. We have to get it from the Transvaal, but there is a strong feeling that the time has arrived when investigation should be made in the Stormberg area in which I believe coal is present. I understand the department has been investigating the position. I remember many years ago, 40 or 50 years ago, when the only coal available was from the Molteno and the Indwe areas. I have known it used as household coal, but I must admit it was not very good and there may be better coal in the area. I have here several letters from the district indicating there are great possibilities in that area in regard to the future mining of coal, and I would like to ask the Minister whether he can make a statement to the House on coal mining in the Stormberg and Indwe areas. The other question I want to put to the Minister is that recently there has been an investigation into the question of oil in the Union of South Africa. I raised the point some time ago, and I believe the Minister made a statement. I think it would be appreciated if the Minister would today in his reply tell the House what the position is in regard to oil in South Africa.

I want to support what the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) raised here and to put the direct question to the Minister: Is he going to permit the existing state of affairs as regards the contracts made a few years ago to continue? In my area there are numbers of farmers who are absolutely bound by those contracts —it is 1s. a morgen for the duration of the war—but there are also farmers who were put under a misapprehension and who now later discover that it is not 1s. per morgen per year but that the 1s. only covers the period of the war and that thereafter it is 2s. 6d., 3s. 6d. to 4s. per morgen. I think the country expects a lead in the matter from the Minister of Mines. I think the Minister ought not to permit that state of affairs to continue. From time to time options are taken up. One payment is made, and then it lapses. The people had no lead from the Minister of Mines. He did not warn the people; he did not intervene and fix a mimimum or maximum standard of payment. It was simply a question of laissez faire and I think that the people concerned have the right to learn from the Minister what the period is. The words “when peace is concluded” appears in the contract. There is now a cessation of activities between Germany and the Allies but there is no peace as yet. How long must that position continue? On a previous occasion I also asked the Minister whether he would be prepared seeing that hostilities in Europe have ceased, to make a statement so that these people can know what their position is, whether he will permit that the sinking of shafts in the Free State is continued with. On a previous occasion I mentioned that, and it was denied by certain prominent newspapers on the Rand. I should be very glad if the Minister would tell the House this morning whether it is correct that he personally stated to us that the policy of the Government is not to have that work going on while the war lasts. Has the Minister thought of this: When shafts are sunk not only his department is concerned, but provision must be made for the provision of water; provision will have to be made for power and there will have to be provision for rail and road transport. Has the Minister laid down a policy in that connection? Has he consulted his colleagues? Do they intend to let that development continue at this stage or are they still going to hinder development there? It is of interest. It is because of this uncertainty, which exists, that people land themselves in these things and give away their ground. They do not know what the position is. One at least expects that the Minister of Mines will make a statement in connection with his policy to keep the nation acquainted with matters. If he does that these things will not happen, but there are so many rumours and stories that the public will not know where they are, and I want to ask the Minister this morning to get up and to tell us what the actual position is in regard to the development and the prospects of the potential goldfields of the Free State.

I should like to have some information from the Minister in connection with deep level mining. I have the report of the Deep Level Mining Commission in front of me, and I would like to read Clause 48—

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the establishment of an Indian township on the Diepkloof Reformatory site is suggested. Now, Sir, I want to know whether in the face of this report the hon. the Minister is giving the recommendations of the Deep Level Mining Commission the attention which they suggested; and may I say this, that that area is right over the area where, if very deep level mining is embarked upon, will become a very valuable area. What I want to know is this: When these people acquire that piece of ground which is over 1,000 acres in extent, will they acquire the mineral rights as well as the surface rights? Everyone knows that if they acquire the surface rights, if they buy this site, they will build on it. The Government must be very careful before they allow that. It is a very important matter and the Minister’s reply will be greatly appreciated in connection with the matter.

I should like to refer to this question of concession stores on the mines. During the recess I approached the Minister of Mines with a view to seeing whether a change cannot be made in the system of concession stores on the mines, whether the trading rights on the mines cannot be vested in co-operative bodies consisting of the workers on those mines, to see that the exploitation in progress today is stopped. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) pointed out that the natives waste three-quarters of their wages in unnecessary things. That happens on a large scale in the concession stores. I can point to a case which was recently heard in the courts in the Transvaal where a trader was brought before the court for cruelty towards lizards —I call them that; I do not know what the scientific name is.

In the Transvaal they are called “koggelmanders” I presume.

Yes, all the Nationalists. Those concession stores in many cases make themselves guilty of the lowest form of exploitation. It happens that they sell the fat of leguans and lizards and such things to the natives at terribly high prices.

Is it really the fat of leguans?

Yes, in this manner the natives are exploited. I should like to know from the Minister whether it is not possible to change the Gold Law in that respect.

The hon. member may not now plead for an amendment in the Law.

Is it not possible to evolve a plan by which the trading rights can be taken over by employees on the mines? If that can be done it will be to the benefit of the workers, of the management, and also of the natives. It will appreciably lower the costs of living, and when the costs of living have been reduced it means that the persons concerned are better off with the wages they now receive than they would otherwise have been. There is another matter which I should like the Minister to investigate and that is the conditions on the mines outside. I should like the Minister to investigate the scale of wages paid on the outside mines both to Europeans and to natives. I should also like him to investigate the manner in which the mine regulations are applied on those mines. He must investigate the number of hours worked on those mines, and that applies especially to the smaller mines. He must also investigate the housing conditions of the workers on the outside mines, because in some cases it is most miserable, and it ought to receive the attention of the Minister. Some compounds are of such a primitive nature that it is almost impossible for these people to inhabit them and to remain healthy. Recently, three or four weeks ago, there was a strike of native workers on the Hlobaan Coal Mine. They said they were striking because they did not receive enough food and were not properly housed. I should like the Minister to tell us whether that was the position there or not. I now come to a matter which I have already previously raised, namely the treatment of the mineworkers on the Witwatersrand where there are sufficient inspectors to apply the mining regulations. I wish to point out the injustice which is being committed there in connection with the application of the mining regulations. In order to do that I will refer to certain instances, and in the first place to an instance in shaft no. 1 of the Blyvooruitzicht Mine. On that mine a drive broke in September, 1944. The regulations state that where there is a station where the workers get out of the hoist satisfactory precautionary measures must be taken to prevent accidents to the workers. A certain Myburgh, who was the signaller on the mine, one day had to pick up people at the drive, and a native fell down the shaft and was killed. I now wish to point to how things are done there to protect the management of the mine. In order to do that they in many cases have to use the miner as the cat’s paw. He is used to prevent the management getting into trouble, because the manager may perhaps lose his manager’s certificate if the blame is brought home to the mangement. Investigation was made into this accident by a certain inspector Irvine. He found—

That clause of the mining regulations reads as follows—

After the inspector had given this decision Mr. Myburgh was brought before the court at Potchefstroom and charged with culpable homicide. It appeared from the evidence that certain mining regulations had not been given effect to by the management. I put questions in connection with this matter, but the replies I received were unsatisfactory. I then also asked for the report of the inspector, and the Minister of Mines was willing to give me an opportunity to scrutinise that report. In that report the evidence of Mr. J. D. Kempe, a mine captain, appeared, in which he inter alia stated the following—

In this connection I wish to refer to the provisions of Regulation 8 (1) and Regulation 9 in which amongst other things the following provision is contained—

[Time limit.]

I would like to endorse the remarks made by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) regarding the deferred payment of native wages for those natives working on the mines. The member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) made the statement that dividends on shares amount to approximately 34½ per cent. of the capital. That is a fallacious argument because a lot of capital is not shown at its nominal value. May I give the example of Sallies? It has a nominal value of 3s. 6d. whereas the shareholders had to pay 77s. 6d. for the shares. Grootvlei is another mine. Shares of the nominal value of 20s. were issued at 70s. to their shareholders.

We are not talking about speculators. We are talking about the people who originally invested money in the mine.

In the case of the Nigel Mine they issued their new issue of shares at about 45s. for a 10s. share. In the case of the hon. member for Winburg he mentions that he wants the State to take over mining. Does he want the State to take over mining with all its speculations and risks, where millions can be lost?

I want to cut out the speculation.

Mining is a very speculative proposition. The mines, as the Low Grade Ore Commission has shown have only a certain life. The length of time for which payable ore can be mined is dependent on the grade of ore mined, and the working costs are in relation to the price of gold.

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

When we adjourned I was pointing out that the mines are a wasting asset and we must assist in every way we can to keep mining costs down and in that way prolong the life of the mines. As the cost increases the quantity of payable ore falls, and as the costs decrease the quantity increases. In the Low Grade Mines Commission report in 1922 it was mentioned that a reduction of 2s. per ton on working costs would result in an increase of 53 per cent. in the average life of the mines on the Witwatersrand, and that a reduction of 4s. would mean an increase of 72 per cent. It should be realised that about half the population of South Africa gets its livelohood directly or indirectly from the mines and the Government receives about 50 per cent. of its revenue from the gold mines. When we come to the ore, the Government receives directly or indirectly 6s. 8d. per ton milled. It has been pointed out that some of the charges that are levied can be reduced or abolished. We have, for instance, railway rates, which militate very heavily against the mines. Other industries, the farming industry for example, have most of their products conveyed at a very reduced rate. I would like to ask the Minister of Railways to consider a revision of some of these heavy railway rates affecting the mines. In the case of native pass fees a sum of £750,000 per year is paid by the mines. That was supposed to be for the hospitals, but it now goes into the general revenue of the province. Then there is a special gold realisation charge which is levied upon the gold mining industry. They also have charges by municipalities for which they receive little or no benefit. Then we have the Government’s share of claim licences and rentals. The search for new mines should be encouraged by the State giving all facilities possible to prospectors. I will show you what that means to the country. We have seven mines that are closing down. In 1944 those seven mines paid £2,000,000 in European wages and £1,384,000 in nonEuropean wages. In the purchase of stores they paid out £2,302,000. The dividends amounted to £94,000 on a capital of over £5,600,000, or approximately .017 per cent. I should like to reiterate what was stated in the report of the committee on deep level mining—

I hope the Government will encourage new properties being opened up. I agree with what hon. members in the House have stated about the Free State being opened up, but what encouragement is being offered when the Government, by means of its taxation, takes anything up to 15s. in the £?

The debate has proceeded some time on extremely interesting lines, and I think it is as well I should give an interim reply at once. I appreciate very much indeed the important points which have been raised. I think I may say that in every speech that has been made on this vote I wish to deal with the points as I have appreciated them seriatim, and very seriously. I was particularly interested in the speeches by the hon. members for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) and Winburg (Mr. Swart). The hon. member for Waterberg gave extra importance to his speech by saying categorically and definitely that he was laying down the principles of his party with regard to mining, and especially to gold mining. I accept it, and I am sure the Committee will accept it, as a very important speech on that account. I want to be quite clear what the hon. member is aiming at on behalf of his party. It seemed to me—I hope he will correct me if I am wrong—that he had made a very long and wide step towards socialism in respect of mining, more wide and more deep than I have ever noticed before. And the hon. member for Winburg, in following it up, said definitely that he deprecated and was sorry for the exploitation of gold mining in the Free State by private enterprise, and he wanted it left to the State to do it. And I gathered that with some arrière-pensée he added that the interference of the State was still to leave the landowners to get some sort of benefit out of it. I am sure the whole country desires to know and to realise and to appreciate the policy of the Party for which the hon. member speaks. I take it having listened as carefully as I can and having checked my understanding of their remarks as far as I am able, that both these hon. members are laying it down as the policy of their Party that the control of mining should pass out of the hands of the companies now carrying out mining and should pass into the hands of the State, to be used for national purposes on national lines, with the qualification that I have already mentioned, that in some undefined way the landowners should come in for something. That is a very, very important statement, and I think it is desirable we should analyse it and see where this is going to lead us to. First of all, what is it that the State is to do? The State is to control mining. Is it by way of the conduct of mining as a State enterprise with State mines? If so, I can only say it would be a complete revolution in the organisation not only of the Government department over which I at the present time preside, but in the organisation of the Government as a whole. We have never as a government in South Africa, undertaken the exploitation of the capital assets of the country on a scale approaching, or anywhere in the same street as the suggestion now being made; and it would need an organisation of a very large branch of the civil service and sweeping into the Government service tens of thousands of technicians and miners and labourers who are now engaged under private enterprise.

On the same lines as the iron and steel industry.

That is a very different thing.

That is what we said.

There is the provision about oil, which I will deal with now.

Our submission is that it should be on the utility principle, the same as in the case of Iscor.

The hon. member now tells me ….

No, both of us said so in our speeches.

I now understand that that is to be conducted as an industry, run by a public utility corporation on the same lines as Iscor. Now, is there to be expropriation of the present mines, the present organisation, and if so, on what basis are they to be expropriated, and where is the money to come from? I suppose by the issue of fresh stock on which dividends will be paid, but what guarantee is there, what hope is there that the profits under that will be in any way similar to the profits produced at present? What hope is there that the prospecting which is undertaken now at very grave risk indeed will be carried out by that utility corporation with the success and the skill with which it is done at present?

Why not?

What is wrong with Iscor?

Human experience is this, that where you have to undertake very grave risks, those risks have to be undertaken by people who see great profits sticking out.

Your Party said the same about Iscor. You said you could not take the risk.

I do not know that the actual monetary analysis which was made at that time proved to be far wrong but by negotiations which have been made you are able to compel producers in this country to absorb the products which that factory turns out. The production of gold is a very different thing indeed. We do not use our gold in this country at all except as a means of exchange for the goods and products of other countries. Everything depends on this. The utility of gold and gold mining to South Africa is that we can export the gold overseas and get for it in return something which is profitable to us, based on the cost of production here. The radical difference between gold mining therefore and the manufacture of products is obvious to anyone.

If you could undertake deep boring in search of oil all over the country, surely deep boring in search of gold would not be such an insurmountable task?

I had better deal with the oil point at once. It was said that I should undertake the same action with regard to gold as I have taken with regard to oil. Do hon. members not realise that the Natural Oil Act was based upon the Gold Law? Do they not realise that the right of winning gold belongs to the State and always has belonged to the State? It was one of the first gold laws of the old Transvaal Republic which laid it down that gold belonged to the State, and that law has remained the law in the Transvaal to the present day, and has been extended by Parliament to the Free State also; and the share which the owner of the land got out of it was the mynpacht, and the parallel was followed by me in the proposals I made to Parliament with regard to the Natural Oil Act. I said that the right of winning this oil would belong to the State, but the exact equivalent of the mynpacht, 25 per cent., vested in the owner of the land where it is discovered. So I followed the Gold Law in this, and it is the law at present. Practically the same principle applies to the winning of oil as to the winning of gold. We are in that position. The State now says that the right of winning gold belongs to the State; how are we to use it? Will it be more profitable for us to do the mining ourselves, or will it be better to give the equivalent of a mining lease to others to do the job? And the verdict of South Africa up to the present has been that it is better in the mining of gold as in exploiting the other natural resources, that this should be given to private enterprise but under strict State control,’and I have yet to learn that South Africans as a whole wish to depart from the principle of private enterprise.

Do you consider that this speculation is in the interests of the country?

There is a lot of cant spoken about speculation, if I may say so without being disrespectful to the hon. member. After all we all go in for speculation. It means the taking of chances. The country which does not take chances never gets anywhere. As a farmer is a speculator, so we all take chances.

Even a married man!

We use the word “speculator” when we think of an exaggerated case of taking chances, where someone goes in for a very risky business in the hopes of a very large reward It is not quite right to stigmatise a speculator dealing in gold or minerals with wickedness or naughtiness. There is just as much naughtiness in it as when you speculate in cattle or land. Now, the position in the country now is that which was laid down when the gold fields were discovered in 1886, and the first Gold Law was passed. The right of winning the gold belongs to the State. How is the State to use it? Is is using it now under very strict control indeed and getting most of the profits for the benefit of the State, allowing a relatively small amount to go into the hands of the private individual. At the present moment working costs are very great indeed and absorb most of the gross profits, and of the nett profits the State is taking’ over 70 per cent. in the way of direct taxation, although it varies for different mines. A great deal of the working costs is consumed by the takings of other great divisions of State, like the Customs Department and the railways; and in one way or another through the purchase of stores and of farm products, as I was glad to see the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) realised, these purchases have enriched a very wide section of the population until I believe it is true to say that there is no South African, man, woman or child, who is not directly or indirectly very largely benefited by the continued existence of the gold mining industry. I have had a great deal to do with the gold mining industry during the last six or seven years, an industry which before I only dealt with from the point of view of a lawyer. I can say that my respect, as the result of my experience, for soundness and of the technical control of the gold mining industry, has increased as I have gone along, and I believe that everyone connected with it, even my hon. friends the ’members for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside), and Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers) will agree with me that they are often astonished at the skill, accuracy and knowledge of those with whom they have to deal when negotiating with the Chamber of Mines. It is a department in rhe organisation of the South African State which for skill and for knowledge is certainly not exceeded, if it is anything like equalled, by any Department of State. I do not think therefore that in technical control or in the skill which is applied there is any improvement to be made by departing from the lines on which the industry is organised, namely that the State, both in the Transvaal and the Free State, should have the right of mining, and that the proper way to exploit that right is to give it out to others on agreed terms; and the leases which are given out are given out very strictly on terms which are examined very carefully by representatives of the Treasury and of my Department, and sometimes pretty hard bargains are driven. I have no doubt at all that the best which can be done for the State in that respect is being done. Now, with regard to the cost of mining, it is of course to the interest of éveryone that the actual cost of production of any product should be kept down as low as possible. The less an article costs the larger the profit to everyone who has to use or to produce that product. We want to keep down the costs as much as possible. I would like, in reference to the railway rates mentioned, to say this, that whilst of course my hon. friend and colleague the Minister of Railways has to get his revenue and I am very anxious to get the maximum facilities for the disposal of the products of mining, we have come to a very good working arrangement whereby in the case of any railway rates which are thought to require modification or which are open to modification, we have a joint committee which is summonsed ad hoc with representatives of both departments to go into it and to pool their knowledge in order to see what can be done. That is a step in the right direction and I doubt very much whether it is known or appreciated that a committee of that kind is at work. We are therefore taking what steps we can with regard to keeping down working costs. Of course, one of the main features in working costs is the wages of the people engaged. Now, I would like to know very much what exactly was the policy of the two members to whom I referred—I am talking of them especially at the moment—in regard to this. They asked me to make a statement as to what my policy was, particularly with regard to the demand recently made by the mineworkers for a 30 per cent. increase in wages. My reply is this, that that is a matter of departmental control which does not fall under me. It belongs to the Minister of Labour.

He said it was your responsibility;

No it is not. If you want any proof of that it lies in the fact that these negotiations did not take place between me and them. But I will tell you what my attitude is, and it is the attitude of the Government also. Our attitude is that bargaining for wages in the mining industry, as in any other industry, is a matter where the employers and the employees have to get together; and if there is a case where there is undue exploitation, where the employees are so unorganised or so feeble or ignorant that they cannot look after themselves, some or other branch of the Government then intervenes; it may be the Native Affairs Department or the Labour Department. But primarily it is a matter of negotiation; and may I say this, that the mining industry, at any rate on the great mines of the Rand, are so organised and so able to look after themselves that they can run their own affairs. It is primarily a matter of negotiation between the employers and the employees as to what the wages shall be. That system has worked up to the present, and is still working satisfactorily, I think, on the whole. There is conciliation machinery which can be invoked at anytime and frequently is invoked, and in many works—I do not know how many— the regulation of wages is the result of the operation of the Conciliation Agreement. That surely is a very satisfactory way of doing it. Now the hon. member for Winburg left a little bit in the air of a very important matter. He said that he realised the importance of the gold mining industry but then he said that the existence of the gold mining industry had a curbing effect —I think that is the proper expression I should use—on secondary industry, and that it also had a deleterious effect on the population by causing silicosis. What does that mean? I listened very carefully but he left it in the air. He admitted the necessity for the industry, and that is correct. What does he suggest that the Government should do? What is the policy of his Party in respect of the conflict of interests?

Are we putting this Budget through the House, or are you?

I thought that is what you would say. It is no good putting these conundrums to me, but I will tell you exactly what my policy is. I say that by and large, placing one thing against the other, the mining industry in this country, and particularly the gold mining industry, is the foundation for our well-being and for the high standard of living enjoyed by us. If you take away the mines or reduce their activity even, you would have an immediate unemployment problem on your hands of vast dimensions and you would permanently lower the standard of living. Therefore I say that in this respect, although it has even caused silicosis, we know perfectly well that other diseases are also produced in other industries. We do everything we can to reduce the disease and to mitigate the incidence and the hardships caused. I am proposing in a Bill which is to be brought forward I hope, within a very short time for second reading, to enlarge upon this matter in detail. Now, if that be so with regard to the incidence of silicosis, I must say a little more about secondary industries. The hon. member for Waterberg seemed to me to put his case like this: He said that if it were not for the gold mining industry we would have many more secondary industries, because the gold produced is sent overseas and buys goods and machinery that come back to South Africa, and we should have been able to manufacture much more. With great respect to the hon. member, how can such a statement be put forward? If it were not for the gold mining industry, the secondary industries would never even have started; we should not have been able to buy the products of our secondary industries. The mines are directly and indirectly what enables us to have secondary industry. These industries would not be there without the gold mining industry.

I can only hope that the fault lies with your interpreter and not with yourself.

The hon. member will forgive me if I have misunderstood what he has said, but I most definitely understood that he said that the gold mining industry curbed and reduced the expansion of our secondary industry. I say that is so remote from the fact that I am surprised at the hon. member saying anything like that. If it were not for the gold mining industry and the mining industry as a whole there would be no people capable of purchasing the products of our secondary industry. My great hope for this in the future is to see that the population of South Africa will increase so much that we will have a sufficiently large population in the country to be able to buy the products produced, the products of our industries. At the present time I am sorry to say that that cannot be done. May I indicate the limit there is to the raising of wages for both black and white? I give this as a limit which I hope that the House will accept. The limit is this, that you raise that beyond a stage, or to such a stage, where it creates unemployment itself, where, by raising wages, you would debar them from the employment they now have. If that stage were to be reached, either for black or white, it would be defeating itself. Subject to that I am all for giving higher wages. I believe in all people getting the utmost that they can for the product of their industry, and I am doing all I can, within the limits of the power I have, to see that that is done. Now, both hon. members wish me to exercise more control over the mining industry. As a matter of fact in the initial control of flotations through the action of the Mining Leases Board, and in the constant supervision of the Government Mining Engineer and the inspectors under him, very close control is kept and we do see that both financial and administrative measures of a proper nature are carried through. I was asked: What about the policy in connection with the mines which are about to close down? It is quite true that several of our mines have really given the Statutory notice that they will close down in a short time. Well, in every one of these cases I have carefully gone through the facts. I have called for the most detailed report and studied the particulars and speaking generally I will say this, that they indicate that the closing is taking place for the reason of the exhaustion of the payable ore, and when the payable ore is exhausted we can do nothing to extend the life of the mine. We might have extended its life if we had increased the amount of payable ore by reducing the working costs, but a reduction of the working costs just at the last moment when the death sentence has already been pronounced will not enable us to go back and take up the low grade ore which might profitably have been extracted during the lifetime of the mine. There is a great deal of misapprehension on this point. It would be contrary to mining practice and contrary to possibility to take up in the last months or years of the life of a mine the low grade ore passed over in years gone by because it was not considered to be of sufficiently high grade to mine. To some extent one can sometimes do so, but generally speaking it is correct to say that if you want to get the maximum amount of gold bearing ore out of the mine you must do it regularly, from month to month and from year to year, but you cannot take it up afterwards. Then I was asked about the low grade mines and whether I had any particular policy with regard to them. I hope that expression disappears from our vocabulary. It is not true to say that there are low grade mines, as little as it is true to say that there is no low grade ore as it occurs in all mines. The policy is to get the working costs to such a level as to enable one to extract the maximum amount of low grade ore. The hon. member for Winburg, in general, as I understood him, supporting the policy I have followed, went further to say that I should pay special attention to prospecting contracts and to the option monies which have been paid to the Free State, and he asked whether I proposed on behalf of the Government to permit such contracts.

Certain of the terms of the contracts.

Well, that would involve first of all very drastic legislation for there is no legal power to do it at present, and therefore it should not be dealt with in this debate. But I am not taking that point. For the Government to interfere with contracts made by responsible people would be a very strange thing indeed, and I do not think that any Government which can be foreseen would really attempt to do that. Certainly I am prepared to further any legislation which would have that improvement in view.

Surely this point in relation to peace being declared is of importance. When will that be?

There will be peace when Japan has finally surrendered.

That is not what the Prime Minister said.

Then when will there be peace?

No Government can alter that.

Why not?

Of course not. You cannot intervene in the rights created by parties for themselves.

What would happen if there is never any peace treaty, as the Prime Minister said?

The Prime Minister was using the word peace in a different way.

No, he said a continuing armistice

If there is any difficulty about the construction of any of your contracts, you know the remedy as well as I dp; take it to the lawyers.

But the courts will say that there is no remedy.

That is so. How can Parliament interfere? It would have to tear up the whole contract. They would tear up the whole of the contract and added to this they would have to make the landowner return all the option money received up to the present time; and if I know anything about it the large umber of the landowners in the Free State who have been living on option money in the last few years, would be very sorry if this occurred.

Would the wool farmers have to tear up their wool contracts ….

I have nothing to do with the wool contracts. Do not try to pull wool over my eyes.

It does not suit him to answer that.

It has no bearing on the case. To cancel those option contracts would create an outcry in the Free State and from the Free Staters themselves which neither I nor any member of the Government would willingly face, nor would the hon. member himself. When he speaks of the Government taking over the control of the mines and ousting the present mining corporations which have the skill and the ability behind them, if he was to propound that to his own constituents he would not get any support at all. Indeed, if he is to proceed with this policy of his of State socialism applied to the gold mining industry I would take him on and I would carry the Free State with the Dominion Party on a policy of private enterprise against his State socialism.

What about the poor United Party in the Free State?

They can look after themselves. The next matter I have to deal with is the suggestion of the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) that we should do something more in regard to the marketing of base minerals. I do not think the hon. member knows what is being done at the present time in regard to the marketing of base minerals. What we do is to maintain a special representative of the Mines Department in London whose duty it is to look after this matter, as to look after other matters connected with the Mines Department ….

Have you any representative in the United States?

That, as a matter of fact, is being considered, but the actual staff of our Legation in Washington is provided from time to time with special information to enable this to be followed up; but all the dissemination of information is being taken up seriously as one of the occupations of this department. It is not yet quite settled and certain as between the Department of Commerce and Industries and the Department of Mines as to where the one begins and the other ends, but as a matter of fact we get on very well. Then the hon. member for Nigel (Maj. Ueckermann) said we could reduce working costs relieving them of gold realisation charges, pass fees, railway rates, claim licences and municipal rates. I am entirely with the hon. member for Nigel in his desire to reduce working costs as a matter of national policy wherever possible. The gold realisation charges are, as a matter of practice, being handed over to the mines, not only the big producing mines but the mines of the whole of the country, for the purpose of enabling them to pay higher wages, and higher wages are being paid to natives on the outside mines as well as on the scheduled mines of the Witwatersrand. The same order applies right the way through. Applications are made from time to time to my department for a corresponding refund from the realisation fund charges. With regard to reducing these other charges that fall in the mines I shall be very pleased indeed, as Minister of Mines, to take all the assistance the hon. member for Nigal can give me. But when we come to deal with municipalities I admit the municipalities do, in my opinion, show an undue desire to overload the mines within their boundaries with rates and with charges. Yet I do not know that it would have a very considerable effect upon the reduction of mining costs. In regard to pass fees; yes, I shall be very pleased if other arrangements can be made, but at the present time the law is being carried out and we are not discussing new legislation. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) dealt with the future of the labour supply for the mining industry. May I say how much I welcome the support and the interest the hon. member for Cape Eastern is now giving to the labour supply for the mines. It is a very important matter, and I am very glad indeed she is now taking this matter seriously. May I point out it depends not merely on Union sources of supply but sources outside. There are the High Commission territories and there are the Portuguese territories, which are large suppliers of native labour, and we go further north into other British territories, such as Nyasaland, at the present time. I know that the development of industry of all descriptions is constantly making a greater demand upon the manpower of South Africa. As I have already indicated, I look forward to our getting a very much larger white population in the Union of South Africa, and I for one shall be very disappointed indeed if we do not get what I may call a by-product, as a result of the war, a very great increase in suitable immigrants to the Union of South Africa. I hope many of those servicemen who passed through South Africa in recent years and I am thinking particularly of the men of the R.A.F., will find happy homes and profitable enterprise in the Union of South Africa. We want to look to a great increase in the white population. The hon. member for Cape Eastern suggested that further education of the native worker would go far to simplify our problem. I was very interested in that, but as a matter of fact I find it difficult to follow in what way much book learning would assist. The education really has to be given on the job, and such education in mining is given., I do not know if the hon. member has ever been underground, hut if she has she must have been taken to one of the stopes where this instruction is given. As soon as raw natives come on a mine they are taken down to a particular stope and given instruction of an elementary character in their own language, and this is carried on from day to day and from week to week until they are accustomed to finding their way, and that education is carried on throughout their mining life. If the hon. member is looking forward to getting a permanent native population right at the door of the mines I think that is going to open up very great difficulties indeed. First of all, I doubt very much if the health of the native population would stand it. You have to remember, it is quite true, that malnutrition is very prevalent amongst the native population and they have an extra liability to tuberculosis. The progress of silicosis amongst the natives is greater than amongst the white people; they have not the same resistance. So it becomes all the more necessary in their interest that their work underground should not be continuous but it should be broken by spells every six or nine months, as the case may be. I venture to say the hon. member for Cape Eastern, who I know is very keen on the advancement of the Bantu, would find it a doubtful benefit if these natives were condemned to live outside the mine and if they were deprived of these spells in the freedom and fresh air of the country. As regards wages I hope that their interests are being looked after by the Native Affairs Department, whose duty it is, although as I have said it is not the special duty of my Department to interfere in the question of wages. That covers my answer with regard to cost of living and boot allowance. Those are questions to be raised not with the Mines Department but with the employing mines themselves, and I am sure the good offices of the Native Affairs Department would never be wanting if the hon. member desired to invoke it. The hon. member continued, in her speech, to refer to the development of native reserves and the corresponding reduction in the number of native labourers to be expected. Well, how that is going to be developed is a matter of prophecy and speculation. I myself, speaking for myself, would welcome the possibility of increased white employment on the mines. Whether that may be possible or not in the future I think is very difficult to foretell, but that we shall be able to get the necessary labour supply is my hope, and I think it is a hope that is fairly well grounded, although it will be rash to make a positive statement in that respect. The hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) referred again to the compulsory enforcement of deferred pay. He referred to the malnutrition that prevails among the natives. That is quite true; and it is the mining industry, particularly the gold mining industry that feeds them up. Raw natives from whatever part they are recruited, when they are brought to the Witwatersrand are first of all fed, and they are weighed from day to day or from week to week to ascertain if they have put on sufficient weight to enable them to get on with their job. If it was not for the gold mining industry malnutrition would be ten times worse in South Africa than it is amongst the native races. I would be glad to have a proportion of their pay sent to the Territories. In spirit I am with the hon. member for Tembuland, but in principle I am very much against using compulsion where persuasion will do. Still, I will go into the matter again and see what is the position.

We have the practice in the army, and it is done by the Portuguese authorities.

I admit the army example is in point. The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Christopher) asked about coal in the Stormberg area. I answered a question on this only a few weeks ago. I have ordered an enquiry, through the Geological Survey, of the Indwe-Molteno coal horizons, and about thirty sites for boreholes have been selected. Two have already been laid down, and the others are being proceeded with. We have a good deal of knowledge of this coal field, though it can hardly be called a coal field.

Is this another national social scheme?

No, this is proceeding under the Government prospecting scheme, under the legislation which I was responsible for getting Parliament to accept a couple of years ago. It is working very well, and therefore I am able to do this prospecting, but when the prospecting is done I shall look to private enterprise to follow up. In this way we are following the old policy that was laid down in the Transvaal in the republican days and which obtains at the present time. I am sorry to say these two boreholes do but confirm the information we had before; the results are very poor indeed. I cannot do otherwise than say I am going to continue the exploration, because I know that the discovery of coal in commercial quantities in the Eastern Province would be of great value. But so far our results only confirm the disappointing knowledge we had before. The hon. member for Kroonsstad (Mr. A. Steyn) asked me whether I could state when we are going ahead with shaft sinking in the Free State. I think I have made statements in this regard before, but let me state it quite clearly now. It is not that there is any Government plan of shaft sinking so much as it is that the United States and Great Britain are unwilling to turn over their factories to supplying gold mining machinery and stores which are required here when the demands for war were so overpowering. As soon as we can get a sufficient number of factories in both countries to supply our needs, shaft-sinking will be proceeded with. The hon. member said no provision has been made for power. That is not quite correct. An adequate supply of water and power have both been thought of, and I understand plans and negotiations are well under way with regard to both of them. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) referred to the Deep Level Mining Committee’s report, and he said that the Mines Department’ had agreed to the setting aside of over 1,000 acres for an Indian township on the Rand, and that this area might be required for deep mining in terms of the report to which he referred. I take it the township he has referred to is situated at Diepkloof.

Yes.

Only a portion of that is proclaimed land, but the portion that has been proclaimed has been certified by the Government mining engineer as not being required for mining purposes. The hon. member may be quite satisfied that no grant would be made by the Mines Department which conflicts with the objects of deep level mining. The hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers) is very interested in co-operative stores. He is quite right. He referred to a conversation with me when I expressed myself as very much in sympathy with the establishment of co-operative stores on the Witwatersrand. But it is not possible, and I never suggested it was possible to alter the present law into doing away with the stores as they exist now in virtue of the provisions of the gold law and the Mine Trading Act, and so on, and handing over the corresponding right to the workers on the mines. It would be impossible to cancel the trading rights that now exist on the Witwatersrand, but I see no reason why those mines should not establish their own co-operative stores. They would, of course, have to carry on in competition with established stores, bût with the great patronage they would have from the mines in question I see no reason why that should not be done satisfactorily. The cost of living on the mines might be favourably affected by it; if it is I shall be only too pleased. The hon. member for Lady-brand (Mr. J. N. le Roux) dealt with the price of shares, and he gave a correction to that part of the speech of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) in which the illustration was drawn, or the suggestion was passed, that mines paid huge dividends on very small capital. You have got no more right to say that the capital is to be limited in respect of a mine than you have to say that in regard to capital put into land, or into any other thing whatsoever. As a matter of fact, the position is that money now invested in the gold mining industry yields, I think, on an average about 5 per cent., something like that.

Will you tell us about oil?

The oil programme has been followed out very closely during the past year. We have put down a number of boreholes, and they have been completed, and some still have to be put down. So far the result is disappointing. We have not struck any formation of rock deep down which offers promise to be a reservoir for natural oil.

What is the deepest depth?

I think it was almost 8,000 ft. One was put down 8,891 ft. The porosity of the shales and standstone penetrated was low. Drilling is still going on. Others have ‘gone to a shallower depth. The object with which this programme was planned was to test the character of rock at these depths, to see whether it was such that it might form a reservoir. The indications, I understand, are that at some time there was oil in our country, but it might have either evaporated or sunk away. A great deal of our coal, for instance, is comparatively useless because in another geological age to the laying down of the coal there came an intrusion of liquid diorite which created such heat that it distilled a number of volatile gases and left the coal in a half-burned condition which destroyed to a great extent its calorific value. We do not know what happened to the oil, whether it still remains in the same place or not; but the boring programme is being continued.

To what depth?

I am advised of this by the Geological Survey Department, and the present programme is devoted to finding out the character and particularly the porosity of the rock at certain depths at which it is thought it may be possible there may be a collection of oil. These depths vary very much, but the greatest depth on the present programme of the Geological Survey is this one.

What is the information you have on the depth to which they have gone in America or elsewhere?

They have gone to a very much greater depth—20,000 ft. If I am advised by my technicians that by going to a greater depth there is a fair chance of getting oil I shall not hesitate to ask Parliament to vote the necessary money. But as the hon. member will realise I, as any other Minister, must take the advice of the technicians in my department as to the programme to follow. I shall naturally go into it and decide, with great respect, whether it is a proper plan, as far as a layman can appreciate the plans submitted by skilled technicians.

In what district was the 8,000 ft. borehole?

I do not mind telling the hon. member privately, but I am against publicising their names. My experience is that wrong use is made of that knowledge, and it is sometimes made the basis of speculation which leads to a lot of disappointment.

What is the maximum depth to which you could go?

I do not know; as I have said I believe they have gone down to 20,000 ft. in America.

Have you the necessary machinery to go down that depth?

No, you need special machinery. On the present programme we are not thinking of going that depth. I do not think there is any chance of my asking Parliament to go that depth. But at the end of the year, when the present programme has been completed, I may have sufficient information to put before Parliament and to ask them to sanction further experiments in going deeper. If so I shall make a further statement explaining the matter fully.

I differ from the hon. Minister where he says that most of the farmers in the Free State will be dissatisfied if their gold contracts lapse in accordance with an act of Parliament which will stipulate that “peace” as regards the old contracts will mean the end of the war which has now been reached. On the contrary, I contend that the farmers will be very glad to enter into new contracts in time of peace, for then contracts can be entered into which will be much more favourable as far as they are concerned. But I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that before the war and shortly afterwards, gold mining companies obtained a gold option on hundreds of thousands of morgen of ground in the Free State. The tariff which was paid was usually 2s. 6d. per morgen. Then the contract was to have run for at least five years. With the fall of France the gold companies succeeded in obtaining an interim contract on many farms. It was pointed out to the people that the war had taken a bad turn and that the gold companies wanted an interim contract with the result that many farmers were willing to accept an amount of £50 in one payment, with the stipulation that they would receive no further option fees until after the war. After the war the old contract would then run on. In many cases the people received only 2s. 6d. in the first year; thereafter they received £50 for the whole farm, and the result is that the original contracts came to a standstill. It happened four or five years ago in the case of some farms with the result that the people who should have received 3s. 6d. in the second year and in succeeding years 4s. 6d„ 5s. 6d., 6s. 6d. and 7s. 6d., lost in all £1 1s. per morgen in option fees, while for four years they received no money. My point is this. When the people entered into the contract with the gold mining companies it was on the understanding that the contract should run on again after peace had been declared, but that they would be satisfied to receive no further option for the rest of the war. We have now arrived at the stage when peace has been declared but strictly speaking it seems to me that it does not affect those contracts. In other words, the gold mining companies are still holding to the interim contract. Those people have in the past four years lost as much as £1 1s. 0d. per morgen in option fees. But the war is over and still their old contract has not been revived. If the Government would acknowledge the peace, it would mean that those people’s old contract would run on again and they would perhaps receive 3s. 6d. per morgen in the first year and in the following year 4s. 6d. But if it is not considered that peace has come, it means that those people will receive no option fees whatsoever on their ground for an indefinite time, and not only does the individual farmer receive no option fees on his ground, but the mine development in that vicinity is at a standstill. The companies are not going to bore there for they have now practically an unlimited period in which to exercise their option, and I think it is very unfair, for the day the contract was entered into between the farmer and the mining company both sides were under the impression that when peace was declared, the peace treaty would be signed all over the world, and then the original contract would again come into operation. But we understand now from the Minister and from the Acting Prime Minister that perhaps for many years we will not have peace. Many of those contracts contained the stipulation that the old contract would run on as soon as peace was declared between Germany and Japan on the one side and the Allies on the other side. I feel those contracts are a difficult matter. But some old contracts stipulate clearly that the contract will run on as soon as peace is concluded with Germany, and it is to these contracts that I wish to draw the Minister’s attention, and I hope he will consider the matter and, if possible, will still hand in legislation during this Sitting.

The hon. member many not advocate legislation.

Then I hope the Minister will go into the matter and see whether he cannot come to the assistance of these people. His excuse was that he could not intervene where a contract had been entered into between two persons, but where such a technical point crops up for which the Government is actually responsible, I think the responsibility rests with the Government to assist these people, for in a sense it is the fault of the Government that strictly speaking peace has not been declared. Then I would also like to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that in those parts of the Free State where boring is being carried out on a large scale, the danger is ever present that those drill-owners, who offer large salaries to the natives, are luring the native labour away from the farms.

That matter falls under the vote “Labour”. That vote has already been passed.

I thought the Minister of Mines also had a say in the matter.

No, the Minister has nothing to do with the question of wages.

Then I want to ask the Minister to enlighten the Free State as soon as possible in regard to the possibilities of opening up those mines. The Minister said it would be done as soon as he obtained the machinery, but I hope that as soon as possible a statement will be forthcoming in that respect, for meanwhile speculation is rife and those concerned with the Chamber of Mines are benefiting on the speculation market in contrast with the people outside. There is speculation in connection with plots; there is speculation in connection with the place where the railway line will begin, from which station it will branch off to the main line, and I think it will be of general interest if the Minister would enlighten the Free State as soon as possible concerning the prospects in that respect.

I would like the hon. Minister to make a statement in regard to the mineral and base metal position in this country. As you know, Sir, this country is fortunate in that it has vast deposits of minerals and base metals—iron, asbestos, manganese, gypsum and many other minerals and base metals. We have a very rich field indeed waiting to be explored, and I feel that we have not given this side of mining the attention that it deserves. In fact it is such an important branch that I believe that when the gold mines are worked out one day, when they are exhausted, as they will become exhausted in due course, we shall have to rely to a large extent on our minerals and base metals. We know that already there has been talk of ultra-deep mining. What is going to be our support when the gold mines become exhausted? I think if we develop our base metals and minerals, that would be something on which we could lean for many years in the future. What I am perturbed about is the fact that while these fields are being exploited at present, we derive no benefit from them. The base metals and minerals are taken out of the country; cheap labour is used to exploit these fields, and the result is that the country is getting little or no benefit from it. The railways are benefiting to some extent, but the country itself is deriving little or no benefit from these wealthy fields. One might say that our rich heritage is being sold for a mess of pottage. That is a point on which I would like to have some information from the Minister. We should be able to use these vast fields for our own benefit instead of having our minerals and base metals exported, to be manufactured overseas into articles which we buy back again at greatly increased prices. Take ferro manganese. We make ferro manganese in this country, but no one outside this country will use our ferro manganese. The overseas manufacturers say to us: “If you cannot let us have manganese in the raw condition, we won’t look at it”. In other countries ferro manganese has been made for generations and the people in those countries are such experts today that in certain parts of England, for instante, they can fulfil the orders of manufacturers who require a certain type of ferro manganese to produce a loose tectured steel. In other parts of England where they make munitions the manufacturers require a different type of ferro manganese to make a fine textured steel. These people have become experts in making this particular line of ferro manganese so that there is no hope of our selling ferro manganese overseas. I was wondering whether the Minister will not go further into the matter so that we ourselves could not become experts in this and in other things in the course of time. We cannot export ferro manganese today for the reason I have stated, and I should like to see that in due course we too will become expert. Our heritage is simply being given to other countries; it is being sold for a mere pittance. Another thing that occurs to me is this. In some of the biggest steel producing countries, there is sufficient high grade iron probably only for the next 15 years. I think there will be a far greater demand for our high grade iron ore than there is today. I would like the Minister to bear in mind that our fields are being exploited and our mineral and base metal deposits are not being made the best use of. We ourselves should become experts in this direction and see that we ourselves derive whatever benefit there is to be derived out of this. Seeing that this is such an important matter, I would like to know whether the Minister would not consider the question of creating a special department to deal with base metals and minerals. It is an important matter, and I think it certainly deserves more attention than we give it today. The Minister knows where these fields are. And when these new developments come about he must see to it that the base metal industry is decentralised. Centralisation is a wrong policy. I think it is the policy of the Government, where it is economically possible, to decentralise and to erect factories at the places where the raw product is obtained. I think that is the correct policy, namely to decentralise where it is economically possible, and I would like to know what the Minister’s views are on these points.

I just want to revert briefly to the manner in which the Minister reacted to what I said here this morning. If the Minister had understood me correctly, I should have accused him of giving a complete misrepresentation of what I said, merely to score a debating point. But unfortunately an interpreter had to be installed between us. It may be that the interpreter did not understand me very well or that he did not understand the interpreter very well. I will accept that the interpreter interpreted well. I think the Minister misunderstood the interpreter. I said that as regards the industrial development of the country, there is a constant clash of interests between the gold mines on the one hand and the industrialists on the other hand. The Minister makes out that he knows nothing about it. Is he then such a stranger in Jerusalem that he does not know that there is a constant clash of interests between the mineowners and the industrialists? Does he not read “Trade and Industry”? Does he not read the discussions which take place at the congresses of the industrialists? Is he unaware of the fact that the industrialists are constantly giving expression to their disapproval of the viewpoint which the mineowners adopt? He must be aware of them, and if he is, why does he make out that it is an unheard of thing that there should be conflicting interests between the gold mines on the one hand and the industrialists on the other hand? Anyone who has the slightest interest in these matters knows of this, but the Minister knows nothing about them; It is the first time in his life he has heard of them. Really, a responsible Minister should not act in such a way. He surely desires that people should have respect for him when he stands up in this House. If that is the case, then he should not endeavour in all kinds of ways to score debating points. I repeat that the mineowners have taken a stand against the industrialists because they were afraid that the development of industries would send the production costs of the mines soaring. This was particularly the case during the time when the Nationalist Party Government—or the Pact Government to satisfy those members—came forward with their industrial policy in 1924. At that time the people who most strenuously opposed industrial development were the mineowners. And now during the war years the mineowners have protested constantly that the industrialists’ interests are the first to be taken into consideration and not the interests of secondary industries. Now the Minister comes along—and it is really somewhat childish; that is all I can call it— and he makes out that I am supposed to have said that if it were not for the gold mines in South Africa, there would have been an enormous revival of secondary industries, and if you want to have secondary industries, you must do away with the gold mining industry. Imagine a responsible Minister placing such an interpretation on what I said. My standpoint was precisely this, that there should not be such a clash, and I even quoted Dr. van der Bijl’s speech to indicate that we must make use of our gold production in such a way that we can use the money from that gold production in creating permanent industries, so that we will have something permanent, when the gold mines are exhausted, to take the place of the gold mines. That was my whole submission; and is the Minister really so ignorant that he does not realise that if you use your gold to import things which you yourself can manufacture, you are thereby hampering your industrial development? I said that we would have to go to work systematically and use our gold to import the things we needed, and particularly those which are necessary to develop industries. Enormous capital is necessary to import machinery, etc., which cannot yet be made here if you want to create industries on a large scale in South Africa. And those things you can only import by means of gold, and my standpoint is that you must use gold in the first instance in that connection and that you must not use your gold to import shoes and other articles which you can make yourself here in South Africa on a large scale. I made another submission. I laid down our Party’s policy in connection with what we consider should be the allocation of the profits of the gold mines as key industries, which should accrue to the State on the one hand, the shareholders on the other hand, and the mineworkers on the other hand, and I said that as far as the future is concerned (not as regards the present mines) until such time as you accept a utility basis for the mining industry, where the shareholders invest their money and where the State receives its share, but where the interests of the nation as a whole are taken into consideration, until such time as that position is reached, I said that the standpoint of our Party is that the gold mining industry should fall under stricter ’State control than is at present the case, in order to ensure that the State receives a larger share in the profits and that such a large proportion of the profits, as is now the case does not merely go to the shareholders; and secondly that the mineworkers should also receive a share in the profits of the gold mines, and this the Minister calls the nationalisation of the present gold mining industry. How is it possible that a responsible Minister can stand up and give such a misrepresentation in this House of what one has said? I hope that he now understands the interpreter well and that he knows exactly what our viewpoint is in this connection. I have explained it explicitly. As regards the mineworkers’ wages at the moment, I will say this. The Minister rids himself of all responsibility. He says that he as Minister of Mines has nothing to do with those matters. He says it is the responsibility of the Minister of Labour. It is very sad that the Minister did not keep this in mind when during the Budget debate he stood up and pleaded for this very matter, namely that increased burdens should not be placed upon the mines in the form of wages and that higher taxation should not be imposed upon the mines. If this is the responsibility of the Minister of Labour, why did he then pre-meditatingly put a spoke in the wheel in this way as regards the mineworkers’ claim for higher wages? How are the mineworkers to regard the Minister of Mines—as a man who is not in the least worried over their interests?

We regard him as such.

There we have it from one wing in the House, that the mineworkers regard the Minister of Mines as one who is not in any way concerned about the mineworkers’ interests. That is not my conception of a Minister of Mines’s duties. A Minister of Mines is not there to act in the interests of the mineowners; he is not there to act as the spokesman of the shareholders and the mineowners. The task of a Minister of Mines, like the Government as a whole, is to keep the balance between the interests of the mineowners and the shareholders on the one hand and the country as a whole on the other hand. That is his task, and it is not simply to exculpate himself and say that he is not responsible therefor. Just as in the case of miners’ phthisis he is there to look after the interests of the mineworkers, just as much as after the interests of the mineowners and the shareholders. I want to put the question to him again: What is the Government’s policy in connection with wages? Will he tell me that he has nothing whatsoever to do with the Government’s decision to grant a subsidy of £1,850,000 to the mines in order to increase the wages of native labourers? Does he know nothing about that either? Is this also something which was done without his being consulted? I am asking him: Was he not consulted; did he have ’no say in the matter; if he did have his say, if he was consulted, then he had his viewpoint. Now I am asking him: If he was convinced that the natives should receive higher wages, does he then hold no opinion as to the fairness of the mineworkers’ claim that they should also receive a higher wage than that which they obtain today?

The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) and also the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) definitely indicated to this House that they regarded the public utility company as a means of developing the mines of this country. I realise that the mining industry, as the hon. member for Waterberg grudgingly admitted, is a big factor in the economics of this country. In fact, of our national income aggregated to £450,000,000, directly and indirectly, it has been assessed that £250,000,000 come from the mines.

Whose figures are those?

These are the figures of Prof. Frankel who went into the facts impartially and effectively. In comparison he gave for agriculture a figure of £60,000,000 to £70,000,000 as its share of the national income. These are the two big factors in our national income. If the hon. member for Waterberg is prepared to form a public utility company for the mines is he prepared to do it for the farming industry? Agriculture is the second factor in our national income. Is the hon. member prepared to form a public utility company in respect of the farming industry or is this just a cry up someone else’s street and not his street? The hon. member accused the Minister of being irresponsible in his statements. I think the accusation of irresponsibility must be levelled against the hon. member for Waterberg. If the hon. member wants to form a public utility company for the mines, why not go the whole hog and follow Josef Stalin whose policy he seems to advocate? He wants to nationalise. Very well, let us carry on and let us nationalise the farming industry.

Does that apply to the Railways?

Does that apply to Posts and Telegraphs?

There are certain industries that you can nationalise. I ask the hon. member again, will he like to see it applied to the farming industry?

Did you not hear me say that there are cerain industries that we look upon as key industries and that this applies to them?

It applies to agriculture too.

Why does he want someone else to put money into gold mines? He can subscribe to gold mining shares if he has any confidence in the gold mining industry of this country. Why does he want it to go through the Government’s purse? The hon. member made great play of the fact that dividends were paid to shareholders. In 1944 the investors risked their money in gold mines and obtained £13,000,000 in dividends. There is nothing to prevent the hon. member himself from risking his money in the gold mining industry. That payment of £13,000,000 yielded a national income of £250,000,000. I think for the risk of investing their money, private enterprise got no more than a fair return for the amount of capital they invested. The hon. member made a comparison with the amount of capital of companies. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Tothill) partly answered him. But what the hon. member for Waterberg does not seem to realise is that the gold mines represent a wasting asset. A number of mines have already closed down. Without any risk of capital expenditure this country directly obtained an amount of over £20.000,000 in taxation last year. I cannot see that you can get any better means of getting money to run your country. All I can say to the hon. member for Waterberg is that if we try to switch over to a revolutionary idea without the capital necessary to develop those gold mines, we will have a worse state of affairs in this country economically than the Nationalist Government put us into in 1931-32 in regard to the gold standard. If that were done, this country would be ruined and labour and every section of the community, including the farmer, would suffer disastrously. I appreciate the important factor of this mining industry as a national industry for the benefit of the country. You have only to go through the general position from 1932 onwards, after we left the gold standard to see how every section of the community benefited, the producer, the manufacturer and everybody; the war period when the price of gold increased allowing of greater mining operations. We also have had abnormal periods of world conditions. Do not let us neglect our mining industry through narrow ideas. It plays a very important part in the country’s national income. There are undoubtedly worrying factors which we as a House are faced with today. First of all there is an appreciable drop in the tonnage milled by the mines since 1943 and an appreciable drop in the income derived from the mines since that time. In a statement issued by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue he shows that in 1940 we obtained £13,000,000 from our mines. In 1941 it increased to £23.000.000, in 1942 it was £24 000.000 and in 1943, £25 000 000, but by 1944 it had dropped to £21,000,000. The indication is therefore downward. The graph goes downward. At all costs if we want to maintain a sound economic position we must prevent this downward trend. We see that six mines, admittedly mines out of which the eyes have been mined, are closing down, but we have to remember that these mines contributed to the extent of £15,000,000 or £20,000,000 per annum to the national income and they are closing because working costs are too high. If they close down, from the labour point of view, it will mean that 3,500 Europeans and 35,000 natives will have to be employed by the other mines, if possible, which is a bad position.

Are these mines empty shells?

The hon. member knows that they have been mined for years, and if there are empty shells there are also high grade mines which mine low grade ore also. The hon. member says they are empty shells.

I am asking you.

They have been mined for a long time and they could go on if you could reduce working costs by 2s. a ton. These empty shells are only empty because the costs of mining are too high.

When did they give notice of closing down?

I do not know. I am not an expert on mines. Admittedly you say they are empty shells.

I am asking you.

If their working costs are reduced they will not be empty shells. That is a point which the Minister himself asked the House: How can we reduce costs? The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) spoke about the Realisation Fund which was used to subsidise native labour. In the first place that charge was never a tax. It was never a genuine tax which comes to the consolidated revenue of the country. It was part of the cost of selling the gold, and if you ask the Government what it really costs them to sell the gold they will say it is nothing, although they charge 3s. 10d. per ounce to sell it. So that the Government gave back to the mines indirectly to pay for this extra wage of 4d. a day for the natives, something which was not a subsidy, because in any case it was not taxation but a charge. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has now resumed his seat pointed out’ it is dangerous to leave out of account the significance of the mining industry and particularly of the gold mining industry, in connection with the economic fabric of the country. This side of the House far from not taking that into account realises it only too well, and consequently we are concerned about the future economic structure of the country. Our economic structure rests on three important pillars—mines, agriculture and factories, the mines being the principal pillar—and because that structure is today so greatly dependent on the gold mining industry we feel that our whole economic fabric is unsound and ill-balanced. We cannot escape from that. Our economic structure rests, to a great extent, on the gold mining industry and the gold mining industry represents a vanishing asset. The future of South Africa is dependent on the potentialities of our wealth-creating industries. These industries and activities, apart from mining, are agriculture, fishing and the manufacturing industries. But, as I have stated, we must take into account that mining, which represents the strongest pillar of our economic structure today, is a declining asset, and because it is a declining asset we must ensure that in the future something will be substituted for this declining asset. We say that in the past this has not been taken into account. The only prudent policy for the future is to take into account the diminishing character of our gold mining asset, and consequently I feel in the first place we are following a very wrong policy in being so hurried with the exploitation of our gold. I am one of those to whom it appears very strange that we here in South Africa should be in such a terrible hurry to obtain all that wealth from the gold mines as rapidly as possible. One would have thought prudence would have been revealed on the part of the State in order to see that the process was not so rapid. This indicates to us, as far as our gold mining policy is concerned, that we are only paying regard to the present and not to the future. If we bear in mind that this is a diminishing asset it will be obvious that we should preserve this asset as long as possible so that we may be enabled to make the best use of it; and consequently I have never been able to associate myself with that frightful haste to develop the gold resources of South Africa in the shortest possible time. Then there is another factor we have to take into consideration. Seeing that the gold mining industry represents a diminishing asset special attention must be given by the State to the development of base metals in South Africa. Another thing that we should do is to see to it that other industries in South Africa are strengthened, that our agricultural industry is strengthened, and also our manufacturing industries. Because gold mining is a contracting industry the most careful and judicious use should be made of that industry in order to strengthen our agricultural industry and our manufacturing industries against the day when the gold mining industry will have disappeared. It is for that reason we are arguing here for a further degree of State control over the gold mining industry, because we feel that when the State has not adequate control over it it means that private and individual interests will have complete control and they do not look to the economic problems of South Africa but only to their own interests. They will exploit the gold resources as rapidly as possible and in the future, or the near future, as this asset contracts, they will have had a good innings, and South Africa will have to fail back on its other wealth-creating assets which unfortunately are not rich. I maintain that the remaining productive industries and activities are not wealthy. Take the agricultural industry. When we compare South Africa’s circumstances with those of other countries we must all admit South Africa is not a rich agricultural country, and that it does not offer great potentialities for agricultural development. We have not large and extensive lands with a good rainfall. The scope for bringing land under irrigation is very small. As far as stock breeding is concerned our country is stricken with protracted droughts. In general our agricultural potentialities are not very impressive. Similarly in regard to our manufacturing industries, we have not those opportunities to develop factories and to set in motion things other lands are doing. The first reason for that is that we have not a big local market. We cannot expect to develop an industry on a large scale if we have not a local market that can at the outset consolidate the factories to such an extent that they will be enabled later to compete with overseas. Our factories cannot attain the position of being able to compete with their surplus in the overseas market. South Africa does not possess that opportunity, and consequently South Africa will have difficulty in progressing with its manufacturing industries. If we wish to follow a prudent economic policy in South Africa we must rely on the richest pillar of our economic structure, which is a diminishing asset, for the strengthening of the other pillars, with an eye on the day when our economic structure will rest on them alone.

What will the Free State say if you slow down production there?

When a gold mine closes down in the Transvaal a new one can be opened up in the Free State, giving those areas an opportunity to develop. As I understand the argument of members on the opposite benches they have all alluded to the danger of our mines on the Witwatersrand closing down. For every one that closes down in the Transvaal another one can be opened up in the Free State. So that point falls away. If the State is also convinced about minerals in the Free State it can ensure that those individuals will be compensated for their share and that the State will then preserve the asset that can be developed to the extent that it is in the best interests of the country in general to do so. But my point at the moment is that our wealth-creating industries must be developed and in order to create the potentialities for that development we should make use of our richest, albeit temporary, asset to strengthen those other resources. We shall not be able to do that under the present system. As things are going on now there is no incentive on the part of industry to look to the interests of South Africa. It is human for the individuals involved in that industry to look to their own interests. Hence we on this side plead for more supervision on the part of the State, and we wish to ensure that the future development of the gold mining industry will be carried out under strict State supervision, and that this will be done in conformity with the public utility principle. Then we shall be able to utilise that wealth from the gold mines in the interests of the country in general, which at the moment is not occurring. If our policy is pursued the Government of the country can see to it that our great riches are employed to reinforce the remaining assets of the country. What is happening now? In the eleven years from 1929 to 1940 dividends were paid to an amount of £160,000,000 after deducting all possible expenditure. If the State had proper control much of that money could have been utilised to strengthen other industries. Now the bulk of that money has gone overseas. It has not even been brought into circulation in South Africa. We on this side now desire that we should call a halt to that foolish policy in South Africa of allowing our tremendous mineral wealth to vanish without being utilised to strengthen the other supports of our economic fabric. This is a policy we on this side of the House stand for. [Time limit.]

There were quite a number of items with which I wanted to deal this afternoon, but most of them have been discussed already. There is however one I should like to pursue further, and that is the one mentioned by the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Christopher), and that is in respect of the survey which the Minister promised and the boring he is now carrying out with respect to the investigation of suitable coal in the Stormberg area. I would like to invite the attention of the Minister to the fact that there are actual oil indications, oil rising at the surface, at places near Matatiele. You have minerals showing themselves on the surface at places like Emkwali and other places in the Transkei, deposits of base metails in various areas there, as well as deposits of coal, which were used as far back as when the Scot settlers settled on the farm Wolseley. I would like the Minister to take his survey further down than Stormberg. We are well aware that the Stormberg deposits of coal are not of the best quality. The reports we have had from geologists who visited that area and from boring which took place there is that there is every indication of excellent coal to be found, if we can only locate it. That is in the Border area. I am asking the Minister to investigate. The Minister is now boring in the Stormberg area, where we know the coal is of poor quality. However, I leave that to the Minsiter. If he decides not to, we must just peg along and see what we can do to help ourselves. There is one other item with which I want to deal, and that is the question of this deferred payment. May I at the outset express my disappointment with the Minister at his having dealt with this matter as if it were of minor importance. The Minister speaks of malnutrition in respect of these natives who are recruited. Let me admit it at the very outset. Malnutrition does exist, but why? Because these boys who go to the mines, in their irresponsibility, spend the bulk of their £30 or £40 which they earn and bring approximately a fifth of that money back to keep their families alive. I just want to give you two sides of the picture. These boys are recruited in the Transkeian and Ciskeian areas and I represent an area in which there are approximately 250,000 natives. He goes to the mines and earns a wage. The whole of it is given to him. There are concession stores in which he buys a box and puts into it a gaudily patched pair of trousers, and other things. These are packed in for him from time to time until one day he finds that he is short of money. Suddenly he wants to borrow money from the concession store and he does so, and at the end of his term he finds that he is very much in debt and that he can only take part of the contents of the box with him. In many cases he arrives home with £5 or £6 instead of £40. Who is keeping these natives in that part of the country during the boy’s absence? The farmers and the traders are called upon to finance them in his absence. That goes on from year to year. He comes back with less than £10. What happens? It is not enough to pay his debts. He has to spend another nine months at home before he is again recruited. This is a matter which requires most urgent attention by the Minister and one which I hope he will give great attention to, greater attention than he indicated this afternoon, because the malnutrition he talks about is due to the fact that the money is spent in the concession stores, in immorality and in drunkenness on the Rand.

I should like to return to the question that has been touched on by the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). I can give the Minister of Minés the assurance that we derive no satisfaction from the reply he has given us. He has simply shrugged his shoulders and virtually said that he has nothing to do with the matter. To put the Minister in a position to do something more I want to give him some specific data in the shape of certain extracts from the form of contract that has actually been entered into in the Free State. It is a prospecting contract, and I read there, amongst other things, the following in regard to the period of the prospecting work—

Then the contract proceeds to describe further what is meant by the conclusion of peace. It means—

I am reading this out for the information of those hon. members opposite responsible for the interjection that the reference to peace refers to the conclusion of peace with Japan. The reference here is to the signing of a peace treaty between Britain and its enemies, Germany and Italy. Then we find the following in connection with the money paid for the prospecting rights—

Could you not have dissuaded the farmers from signing these contracts?

I shall not reply just now to the inanities of that hon. member. If he continunes with his interjections I shall be obliged to use the superlative degree of his name. The position is that in respect of the first period, an undefined period, namely the war period, the sum of 1s. per morgen per year will be paid. Immediately after that period is past the prospecting charges increase. For the first year after that it is 2s. 6d. per year per morgen; for the second year 3s. per year per morgen; then 3s. 6d. per year per morgen, and then 4s. per year per morgen, and in the fifth year it is 4s. 6d. per year per morgen. But the point is that this progressive rise in the amount of the prospecting monies is an arbitrary thing. It is very likely that these agreements were entered into in good faith, and that later it appeared necessary to alter the agreements in order to protect the people. I would like to refer the Minister to this, that if we are to accept his reply in that sense it also means that that assurance in regard to the wool agreement, namely until a year after the conclusion of peace, is of no value. Is that what the Minister wants to intimate to the farmers?

I have no authority to alter the contracts.

I want to point out to the hon. member that he may not now advocate an alteration of the law or for anything that requires legislation.

I am not advocating any specific remedy now. I only want to draw the attention of the Minister to this matter. The Minister gave the impression here that he has nothing to do with the matter. I only want to point out to him that these contracts were entered into contingent on certain international conditions, and it is a matter that affects a large number of our population. I want to ask the Minister of Mines whether he realises the seriousness of the matter. I formed the impression that the Minister does not realise the significance of what has been read out to him here, and that is why I am emphasising it. In the last resort the responsibility rests on the Minister, and we must let him realise in connection with his vote what the consequences of this state of affairs is. I hope the Minister will rise in his seat, and that he will in his reply at least say that he now understands the seriousness of the matter, and that as Minister of Mines he will devote serious attention to this state of affairs that has been created and that affects a large proportion of our population, this being a matter that falls under his vote. I shall not now go into the question of gold mining, but I want to put this question to the Minister. I hope he will be able to understand what I am asking. He has mentioned here certain mines and he has objected to our describing them as low grade mines. Let us call them what we like. The fact is that there can be no further profitable development of the gold-bearing ore in those mines without a great deal of Government support, and now I would like to know from the Minister whether the right policy will not be, instead of developing those gold mines with so much State assistance, to start up a mine at another place. This is the matter that should enjoy the attention of the Minister. The position is that the Minister is considering granting a subsidy to certain mines so that they can work at a greater depth, or in order to keep others going. That is the impression of his policy that I formed. He wants to support the mines with the lower grade of ore, and consequently I want to pu? this general question to him.

We do not subsidise any mines.

They are supported. Now I want to ask the Minister this, whether he does not believe it will be in the interests of the country that the mines producing so little that they cannot be worked profitably should not make room for other mines than can yield a higher production. There is another question I should like to put to the Minister. In connection with prospecting for oil has he made a general statement that they are making progress. I would really like to know whether he will be prepared to state in general terms how many boreholes are being sunk, and in how many instances they intend to bore in the future. Knowledge on that point, too, will be in the interests of the country and of the people.

I should like to comment on the stupid and irresponsible speech of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart). There are two points that I should liike to touch on, namely the accusation of fraud on the part of the mining companies when they drew up the contracts with the landowners; and in the second place, I should like to say something about the reasonable question that I put to the hon. member for Winburg, namely, who drew up the contracts. He then said that I was too stupid to know that, but that it was the mining companies that drew up the contract. I think there is one thing about which I know more than both the hon. member for Winburg and the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) it is the drawing up of contracts for mines. For many years I have been interested in the drafting of such options and contracts, and I have not yet met a mineownér who drew up the contract himself. This shows what little knowledge they have of the matter; and then the mineowner is insulted here. The hon. member for Boshof says that I talk nonsense. I asked whether the man who signed a contract was not in his sound senses and whether he was obliged to sign a contract. It was a reasonable question that I put to him. The man who signed the option contract could not have been mental. Where was the Winburg attorney when the owner signed that he did not detect the error? Now the hon. member comes here and describes this as fraud. It is an agreement between two men. I take it the landowner has just as much intelligence as the mineowner, and the contracts are not usually drafted by the mining people themselves but reliable people with a knowledge of these affairs are employed and they submit the contracts to these people. A proper contract is made. I have drawn up not one contract but many, amongst others with Lewis and Marks and other companies, and they can go round and ask whether I as a representative have committed fraud and tricked people into signing. The man is told he will receive 1s. per year per morgen, or whatever the sum may be, and no one of course is so stupid as not to know what this means. In regard to the application of the contract in the period of the war, there too the people were fully aware of what they were doing and there was no fraud in the matter. To clinch the matter they gave options with the right to prospect, which was to the benefit of the landowners and in conformity with the agreement, if they strike something good, they buy the land at the price which has been fixed. In other words, the companies pay option money for the benefit of the landowners so that they may carry out tests which the landowners themselves are unable to do. Is that fraud or not? I myself gave an option on my land, not for the sake of the option money but with the idea that if they discovered anything I would derive a benefit from it. Is there any trickery in connection with a proper agreement entered into in this manner? They cannot prove the companies perpetrated any fraud, and the accusation is an unworthy one. There are the attorneys and members of Parliament who can enligten the people. Now the hon. members say the Government and the Minister should protect the landowner. The Minister has to see that they receive larger option monies and fix the period. The hon. member further says it is the duty of the Government to protect the landowners and to see that the option money is not too low. But when it comes to the fixing of prices they kick against that. They do not say anything about the prices of the minerals.

You really do not understand what I said.

Has the Government then to fix a price?

I am telling you nicely that you do not understand what I said.

It is the landowner who in the final resort must decide what is attractive to him.

It is such a pity that you did not listen to what I said.

How can the Government give advice in connection with option monies that have to be paid?

Who argued for that? No one.

You did.

Oh no. You must be either deaf or stupid, one or the other.

That is what you always say. I wrote down here word for word what the hon. member for Winburg said.

Did I say that the Minister should fix the option money?

No. You asked why the Minister did not warn the people not to sign a thing like this.

In regard to the option?

You asked why the Government did not warn the people that they should not grant an option at this figure.

I did not talk about option money.

You referred to the drawing up of option contracts. An option is the commencement of a contract, and you know very well that when it is drawn up it is transferred to a notarial contract. The option is the start of the transaction. I do not wish to argue further on the matter. I only wish to say these few words to contradict the statement that the companies have been guilty of fraud in connection with the taking up of farms. The accusation is not justified and it is devoid of all truth. The hon. member has stated I am too stupid not to know that the mines drew up the contract. Any landowner can have his contract drawn up or he can draw it up himself. It is not necessary for him to sign the printed form the mines have and it is not right to talk about fraud. This can only make for bad feeling.

I am in entire agreement with the arguments of the hon. members for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) and Winburg (Mr. Swart) that the State should have a bigger say over the gold mines. The State already has the railways under control; the State has gone further and taken the Namaqualand diamonds under control; and diamonds and gold may be treated more or less on an equal footing. But I have risen to say a few words in connection with diamonds, and I should like first to ask the Minister to tell the House what the policy of the Government is in connection with alluvial diggings. The outside public are uneasy over what the policy of the Government will be in the future. The Minister of course realises that a large number of diggers have joined up as soldiers, the Government has repeatedly stated it will do everything in its power to provide returned soldiers with employment. If they had work when they joined up they can return to their posts, but what provision is made for alluvial diggers who joined the forces? Has provision been made for them on their return; will there be ground available for them for digging; what is being done for them? I have urged the Minister to make more ground available, and I have repeatedly said that when the Minister set more ground aside for the diggers it will offer a way out for those soldiers who were formerly diggers and who are returning. We have always had to listen to the cry that we should wait till the war is over. Now the war is over, and I should like to know from the Minister what he is going to do in connection with these soldiers. The other day I asked the Minister whether ne would open the farm Goedevooruitsig as a diggings. For some time I have advocated the opening up of this farm, but the Minister has always run away from that. In my opinion that farm can provide a refuge for a number of returned soldiers if they are allowed a claim on it being proclaimed a diamond diggings. This is the right time to throw the farm open, thereby meeting the diggers and providing them with more ground on which to dig. So in the first place I should like to know from the Minister what the policy of the Government is in connection with alluvial diggings; and in the second place I urge that the Government should make more ground available for diggers, and I mention specifically the farm Goedevooruitsig which has already been fully prospected, and which in my opinion will be payable if the Minister throws it open. I have spoken to various persons who are well acquainted with the farm, and they are convinced that it offers a fairly attractive future for alluvial diggings. Another point on which I should like to say a few words is the agreement the Government has entered into with certain diamond producers. An agreement has been concluded with the Government that all the diamonds produced in our country should be sold through one channel, and the Government is entitled to sell 15 per cent. of the diamonds that are sold. I think 15 per cent. is altogether too little. We notice that De Beers may sell 47 per cent. of their diamonds, South-West Africa 17 per cent. and two other companies 10 per cent. each, while the Government may only sell 15 per cent. Diamonds today fetch in very good price, and if we are going to have a recurrence of the conditions that prevailed after the previous war of 1914-T8, diamonds are going to soar even higher in price. Here the Government have a contract under which it may only sell 15 per cent. of the diamonds that the whole country can sell. I think the Government has made a big mistake in entering into this contract under which it can only sell 15 per cent. itself. There is a second question I should like to put to the Minister in this connection, namely how long has the contract still to run? Under the contract the Minister can terminate the contract after every six months. Does the Minister not think that when the six months have expired he should press for a greater percentage of diamonds for the State? I think the Minister stated on a previous occasion that we have to take Kimberley into our calculations, that Kimberley is regressing, that the people there can no longer make a living and that consequently a bigger percentage should be given to De Beers for the sale of diamonds than to the Government. But the dividends that are paid out show that large profits are being made, and I should like to emphasise that the Minister should reply whether the contract will remain as it is or whether he is going to make an alteration. I realise that diamonds are mainly a luxury article, and I entirely agree that our diamonds should be sold through one channel and that there should be strict control over diamonds, but it is not to the benefit of the Government itself when sales are arranged in this way. Then I want to ask the Minister what costs are attached to the sale of diamonds. The costs are naturally high, but seeing the Government only sells 15 per cent. of the diamonds does it also bear only 15 per cent. of the costs in connectoin with the sale of diamonds. We have a diamond board and we have a committee in London with many officials with very big salaries. What is the position? I shall be glad if the Minsiter will reply to these few questions.

The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) is unfortunately not present, but I wonder whether he properly appreciates what the policy is that he has proclaimed. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) first announced the policy and he was supported by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn. But before I come to that I should like to refer to the hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick). He asserts he is in favour of State control of the gold mines. What he means, of course, is that they should be socialised, but then he proceeds to compare diamonds with gold. Apart from industrial diamonds, which represent only a small proportion, diamonds are ornaments, articles of luxury and, just as in the case of ostrich feathers, if too many are placed on the market the value falls, and as soon as every native and native woman wears diamonds the diamond will disappear as a luxury article. Consequently our diamonds must be regarded from an entirely different angle. The hon. member spoke about our quota. There are other parts of the world that also have many diamonds, and the best thing the Government could have done was to make arrangements to enable us to have a certain quota on the world market. But action on the lines of the argument of the hon. member for Waterberg, which the hon. member for Lichtenburg wishes to apply to diamonds, would imperil the market. We must be prudent and not allow our market to collapse.

I said that I realised there should be control.

I can understand that the hon. member would like to have a larger quota, but we cannot blame the Government for having entered into an international agreement.

He is only blaming the Government for Sir Ernest Oppenheimer having such a large quota.

Now they again want to make it a political matter. It is in the interests of the Union that there should be a quota system, but the hon. member for Waterberg is advocating the opposite.

I spoke about the quota of production in South Africa itself and I said the Government’s quota was too small.

The hon. member pleaded for a greater quota of the world market.

No.

I can understand the hon. member pleading for a larger quota. We all would like to have the largest possible quota. But that is contingent on the agreement of the other parties to the contract.

I stated the Government should have more than 15 per cent. of the South African quota.

We must be careful in connection with the control of minerals not to disturb the equilibrium, otherwise we shall be travelling along the road of the ostrich feathers and cause the market to collapse. That, too, was for many years a good source of revenue, but later on the market collapsed. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn stated that we should so control the development of the mining industry as to ensure for it a long life. We are not averse to that. I also am in favour of that, but if for the sake of a long life he wants to retard development what is the Free State going to say if this policy is applied, and if the development of the gold mining industry there is impeded; and if it is only when a mine is worked out elsewhere that a new mine is to be opened up in the Free State? Will the Free State members agree with that? Will the public be in agreement with it? It is not practical. It is very idealistic to endeavour in this way to assure a longer life for the industry. We would all approve of that, but it is too idealistic and it cannot be applied. People want development to occur so that those areas in which development is taking place shall receive an immediate benefit from it. It may sound uneconomic and not to the advantage of the nation as a whole, but it is the will of the people and if it came to a vote in the Free State they would, to a man vote in favour of immediate development in the Free State. Then the hon. member says that if people have spent money on prospecting and in encouraging development the State should now say: You must stop because we do not want to mine for gold any further, we want to give a long life to the industry and we will now pay you out. If this is to be the case the Government will have to say beforehand that they can go on prospecting for gold, but just as soon as they have found gold the State will pay them out. Is this practical? Then a careful record will have to be kept and every little thing will have to be signed, and it will all be such hopeless confusion that no one will be able to control it. Accordingly it is impracticable. Consequently you must allow private undertakings to spend money on prospecting for gold, and where gold is discovered development must take its normal course. Should it happen that the world market becomes overstocked with gold the time may perhaps arrive for the Government to intervene and prevent further prospecting, but until such time as the world market is overstocked I see no possibility for the application of a policy of control such as has been suggested by the hon. member for Oudtshoorn. As far as the socialisation of the gold mining industry is concerned I do not know how they can now talk about that. I do not believe that this House will vote money for the Government to do prospecting work, something that is speculative and doubtful. That is something the State cannot trouble itself with. Private undertakings get money for that. You will always find people who are prepared to invest their mon*ey in the hope of gaining some benefit. If they lose that is the end of it, but the State cannot tax the nation in order to spend money in that way and, if it is a failure, to have to tax the people further and simply state that it has been a failure. The people will not agree to that. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring) explained it very nicely. The State makes £20,000,000 a year out of the gold mining industry by taxation, and it takes a large part of the profits, but it does not risk a penny in extracting the gold nor does it incur any loss in connection with it. It is very much better for the State to continue in this manner and to leave private enterprise to develop the gold mines. If the gold market becomes surfeited you may have to apply restrictive measures, but until such time as that occurs it will be best for the State to proceed on the old principle, namely to tax profits without accepting any risks. And is the profit of the shareholders really so large? I am not talking of the price that shares fetch on the share market but of the actual profit of the shareholders. It is not so high; there are very few mines that pay 8 per cent. on shares, and the richer the mine the higher the taxation.

Eight per cent. on what?

On the sale price of shares.

Have you noticed that on the Witwatersrand the mines in 1939 paid out no less than 34.5 per cent. on the subscribed capital?

It is very easy to talk about subscribed capital, but the shareholder is today paying a much higher price than the price for which the shares were originally issued. There is a big difference, and few shares pay more than 8 per cent. —I am referring to the actual price paid for the shares. I am fully in favour of the existing system in reference to the mines, and I want to support that.

I should like to give a qualified approval to the proposal made by the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) in reference to compulsory deferred pay. The reasons I qualify my support are these. In the first place, a number of natives are today being sent to the mines under the A.V.S. system, and they go up entirely on their own initiative. I can see no objection whatever to provision for compulsory deferred pay being inserted in an agreement of service. I am quite certain such a provision would be to the benefit of the worker. There is no doubt that many boys come back from the Rand after nine months’ service with nothing in their possession. We hope that one day they will have educated themselves to a realisation that they should keep their money until they return home. I cannot see any harm in having a system of compulsory pay so long as it is restricted to labourers who are recruited for the mines. I myself am more interested in the wages paid on the mines, and although this may not be a subject falling directly under the Minister’s scope, if he is not the actual arbiter in the matter he has no doubt had the question of wages referred to him. We would welcome a statement as to what is his attitude. These people have had no increase in pay for the last 25 years, and they cannot be expected to live properly under present conditions on the money they receive. It has been said that natives working on the mines do not require a cost of living allowance, because all their food is supplied, but they have families to look after and we have it from the Minister that when the native worker arrives on the mine he has to be specially fed because of the state of malnutrition he is in. How on earth are the families to improve their standard of living and their standard of health if the mines keep these native workers on exactly the same level of wages notwithstanding the increased cost of living? Another thing we are still awaiting is provision by the mines for payment of the return fare of recruited labourers. That is done in other parts of the world that have adopted the Geneva Convention, and although we have not done so I cannot see why we should not. Why is the cost of living allowance not paid to the native miner? I should be glad to hear whether the Minister is prepared to make a recommendation concerning the payment of cost of living allowance and the repayment of the return fare. When there is this demand for cutting down the costs of production on the mines it is taken to mean that the mines cannot afford to pay higher wages today. I heard the Minister say that he hoped before long to see Europeans coming out to this country, especially members of the R.A.F., to work on the mines as miners. If they can afford to pay European miners instead of natives surely they can afford now to give the natives better wages. It is often stated that mining is much more important than secondary industry, and that secondary industry cannot live without the mines. Is it healthy to have one industry providing more than half the national income while the other half is provided by industry apart from mining? It seems to me that such an economy is completely unbalanced and that we should look to the future. We should remember the ghost towns of America and Australia and the abandoned mines there, and see what they have done. It seems to me it would much better for the future if there is secondary industry. Secondary industry pays a living wage. Why cannot the mining industry pay the same? Let the mines compete in the open labour market. I cannot understand why the mines cannot pay better wages. According to the figures they are paying big dividends and are well able to pay native labour an adequate wage. No attempt has been made to do that. I appeal to the Government, the Minister and the country to consider once again the position of the unfortunate people who simply cannot live at home but have to go to the mines in a half-starved condition, and when they come back again the families are in the same condition because proper wages and cost of living allowance are not paid. I hope the Governent will use its influence in regard to payment of cost of living allowance to native mine labourers.

I am sorry to see that the Minister takes up such a strange view of matters. In one instance he is afraid of Socialism. I can understand that, he being a conservative Englishman. On the other hand he works hand in hand with it. For instance, you have the diamond diggings. That is socialism. On the other hand you have the new drilling for oil. That is also socialism. Where does he stand? Seeing that he says he has no responsibility I think the mistakes and the responsibility must lie somewhere else. I think we can judge where the fault lies. I myself plead for higher wages for both white and black. The mines say they cannot afford it, but they pay high dividends. There must be some mistake somewhere. It seems to me that the real man who is causing this distress and the setbacks in development in the country is the Minister of Finance. His taxation is wrong somewhere. If he can tax so that you can give higher wages and also extend the gold mining industry it would be in the interests Of the State. I feel I do not like to see the gold mining industry taxed to death. The Nationalists did not do that, but the present Minister of Finance taxes them much more.

I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss taxation which requires legislation.

I am sorry. I think I just touched the right spot. I want to tell the Minister that we farmers are in sympathy with the mines to a certain extent, but we also feel, seeing that the mines in the past have always worked against the development of secondary industry, that we must stand by secondary industry. The Minister always tells us about the good qualities of the mines. We agree. But they produce for export and they want to keep their markets open in the other parts of the world. But we always have to produce on a competitive basis and therefore they should not stop the development of secondary industry. Secondary industry brings money into circulation and we want protection for the industry. We would like the mines to develop it and not work against secondary industry. As regards the farmers, secondary industry has our full support, and if the mining industry tries to check secondary industry we will help secondary industry because we realise it is essential. We hope the Government’s policy will be this, to develop primary and secondary industry along with the mines. That is the only way in which to do anything for future generations. Unfortunately I cannot discuss taxation, otherwise I would say what I think should be done. We do feel that the Minister has not taken us into his confidence about this boring for oil. In my area many boreholes were put down but we know nothing. It seems to me this is another bit of State control. We hear so much against socialism, but this is a bit of State control so that the public should not know what they have in the country. We feel that because the Government fears that they will not get more money from the importation of oil, they are not developing the oilfields. We want to know more about it. There are other parts of the country where you would probably find oil, in the Middelburg district and in other districts near coalmining areas. I have always been told that in other parts of the world you find oil near coal and it was proved by experiment that the Karoo is the only place where oil can be found. I hope I am right in these assertions. I got this information from experts. I think there is oil in this country. I just want to stress again that we feel that the mining industry is necessary but it must not retard the progress of agriculture or secondary industry.

Let me reply at once to the remarks made by the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker). I am shocked to think that he really believes that there is some influence at work to prevent the development of oil. This is the first time I have heard a suggestion of that kind. I thought I was in danger of being blamed for spending so much State money upon this enterprise which has so far yielded no good results. I can assure him and everyone else that I am doing my utmost according to the advice given to me and my experts and specialists are doing their best to find oil, if it exists, and I propose with the authority of Parliament from time to time to carry on that investigation until the experts of my Department tell me that they are satisfied that there are no further chances of success. I hope the hon. member realises the reasonableness of my statement, that I deprecate him giving publicly the exact locality where boreholes were put down and investigations made. It was because I felt that there was grave danger of speculation of a very undesirable kind that I did not want to make known the locality.

Private enterprise?

No, I have not the slightest objection to private enterprise. I may tell the hon. gentleman that I have had more than one application for a mining lease for oil, for which provision is made in the Act. Any private individual can come forward and propose to the Department to get a mining lease to mine for oil. On one occasion I actually gave such approval but before the private enterpriser in that case put down his money he thought better of it. We warned him that we thought there was a very poor chance. I do not think it is a very profitable field. If the hon. member for Cradock cares to come to my office I will tell him in confidence, but not for publication, the exact places where boreholes were put down, the exact depth and the results. I hope he will then be able to hand on that good or bad news in that general statement, without giving away the localities in question.

Is there oil in the country?

I do not know. That is what we are waiting to see. The indications are, I understand, that oil has been here at some time in the geological period, but whether it has filtered away or is still kept in a reservoir of rock of sufficient velocity is what we are investigating now. The hon. member for Cradock, following the note which was struck by other speakers, seemed to think, and indeed stated in round terms, that the directors of the gold mining industry were hostile and tried to stifle secondary industries. I know of no evidence to that effect and if any such evidence is placed before me I and my colleagues will take notice of it. But I know of nothing to justify such a statement. What I do know is this, and in this respect and I refer to the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) when he said that there was a conflict between the gold mining industry and secondary industry. I would like to point out that some of the big mining houses which are foremost in searching for gold have also large sums of money invested in secondary industry. The idea that the two conflict in the sense that there is a desire on the part of the directors of the mining industry to stifle secondary industry is a fantasy. What is true is this, that during the last six years of war conditions a number of industries have sprung up which were very useful and necessary during wartime, but it is an open question whether they will be able to stand competition afterwards. I have had an instance of that in mining also. We had no mercury in the country. We were dependent on getting it from North Africa, Spain and Italy. We searched and found the necessary raw material and extracted the mercury and now that is a successful mine, and we produce not only enough for the whole country but enough to supply a considerable amount for export. My trouble at the moment is to find buyers for the mercury which we produce. I am glad to say that India has come in as a buyer to some extent. But that gives an instance of how quite a necessary war-time industry can have difficulties in the post-war period. The search for tungsten is another instance. The high prices paid for this rather scattered mineral have fallen and will fall still lower. Probably the whole of that will have to be shut down. So there is no foundation for this impression which has been expressed in several speeches this afternoon, that there is any effort on the part of the directors of the gold mining industry to stifle the development of secondary industries. I hope we have heard the last of that. The hon. member is not, I think, fair in suggesting that I am half a socialist ….

Yes, you are.

…. because the State has undertaken to recover diamonds. I have always been a very practical man. I have never cared very much for labels and I do not take much pains to reconcile all my actions with one particular Shiboleth or another. I have no fear of being called a socialist qua socialist, but I am very much impressed with the desirability of developing private enterprise because I think it is best. But where private enterprise fails in any respect I am quite pleased to start State enterprise. We have done that and that is the principle on which I propose to act. The hon. member for the Transkei (Mr. Hemming) and others reverted to the question of this deferred payment. I am sorry the hon. member for the Transkei is not here but I do not think he was quite fair to me because I told the hon. member for Tembuland (Mr. Payn) that I was favourable to this in principle but that I had no power or authority of any kind under the existing laws to see that it is carried out.

You have power over the Portuguese natives.

There is an actual contract existing there. It depends on the contract, not on the law, how natives are regarded. Those natives are recruited upon that basis.

Why do you not make the same conditions apply to our natives?

There is this difference. The contracts with the Union natives are made individually with the native himself, but the contract for Portuguese labourers is made with the Portuguese Government and they have the power to carry out their end of the contract. The two things are utterly different. Take the case of money being sent, the return journey and the wages question. It is not that I am not interested in it as a Minister or as an individual, but I have had cause to point out, having regard to the course this debate took that it is not a particular matter in which the activities of my Department are concerned. I am very interested, as I said, in seeing that the maximum amount of wages which can be paid are paid. I believe in everyone getting as much as they can from their own efforts and that extends to every worker. But that is a different thing from saying that I, as the Minister of Mines, should introduce legislation for the purpose of taking powers to regulate it, when the whole matter depends on Acts of Parliament already on the Statute Book and administered by different departments. The two things are quite distinct. Where the Department of Lands comes in is on the question of mining costs and I have already pointed out that mining costs are largely dependent on wages, and that in my opinion a ceiling of wages can be reached where unemployment would be caused. I beleive that to be correct. I do not believe that generally speaking we can face, at present or at any other time, general unemployment by the closing of the mines far that reason. Subject to that, I am out for high wages. The hon. member for Kingwilliamstown (Mr. C. M. Warren) wanted me to investigate further the coal prospects in the Eastern Province. I speak from memory but my recollection is that the whole of these coal measures stretching from Port Elizabeth to beyond the Stormberg area are the same coal measures and the same horizon, at any rate, as at Molteno, and the tests which have now been made in the 34 boreholes I have had put down are tests as much of the locality as of the whole of that coal measure, and according to the results of that we will be able to put down further boreholes if necessary and I hope that something will be done. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) has reverted to the question of the prospecting contracts and the option contracts in the Free State. I had hoped that my previous statement on that would have disposed of this question once and for all. These contracts are private contracts between two individuals. If they have been induced by fraud or misrepresentation or undue influence the courts will set them aside. If not, they must stand, like any other contract. It is entirely useless to ask me to intervene in such a case, because I have no power to do so. The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) introduced the question of diamonds and the Producers’ Agreement. The Producers’ Agreement is still in force, and it is not a fact that under that the quota given to the different parties to the agreement is varied or can be varied for six months. The 15 per cent. which the Government gets under that agreement is very much higher and better than they got under the former agreement. I negotiated a fresh agreement and got the larger proportion for the Government.

It is not high enough.

I dare say you want 100 per cent.

No, 25 per cent.

Why stick at 25 per cent.? That is too modest. The hon. member asked why De Beers got 47 per cent. and the Government only 15 per cent. The reply is this, that De Beers have several rich mines, and the whole city of Kimberley is in ordinary times largely dependent on the mining there. I hope that we shall always be able to mine on a sufficient scale to keep the population of Kimberley going. That is a major consideration. I think we have every reason to be satisfied with the present arrangement, which is much better than the one made before. The hon: member asked what about Goedevooruitsig. That was prospected by De Beers. I may tell the hon. member that I am not entirely satisfied with the results of the report and although at present I do not feel justified in having it proclaimed I have ordered another enquiry and have sent down a special officer to investigate. I shall consider his report when it reaches me. The hon. member has asked what was the policy with regard to the alluvial diggers. The policy is exactly the same as it always has been. I am keeping all the ground which is found to be diamondiferous as far as we can say, for the old professional class of digger, and by virtue of the powers conferred upon me some years ago by Parliament I am preventing other people from coming in and taking the diamondiferous ground out of the hands of the old professional diggers. That is my policy and I have every reason to suppose it meets with the full approval of the hon. member for Lichtenburg. I do not know what he wants apart from that, unless he wants me to find mere diamonds on more ground.

You should proclaim Goedevooruitsig.

I have replied to that, but it would not have been prospected if it had not been for me. The hon. member for Boshof spoke about the desirability of limiting the output and regulating the supply in order that we might make the mines last longer. That would be good if it were possible to do so. But how can it be done? The Government which did that would also have to take the responsibility of stopping not only gold mining development but also industrial development of every description. The hon. member may not agree with me in that. But I tell him that in my opinion that is a fact, that if you were to limit it in that way it would have a deleterious effect on industry.

I never said that. It is the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux).

I have made a mistake. Will the hon. member for Oudtshoorn please consider these last remarks as having been made to him. The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) asked how many boreholes were in the Free State and how many were still to be drilled. That is for gold, I believe.

No, for oil.

Well, I think one has been put down. There may be another. I do not mind giving this information privately, but I do not want to make a public statement. The hon. member for Kimberley (City) (Mr. Humphreys) spoke about base metals and minerals and suggested that there should be a special department to look after base metals. The policy of the Mines Department is to facilitate the exploitation of base minerals of every sort, according to the needs of the market to find out what the resources of the Union are in respect of base minerals, and it uses its machinery so far as it at present exists for marketing those in the markets of the world. In the last few years, we have made a very considerable advance in the direction of investigating base minerals. We now not only have a geological survey to map the localities in which minerals may be expected to exist, but we have a plan of sending field parties into different districts for the purpose of finding it. But the general policy of the department is to depend on private enterprise to exploit it, once we have found it. I have had a deputation from’ the Kimberley district and the part which is known as the Northern Cape asking me to develop minerals in their area, and they have mentioned several minerals which undoubtedly exist there. My reply is that if those minerals exist there, it is for them to get money to develop it. If they carry that out, I am prepared as Minister of Mines to assist them with all the technical advice that is at my disposal, and after proper investigation, I am prepared to advance money on any suitable occasion. There is ample scope for private enterprise in that respect. Private enterprise is assisted both technically and financially after investigation. I think that is a sufficiently wide and comprehensive statement, I hope, on base minerals. I am proposing to investigate the intelligent section of the Mines Department, and during the past year a highly placed officer of the department has been sent to the United States for the purpose of making investigations there on the spot in regard to their mining development, their mining records, their statistical methods, and generally their intelligence methods, and he has come back and made a very interesting report. I propose acting on that and making certain improvements in what I call the intelligence branch of the Mines Department in due course during the coming year. I am very glad indeed to hear from the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) and from other members, how much it is recognised that South African farming, the pasturai industry and agriculture depends on mining and the market which it gives. But if, as the hon. member for Oudtshoorn suggested, we put a ceiling and stopper on gold mining development, that market will at once be correspondingly restricted. I do not think that will meet with much approval either in the Free State or in any other part of the country. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) reverted to the conflict between gold mining and secondary industries, which I hope I have satisfactorily disposed of in what I have already said, namely, that the gold should be used for importing machinery which is necessary. I think he said it should not be used to purchase articles which we could manufacture in this country. That is a problem that is properly preferable to the Board of Trade and Industries for their investigation and report and for corresponding action. It is not primarily a matter which depends on my department, although all these questions naturally touch’ me very nearly as a member of the Cabinet, but it is not a matter which arises on this debate in any shape or form. I think I have disposed of all the further questions which have been raised since I last spoke. Perhaps we may now take the vote.

I think the hon. Minister did not understand me this morning when I put a number of questions to him. One of my requests was that he should have investigations instituted about the mines outside the Reef. When I referred to these outside mines I did not mean the mines at Nigel and Klerksdorp. I meant the small mines at Barberton, at the various coalfields and the asbestos mines. If the Minister wants me to mention the names thereof, I shall do so. I am thinking for instance of the Princess gold mines in the Barberton district, of the Kalkkloof asbestos mine and the Messina copper mine which lately has caused a lot of trouble, especially here in the House. I should like to know what the conditions on those mines are, as far as working hours, the compliance with the regulations and the application thereof are concerned, and I want to know whether the health of the underground workers is being looked after, what the housing conditions for European and native workers are, what wage rates are being paid to both European and native miners and what the feeding conditions of the natives in the compounds are. In this connection I want to refer especially to the Hlobane coal mine about which I and the Minister have had a fight in the past. About three weeks ago a strike of native miners occurred at the Hlobane coal mine and the reason they advanced for the strike was the undernourishment on the Hlobane coal mines. I should like to see the Minister investigating those complaints. I now have to come back to the matter which I was discussing when the time limit stopped me, and that is the accident which occurred on the Blyvooruitzicht mine. I can prove that the manager and his officials were guilty and contravened approximately seven different regulations. They left open a dangerous refuse dump. They left open a dangerous vertical shaft and the poor native who was killed there walked right into this open pit. If the Minister wants me to enumerate the regulations which were broken by the management I shall do so. But the most serious contravention of the regulations which took place with the knowledge of the Government Mining Engineer was that no lights were installed at that station after it had been pierced, that no gates were put up, but immediately after the accident, before the mining inspector arrived, those matters were rectified. Gates were erected and lights installed and this is a contravention of Regulation No. 270, which I should like to read out—

Here we had a miscarriage of justice. The manager and his sub-manager and his mine captain should be the persons who should have been accused in court of culpable homicide. They are the people who should have been brought to court and not the poor unfortunate mineworker. The case was, however, brought up for the specific purpose of protecting the mine manager and this does not happen at Blyvooruitzicht only, but this happens all over the Witwatersrand. It happened to me personally and the time has now arrived that a halt should be called to that sort of procedure under which a mineworker is dragged to court on the charge of culpable homicide, whereas the people who have failed in their duty to make safe places where there is danger, are being protected by this procedure. I am sorry that I forgot to ask for the half-hour to which I am entitled.

The hon. member cannot ask for that now. May I point out to the hon. member that he is not entitled to half an hour?

I want to know what is the wangling that goes on between the Government Mining Engineer and the Vanderbijl Works, why it was decided that the Vanderbijl Works will fall under the Mines and Works Regulations. Iscor comes under the Act, but Iscor has its own ore mine and that was the reason for it, but why that is still being continued I do not know because after all Iscor is much more a factory and steel works than a mining undertaking. I now want to know whether he Vanderbijl Works are a steel and iron works or whether they are going to mine coal to use it for their own heating requirements, and why does its factory not fall under the Factories Act? The trade unions are greatly concerned about this state of affairs and the persons who are called the “black squad” in trade union circles want to know why this is being done. Is it perhaps because the workers would be better off under the Factories Act than under the Mines and Works Act or is it because the Vanderbijl Works are going in for the production of coal and minerals to a greater extent than for the production of iron and steel articles? This is something which concerns a large number of artisans and I hope that the Minister will tell us why this is being done. Is it perhaps because Dr. Van der Bijl would not like to see his works come under the Factories Act or is it to get the workers to work in the factory for lower wages? I should like to receive a reply to it and afterwards I shall speak for another ten minutes.

Let me answer this at once. It is a very important question. A question has been put on the Order Paper by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) dealing with this some time ago. I did not answer it at once. I took it over from the particular department in whose name it had been put down, but I did not answer it at once. I wanted to get full information on the subject. I am now prepared to make a statement. It is perfectly true that the van der Bijl Works have been declared to be a works under the Mines and Works Act and they have been declared to be so by the Government Mining Engineer. The Government Mining Engineer, under the Mines and Works Act, has an individual responsibility in every case of deciding whether in any place there is machinery which is being used or is intended to be used for mining or in connection with mining. That is the responsibility of the Government Mining Engineer; it is an individual responsibility and it is not the responsibility of the Minister or the Department or anybody else. He has to exercise his unfettered discretion in that respect. That is the law at the present time. In pursuance of that he had to bring his mind to bear, when the van der Bijl Works went up and machinery was brought in there, on the question as to whether it formed an occasion on which he should say whether there was any machinery there which was being used or which was intended to be used in connection with mining. If it was in his opinion, then he had to say so, and as a matter of law it followed that the place would then not be a factory but a “Works” for the purposes of the law.

Was that the law advisors’ opinion?

The law advisors’ opinion was very valuable indeed in enabling the Government Mining Engineer to make that declaration. I have perused the law advisors’ opinion and I can well understand that the Government Mining Engineer came to that conclusion in view of the opinion of the law advisors. The decision he made was after the law advisors’ opinion had been obtained and had been sent to him for his consideration. The suggestion has been made by the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers) that the reason for doing this is that the condition would be more satisfactory to the management if the van der Bijl Works came under the Mines and Works Act. There is a good deal of misunderstanding in this matter. The actual conditions which are prevailing in respect of hours and duty and pay are now governed by an actual agreement which has been come to between the workers at the van der Bijl Works and the management at the van der Bijl Works and those conditions are better and superior than those which are provided in the text of the Factories Act, and indeed the Factories Act provide, Mr. Chairman, that even when it is a factory, the employers and the employees can come to an arrangement under the conciliation laws which is better and it may well be better than the conditions under the Factories Act, and then the Factories Act ceases to apply. That is actually the position at the van der Bijl Works, and so if the Government Mining Engineer had come to a contrary conclusion and had held that this was not a “Works” but a factory, under the conditions which had been obtained by the voluntary agreement by the workers, that would have superseded the position under the Factories Act.

Can you tell us about the wages?

The wages have been published. The wages are superior to the wages laid down in the Factories Act. There are six pages of close print dealing with all the sections. This agreement was printed and published, I suppose, by the Department of Labour. The Conciliation Agreement was made under an order made by my colleague, the Minister of Labour, on the 15th September, of last year. I can read all this to the Committee, but it would be a waste of time to do so.

Just tell us.

The hon. Minister need not reply to that.

I am afraid I did not hear that. I am very willing to answer anything that reaches me and which I am allowed to answer, but I did not catch that remark. With regard to the accident at Blyvooruitzicht, I did not réfer to it this afternoon, because this morning I thought the hon. member had not quite finished his story, so I thought I would wait till the story had been completed by him before I replied. This accident occurred at Blyvooruitzicht. An enquiry was held under the law by the Inspector of Mines and a finding was made. I placed all these documents at the disposal of the hon. member for Mayfair and he came to my office and read them. That is all the evidence there is as far as I am concerned. I do not know whether I have told the hon. member this, but it is a fact; I know of no evidence at all which involves nr tends to involve the manager. If he has got it, he should let me have it. If he has not put it before me let him do so. This is the first time I hear that the manager had been guilty of some breach of the law, and that some arrangement was made to cover up his delinquencies and that things which were wrong in the underground were put right to cover his tracks. If there is anything of that kind, I will see that it is dealt with. I have never been told so up to the present. The hon. member, although this enquiry was held some time ago, has kept this perhaps for this occasion. Why not tell me? I would have investigated this and I would have gone into evidence that the hon. member put before me and possibly I might have been able to make a statement to this Committee, but the hon. member has chosen to keep this accusation for this afternoon. I cannot answer such an accusation. I can only say that it is the first time I hear of it and if evidence to that effect is placed before me I will deal with it in an adequate manner.

The hon. Minister has dealt with the apparent conflict of interests between gold mining and secondary industry. As the hon. Minister has quite rightly pointed out, this apparent conflict of interests is being resolved by forces within the gold mining world itself. The more progressive mining houses are themselves entering the industrial sphere on a very extensive scale. Indeed their intrusion into the industrial field has given rise to a certain amount of misgiving and resentment which have already been voiced in this House; but personally I do not see how we can stop this process. As capitalist concerns they are merely obeying the law of their being in seeking new fields of investment. And in expanding into the industriel field, they are exhibiting those qualities of enterprise and initiative upon which capitalism thrives and which it rewards so lavishly. Personally I have a great respect for the business acumen of these mining houses, and I believe they can be relied upon to establish a balanced relationship between gold mining and second industry, for obviously these mining houses would not promote industrial development if it imperilled their existing interests in the sphere of gold mining. The more conservative mining houses oppose industrial development because they fear that sooner or later it must put and end to the present system of migrant native labour.

Have you ever heard that story before?

The more progressive mining houses are giving us a new story indeed. The more progressive mining houses are themselves condemning the migrant labour system. The hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) quoted a remarkable speech by the chairman of the Anglo Transvaal Consolidated Investment Company. The chairman of that concern condemned migrant labour as being inefficient and as having a low standard of productivity.

He is a mining magnate.

What is a mining magnate?

He is one of the leaders of the mining industry. And may I tell the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Payne) when a leader of the gold mining industry speaks in such clear and unequivocal terms about migrant labour it is an event of very great significance. It means that in principle the battle for stabilised labour has been won. The issue before us is no longer whether the migrant labour system should or should not be abolished. The question we have now to face is how are we going to introduce stabilised labour without a catastrophic dislocation of the gold mining industry. Obviously the transition will have to be gradual and will have to be planned. I believe myself that the right policy is to induce or to encourage new mines to make provision for stabilised labour. Take the Blyvooruitzicht Mine, for example. This mine, like all other mines, will be faced with the problem of keeping its native labour force up to full strength; but this mine, unlike many other mines, is in the fortunate position of being able to stabilise its labour, thus rendering itself independent of the recruiting agencies and the vicissitudes of the migrant labour system. It has a beautiful stretch of country, an ideal site for a native township. With migrant labour, working costs should be no more than 22s. a ton, but if stabilised labour is employed the extra cost should not exceed 3s. a ton. In the case of a low grade mine this extra cost would be prohibitive, but the Blyvooruitzicht Gold Mine is a very high grade mine. It will yield something like 15 dwts. to the ton. It therefore can well afford to meet the extra cost. Moreover, I have based my calculations on the assumption that stabilised labour will be no more efficient than migrant labour. But in actual practice the increased cost in wages will be largely off-set by two factors. In the first place stabilised labour must in time become more efficient and more specialised, and, secondly, the fact that the mine has stabilised labour will enable it to keep its mining operations constant because its labour force will always be up to strength. To my mind this mine has a unique opportunity of making mining history. The lay-out of the mine has been admirably planned; I think the management deserves a very high tribute in this regard. This mine has now an opportunity of crowning its achievements by placing its native labour force on a stable and permanent basis. I trust the Minister will use his influence in that direction.

I wish to say a word in connection with miners’ phthisis. The mining industry today is spending the sum of approximately £1,750,000 on miners’ phthisis compensation. The figure itself may not impress, but it represents a large amount of infection consequent upon the working of our gold mines, and I think it is certain that if that danger in the mining industry could be eliminated not only would it be to the benefit of the country as a whole and to the benefit of the industry, but it would attract a large additional number of South Africans to the mining industry as a career. Men today are deterred from entering into that industry in consequence of the possibility of having to spend their old age in misery and ill-health. Recently a preventative has been discovered which has the effect of obviating silicosis. So far it has only been carried into practice in one mine, in the MacIntyre Porcupine Mine in Ontario, Canada. The method adopted in this mine is as follows: The change room where the miners have to enter before going underground is sprayed with aluminium dust, and for a period of approximately half-an-hour the miners breathe in the aluminium dust, and it has the effect of immunising them against silicosis infection. Many hundreds of miners have been employed in this mine, and during the period they have been subject to this treatment not a single miner has been infected with silicosis. On the contrary, a number of miners who before this particular treatment was adopted had already been infected with silicosis, found that their condition improved. This particular method of treatment has no harmful effect on the individual. The aluminium dust is invisible, tasteless and odourless, and is a definite remedy for silicosis. The writer of this article in an American magazine describes the discovery as on a par with the discovery of vaccination, radium, insulin and penicillin. It is impossible, of course, to judge whether these statements are correct or not, but it would not be difficult for the Minister to cause enquiry to be made into the matter.

It has been done a long time ago.

Then give us the result of your enquiry.

I would like to ask the Minister in all courtesy whether, in view of the experience we have gained in respect of diamonds in Namaqualand, there is a possibility in the near future to bring more activity into the diamond mining industry in. Namaqualand. It is now 18 years ago since diamonds were discovered there and at the moment there are only two mines working. I want to point out that the diamondiferous soil stretches from the Olifants River as far as the mouth of the Orange River, a distance of not less than 300 miles and the whole coast is strewn with diamonds at some places as far as three miles inland and along the river 15 miles inland. Only two mines are being worked, namely the State diggings and Kleinzee. The State diggings are being worked by the Government itself and Kleinzee by De Beers. I feel that Namaqualand is receiving a most unfair treatment. Namaqualand is being treated like a stepchild, and that is not fair seeing that it is part of the Union. This is the more surprising as the diamonds of Alexander Bay today equal those of Kimberley, the city of diamonds and most likely the richest mine in the world. Nothing is being done in regard to that important discovery of 18 years ago. The Government is using 700 people there to dig out the diamonds. As the Minister told me in reply to a question I asked, the official figures show that the income out of that mine alone amounts to £3,454,990 per annum whereas the administrative costs for digging out that amount of nearly £4,000,000 amount to the paltry sum of £175,000. That shows clearly how little is being done to develop this enormous treasure we have in our country. Apart from the State diggings there are other places which are as rich in diamonds if not richer. It is not fair towards the Cape Province and I will really welcome it when the Minister and the Government take steps to exploit this treasure in our country in a better way than has been done hitherto. I furthermore think that it is unfair that the Government, according to official figures, has obtained £13,603,828 from this mine and has deposited that in the coffers of the State. What is the use of that to the general public, to our country with its large number of poor people? We should keep in mind the diggers who have gone up North. Is it fair that those people do not get a chance? The Government is at its wits’ end how to provide a living for the returning soldiers. In view of the wealth of Namaqualand, at least 50,000 people could find work there. I believe that the time has arrived when more attention should be paid to this great wealth which so far has been neglected. If this treasure had belonged to another nation, I wonder how much fuss they would have made about it. All we hear is about Kimberley and nothing about Namaqualand, nothing about this great national treasure. The time has come when this State asset should receive more consideration. The administration costs are low, for in return for a mere £175,000 diamonds to the value of £4,000,000 were obtained. I am thinking of the poverty in our country, of the people living under the bread-line who are justly entitled to share in this State asset. Instead of the Government depositing this money in the Treasury, it should go into the pockets of the poor as was the custom in former times. What does the Government do? It gives the poor diggers diamondiferous soil where they cannot make a living at all. Thereafter it is stated that the diggers are a burden on the State, but the Government turns them into a burden by proclaiming land for them where they cannot make a living. Why does the Government not open this part of the country for them? On the other hand we have Kleinzee, where we find the De Beers company which already owns Kimberley. I feel that this enormous State asset should be developed. The people who control De Beers now also control the Kleinzee undertaking and our poor people have to find an existence in the country. De Beers possess all the diamondiferous soil along the coast for a distance of 300 miles, where they bought 360,000 morgen for 10s. per morgen. That soil remains unexploited. For whom and until when? Not only the De Beers company should be able to exist in this country. Our population also has a right to an existence in South Africa and not De Beers only. If they do not want to make that soil available, the Government should take steps to give the diggers an opportunity to make a living there. I want to urge the Minister to devote his attention to this matter. Today we are still struggling with the illicit diamond trade. We have noticed the recent court cases. We notice that there are leakages and I can assure the Minister that there are considerable leakages. A few cases came to light accidently, but there are hundreds of people going about unmolested; the few who were caught by accident are only a small number but the most important ones are still free and the illicit diamond trade is overstocking the world market. As long as the State controls those fields, it will never be able to exercise proper control and those leakages will continue to the detriment of the country.

I should like to refer to the public utility company mentioned by the hon. members for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), and Winburg (Mr. Swart) They expressed this as being the policy of their side of the House, and I have not heard any other member on that side stand up and declare it is their policy. I am not satisfied the hon. members are speaking for their party, because I feel the party has indicated many different voices. The hon. member for Waterberg wishes to take away the £13,000,000 dividends paid last year and wishes that amount to accrue to the State, and with that in view he is ready to form a public utility company to finance the ventures so that he can obtain that extra £13,000,000. Of that £13,000,000 paid in dividends 60 per cent. is paid to South African shareholders and 40 per cent. to shareholders overseas; that is about £5,000,000 is paid overseas.

You mean 60 per cent. of the dividends are paid in South Africa.

That is what I have indicated. But in order that the State should get that the hon. member wishes the State to have a public utility company. Can the hon. member tell the House how he is going to form it in a practical way instead of just giving us this wild story? How is he going to pay out our present shareholders? It is all very well making these wild statements, but to convert them into practical measures is another matter. On that side of the House he is allowed to make these irresponsible statements, but we have to pursue a policy that is in the best interests of the country. If any manipulation of that kind was tried the result would be chaos in the whole mining industry and dislocation of the country’s economy. Who is going to run this organisation, the capital of which will run into millions and millions of pounds? You cannot tell me that the staff available in the Government department would be sufficient for the purpose. In addition you have this fact, that many mines are started and sums aggregating £5,000,000 are invested before a single penny is paid out by way of dividends. Sometimes I have been one of those shareholders; the money goes down the drain. I want to know whether it is a reasonable suggestion that the Government should form a public utility company, accepting a risk of not getting a penny out of the venture. But of course the whole thing is farcical; it cannot stand up to argument.

How did Mexico expropriate the American oil companies?

They did it just as the hon. members have stated, just as Stalin has done it. His old friends have been killed now he has a new one—Stalin.

Why are you so hostile to poor old Joe all of a sudden?

The hon. member made another statement that the only reason for the mines wanting lower working costs was to increase the dividend. He will agree that the national income from the mines runs into something like £250,000,000, to increase the dividends by development, say to £19,000,000, would increase the National Income to probably £350,000,000, from which the country itself benefits. The charge for the development of the industry is small in comparison with the general benefit the whole country gets. The next point the hon. member makes is that the mining industry is opposed to secondary industry. I do not consider that as correct. As a farmer he will appreciate this point. You could form in this country a secondary industry to make grain bags. They might cost you 6s. a bag and that would increase the cost of production. Would you allow a secondary industry of that sort to develop? Of course you would not, when you can buy grain bags for 1s. 6d. from India. It is from that angle also that the mining industry regards matters of cost. When it is going to affect their costs of production naturally they will hesitate to say it is good to have such a secondary industry as I have given an example of. But I think the country as a whole would welcome secondry industry, especially secondary industries that could export, that could really be a national asset, and not be, as so many of our secondary industries are, entirely dependent on the mining industry. His next point was in regard to the working costs of the various mines. The Minister himself indicated that taxation did not come in to the feature of the working costs. There are one or two points in which working costs are affected by taxation, but those are matters which I think will be corrected in the near future. The feature of working costs which I believe does worry the mining industry at present is its inability to obtain a sufficient labour force to run the mines, because as a result tonnage cannot be increased but will decrease, and the unit cost per ton for wages will hold back the development of the industry. I know that to a large extent labour, particularly native labour, is drawn from other territories. That is an aspect we must consider. The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Friedman) has suggested a stabilised labour force to encourage more efficient labour. I feel at this stage this is not practical politics.

Why not?

For the simple reason that we have a quarter of a million natives working on the mines in a limited mining area, and the problem of housing is one of such magnitude as to make the whole idea absolutely impossible, though from a humanitarian and socialistic point of view I can appreciate the argument for it. Finally, there is the matter of the future of the mines and the future development of the mining areas which are being opened in the Free State and possibly in Natal. Here we should display a definite line and a bold policy to encourage overseas capital in every way possible. Already there are mines going out of existence, and this is where a bold policy of taxation, not subsidisation, not preference as the hon. member indicated, is desirable for the development of the mining industry on its own feet; but let us get this industry developed to its maximum capacity.

The hon. Minister has on a couple of occasions referred to the attitude adopted by this side of the House in regard to the development of secondary industries in this country, and the attitude of the mining industry with regard to that development. May I stress the point that we on this side realise, and realise only too well the importance of the markets the mining industry have made available for secondary products, and how important that has been in the development of secondary industries. I realise it very fully indeed. The point, however, which the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) made this morning was that the mining industry, as such, and the Chamber of Mines, has all along been and still is today to a certain extent adverse to a policy of industrial development. In the days of Paul Kruger when the first attempts were made to develop some industries in this country and when the first concessions were granted, the greatest opponents were the mining industry. In the tariff policy of 1903 the opposition to any tariff that assumed the colour of protection for secondary industry came from the South African mining industry and from the Chamber of Mines. That was the case, too, in regard to the tariff of 1906 and it was the case in respect of the tariff of 1914, and it was only during the last few years of the Great War that the mining industry did not oppose the development of industries in this country. But no sooner was the war over than the Chamber of Mines at its annual meeting adopted a resolution against the possible protection of industries. That is the point we have been trying to stress. It is only natural that the mining industry which is producing gold should be interested in obtaining the supplies for its requirements as cheaply as possible with a view to securing the maximum profit. That is the point we are trying to stress. We fully realise that the development of secondary industries has to a considerable extent been made possible by the presence of the mining industry. I feel that I have to correct that outlook and that the Minister has probably misunderstood what we meant. There is another question to which I am rather loth to refer but which I feel it is my duty to refer to. That is the question of the promotions which took place in one of the sub-Departments of the Minister, namely in the Geological Survey. I have met many experts in my time and I have many geological friends, and all I am sorry about is that I have not some of their knowledge. One thing I do know, and that is that South Africa needs the finest and most highly qualified geologists in the world, especially in a country like ours which is so considerably dependent on the future development not only of mining of precious metals but also that of base minerals, and also the possible future development of our coal mining industry and oil. Now, what is the position in that Department? May I at the outset point out to the Minister that the matters I am going to refer to were not referred to me by any of the members of that Department. As a matter of fact, the people of whom I am going to speak are not known to me, although I have the facts. Some time ago a junior geologist of that Department was promoted over the heads of seniors and in a report made to the Public Service Commission, amongst other things, the following was said: “It is not clear whether special academical qualifications, special practical experience or general qualifications, ability and seniority as regards salary are the deciding factors when vacancies are filled.” It mentions further that Mr. A. and Mr. B. were overlooked in favour of Mr. C., who was junior as regards salary and had lower qualifications. It went on to say that the Department’s geophysical activities, including the buying, designing and construction of new instruments, which involved an expenditure of thousands of pounds, are to a large extent dependent on the technical services and advice of Mr. A., although he still has the rank of a junior geologist. Mr. A. has also had to instruct geophysicists in the use and application of some of the geophysical methods. This is a matter in which I am very interested and for years I have tried to make some study of it. In a country like South Africa where it is so extremely important that we shall have the best advice on detecting underground water supplies, I feel that the Minister is fully aware of the great importance of this section of his Department, the Geological and Géo-physical Section. May I by way of an interjection have a reply from the Minister to this question: Now that the war in Europe and in North Africa is over, will the Minister allow these instruments to be made available for use in the country once more? During the war years these instruments were used up North, and it is these instruments and these geophysicists who made it possible for our troops to get water. It was the technical brains in Pretoria which made it possible, but they were overlooked for promotion. This particular man to whom I have been referring is the man who designed one of the latest instruments. It is an improvement on the design not only of the greatest American scientists, which was developed here in our country, but it is probably the most scientific instrument in the world. He is a man of world fame, of whom we may well be proud. He is a highly qualified and experienced man, but he was overlooked and other people promoted over his head. If a man like that worked for a private firm and he invented an instrument like that he would have received thousands of pounds compensation for it. Is that the way in which our Government servants are continually being treated in this country? I feel that I have no option but to protest very strongly. I hope the Minister will investigate this matter. These promotions have been made since the time the Director of the Geological Survey was so busy that he did not have time at his disposal to devote his attention to the Geological Survey Department. There is another point. A senior geologist had to be appointed in that Department. I have never met this man nor even seen him, but I know his qualifications and have a record of his technical attainments and of the work he has done. He obtained his doctor’s degree in Zurich. I have details of his record. In December, 1929, he passed his geography and Latin at the University of Pretoria. In December, 1931, he completed his B.Sc. degree with distinction. In December, 1932, he obtained his M.Sc. degree in geology with distinction, and with such distinction that the Pretoria University gave him a bursary on which to go and study overseas for two years and four months, free, in Europe. He was advised by the head of his section to accept it, and he went over. He did most valuable work and was specially recommended by the head of his section for future promotion. During this time the war broke out and another gentleman, Dr. X., who studied at Cape Town University, was appointed. His academical career was as follows: In 1930 he got a third-class pass in applied mathematics and a third-class in chemistry, and also a third-class in Physics. In 1931 he passed geology third-class, Social Anthropology third-class and chemistry third-class. In February, 1932, he had to write a supplementary examination in pure mathematics. In December, 1932, he got a third-class for geology. In February, 1933, he had to write a supplementary examination in physics and some other subject, and in December, 1933, received his M.Sc. Whilst this man was on active service he received his doctor’s degree. [Time limit.]

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to a question which I asked him at the beginning of the Session in connection with the mining school on the Witwatersrand. His reply was most unsatisfactory, namely that English was simply the only medium of instruction. When now and again a request was made for Afrikaans, something could be obtained through the medium of Afrikaans. That is not a proper policy. Provision should be made for both languages. I understand that 149 teachers were appointed already and that there are about 1,300 apprentices. It should be an easy matter to arrange for parallel classes. Why must one have to ask that lessons be given in a particular language? I should like to hear from the Minister what steps he will take to improve that position. This concerns the vital question of the medium of education. The apprentices going there in many cases hail from the platteland and they may not be so well versed in the second language. They should be able to get their training in the language which suits them best. Another point is the question of examinations. Examinations are held there for mine managers, holders of blasting certificates, etc., and I should like to know whether examinations, can be written in either of the two languages. Then there is a further question which has become a fairly important problem on the Rand. That is the question of the demonstration of 10,000 natives. I believe that this is a matter which falls under the Minister of Mines. A news item in regard to this appears in today’s papers. I understand that there are between 400,000 and 500,000 natives on the Rand.

That matter does not come under this Vote.

Then I want to refer to another matter, namely the food that is being supplied to the natives. I notice that weekly 3¾ lbs. of meat are being supplied to every native. That means more than ½ lb. per day and then we do not even take account of Wednesday being a meatless day. Well, half a pound of meat per day is much more than the Europeans are now receiving here in Cape Town.

The hon. member cannot discuss that under this Vote.

This comes under the agreement with the natives living in the compounds.

That is not a matter falling under the Minister of Mines.

I thought this was a matter coming under the supervision of the Minister.

I am sorry, but I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss that matter now.

Then I would like to deal with another matter, namely the question of professional diggers. Will the Minister tell us what he means by the term professional diggers?. Is a professional digger a person who has held a diggers’ licence for several years; can new persons become professional diggers, for instance the son of a professional digger? We should like to hear what the Minister’s policy is and whether he wants to gradually eliminate the professional diggers by the natural process of their dying out? Is he going to provide a rehabilitation scheme in connection with the professional digger? Then there is another matter I should like to raise in order to obtain information, viz. in regard to the minerals in South-West Africa. At the moment matters have practically come to a complete stoppage. Many of the people who used to mine copper, vanadium and similar products have been interbed and their mines closed down. The Minister of Mines will know that minerals are one of the things in South-West Africa reserved for the Union Government. It therefore comes under the Minister of Mines and we should like to hear from him what his policy is going to be in regard to those minerals. One finds many ores such as copper and vanadium there, also gold and diamonds, and a large amount of development could take place there. Will he give us a clear statement what he is going to do in the future, for the people there would like to know what the prospects are. I now come to my last point. To my mind it is detrimental to our country that the natives on the Rand mines should have certain privileges for sending money out of the Union to their own country and that this can be done free through the post. Why are they allowed to send that money out of the Union so that they cannot spend it here? This does not look like a question of South Africa First but of Portuguese East Africa First, for the money goes to that country. I think that the Minister should go into this matter, for the money is being earned here in our country.

That is a matter which falls under the Treasury and not under this Vote.

Mr. NAUDÉ: I would like to ask the Minister to make a stattement to this Committee and the country in regard to the asbestos industry. The Miniser knows what the position was at Pietersburg. We really have mountains of asbestos there, tens of thousands of tons, and these were being developed, perhaps not on a very great scale, but at any rate hundreds of people made a living out of it, but for no reason for which we can account these mines had to close down. We know that the reason given was that a permit for export was refused. We would like to know what the position will be now that the war is ended. Will permits be available? Will there be permits again and export trade? What is the position? Speaking for myself, I think it was rather strange that nothing should be done where one finds that one has a product in this country which one can develop to employ hundreds of people. Cannot something be done? Cannot the Minister suggest something to develop the industry to provide for our own requirements of asbestos? There are many articles made of asbestos, ceilings and roofing. Cannot this asbestos be used for that purpose? I am not suggesting it, but I am asking whether the Department has given attention to the matter. There is the Industrial Development Corporation. I do not know whether it is their function to enquire into that sort of thing, but I want to know whether something cannot be done to develop it, where one finds that the export market is frozen and one cannot export any more. At this juncture I would like the Minister to tell us whether it is possible to obtain permits to export and whether these mines can be re-opened. It was a tremendous blow to the Northern Transvaal, where hundreds of these people were employed. I understand they were told that they could not work again. May I ask whether it is not possible for the Mines Department to consider a policy in connection with this product of making advances against the delivery of the product? Why was it not possible, when temporarily they could not export, for these people to be paid something on the delivery of asbestos, say 50 per cent. of the ordinary market value? That could have been advanced, and it would have been a business proposition. Any ordinary business would have done it. And when the Minister gives his reply I would like him to tell the country why only one particular concern, the Cape Asbestos Company, was given a permit to export, because there were other companies interested but they were told that only one company can export. That seems unreasonable. It seems as if one company was getting favoured treatment, a monopoly. It was a very serious matter for the other companies and they had to close down. I would also like to ask the Minister this. I want to ask the Minister why he does not give his replies later on. I have made the same suggestion to other Ministers, that members would appreciate it if they can get replies afterwards. We raise these matters in the public interest and we like to have these replies so as to be able to show to the people who brought it to our notice. Then, in regard to corundum I would like to have a statement about what the position is. Will there be a market again? At the moment conditions are serious in the Pietersburg district. We know that this is a metal which can be mined by any farmer. That applies to chrome too. We would like to know what the position will be about these two products. Then there is one more suggestion. If a farmer or prospector knows that he has found a sample of ore or quartz and he considers it to be mineralized, why cannot provision be made for him to go to the Mines Department to have it tested?

It can come post free, without any charge.

Very often people come along and hand a sample to speculators and ask them to find out what the position is. I think it is only fair that the farmer should be encouraged to bring minerals found on his farm to the Department of Mines to be tested.

We test hundreds of samples a year.

I may tell the Minister that that is not generally known. I hope the farmers will now get to know about it.

A little while ago when I had the opportunity to say a few words I pointed out that the Government has a quota of 15 per cent. for the sale of diamonds through the Producers’ Association. I asked the Minister whether the Union Government also paid not more than 15 per cent. of the costs in connection with the sale of diamonds through the association, or whether he had to pay a higher percentage. The Minister did pot reply to it. Furthermore I should like to hear from the Minister what the reason was for the closing of the Premier Mine. I would be very glad if the Minister could inform the House what the reason was. Then I should like to hear what has happened to the quota which the Government held for that mine. I also want to put a further question to the Minister. During the past few years our diamond-cutting industry has developed at a fair rate. We know that Belgium and Holland had a very considerable cutting industry. The war in Europe is over and they will begin work again. What steps has the Government taken in order to protect our local cutting works and what is the policy of the Government for the protection and development of our local cutting works? If the Government is prepared to protect our diamond industry it can be expanded to become an important industry. In regard to the deed of agreement I told the Minister that there is a clause in the contract stating that the Minister has the right to virtually cancel the agreement every six months. May I read to the Minister what is stated in Clause 39 on page 12 of the agreement in regard to the currency of the agreement—

I take it that the war in Europe is meant by that. Then it goes on—

Hostilities have now ceased and I want to know whether the Minister has already informed the other members of the Association.

I wish to reply very briefly to this, but there are some important points raised. The hon. member for Lichtenburg (Mr. Ludick) asked me why Premier Mine closed down. It closed down years ago because it did not pay. I have made a contract with the directors of the Premier Mine to re-equip it as an up-to-date modern mine as soon as the war is over. I hope it will come into operation as quickly as possible. We are anticipating the ending of the war and arrangements are already under way for the re-equipment of the mine. The de-watering of the mine is already under way. It is producing mainly industrials of a high class. The diamond-cutting industry we have made preparation for by giving 250 of our young people here a training as cutters and polishers so as to be ready for the trade not only during the war but after it. We have got 250 apprentices working now, and I hope that they will become first-class tradesmen. I have dealt with the 15 per cent. quota. The contributions are proportionate. I may mention this for public information, that the Mines Department has nothing to do with the mineral development of South-West Africa. That is specially provided for.

No, it was kept out of the Act and it falls under you.

No, that is not so. It is done entirely by the South-West Administration. There is no provision for it under this Vote. But what we do do is to second an officer from our Department who acts there; but the responsibility is not mine but that of the Administrator. The hon. member for Namaqualand (Lt.-Col. Booysen) asked about mineral development there. Minerals in Namaqualand, such as they are, are being developed. Copper is being heavily developed. We are subsidising a road at considerable expense. Over £100,000 has already been spent upon that. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) asked about asbestos, corundum and chrome. I wish I could tell him. I am speaking from memory, but asbestos is being supplied only by the Cape Asbestos Company. That has nothing to do with the company at all, but the producers in America preferred that product to the Transvaal asbestos. There is a large range of qualities in asbestos, and they preferred it, and so permits were given for the one for which there was a market, and denied for the rest. The general policy is that export permits are granted as and when shipping and a market are available. As regards corundum I am sending out a field party to see what they can discover. The results at depth with corundum have not been very successful or promising. In regard to chrome, we have large quantities, but the market has dried up. In the stress of war considerable quantities of chrome have been found in the United States. I am hoping that our chrome will be more attractive when we have completed some experiments in concentration and are to offer a more attractive output.

Will you tell us about the tests your Department makes.

Anyone may send in to us any sample obtained from his own farm, or anywhere else, for examination and report. It may be sent post free. It is submitted to the Department’s technicians and a reply is sent as to what its likely commercial value will be, together with an analysis. That facility has been largely taken advantage of and I am surprised it is not universally known. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) wanted to know if fresh people could obtain diggers’ certificates and work on the alluvial fields. No; the policy which Parliament sanctioned and approved of after a Select Committee had sat on it was that new certificates should only be given with the consent of the Minister of Mines on his special approval, and in accordance with the spirit of that I only give a new certificate to a new applicant under very exceptional circumstances, and it is very rarely I do it, the object being to reserve the available ground for the class of old professional digger who is still there and has been there trying to earn a living, and who at the present moment is in very poor circumstances indeed. What I am hoping is we shall eventually get some balance between the diamondiferous ground available and the number of certificate holders who want to work. If it is ill-balanced and there are far more certificate holders than there is diamondiferous ground I do not issue fresh certificates. That policy has met with very wide approval on the diamond fields. In regard to the Government schools I have already given an answer and I am surprised this matter has been raised, because our Government schools have been in existence for many years and they carry on without the slightest friction or the smallest complaint. Nothing of the kind has ever reached me. Whatever the wants of the apprentices are, as far as language is concerned they are met.

But they have to ask for it.

I understand that it is very difficult to arrange for two lectures to be held in different places at exactly the same time by two different people. I think this is a matter on which there should be a reasonable arrangement. I want to say that the rules have nothing to do with me the rules have not been drafted by me; they are the product of long experience, and I have found the greatest contentment, the greatest goodwill and the greatest proficiency from their operation. I am very loth to give orders and I have not given any on this subject. As far as I know the same rules have been applied and the same practice has prevailed under the last government and under the government before that. Is that sufficient?

The Government has a say; they appoint the governing committee.

I suggest the hon. member ought to be satisfied, as the last three governments have sanctioned and approved of the practice that now prevails. The hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) raised some questions in regard to promotions. I have had difficulty in following all the hints he has given in regard to the different people concerned. May I suggest to him that we adopt the procedure the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) suggested, that he should write to me and send me the papers in regard to any case he thinks is one of hardship, and I will go into it and reply to him in writing. It is not possible for me here at this hour to dig up these particular cases. I might have to send for a file to Johannesburg, for all I know. The hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) raised the question of the aluminium dust treatment for silicosis. The committee that we have taking measures against the spread of silicosis and finding the most up-to-date method of dealing with it went into that at once; they made full enquiries as to the technique and the results at the Porcupine Mine, and I am watching it very closely indeed. It may be we shall have experiments here. I think that covers all the points.

In reference to the Minister’s reply on the questions of promotion I raised a few minutes ago, I am very pleased the Minister is prepared to go into the matter if I submit this to him in writing. As I have said before, these people I have mentioned do not know I am speaking about them, but I feel a very great injustice has been done in regard to promotions in the last few years in the Geological Department, and we cannot dispose of this injustice merely by waving our hands. These are highly qualified technical people who are affected; they have done hard work during the war years, and unless we can reassure them that they will get a fair deal we cannot expect that our mining industry—the future development of which is largely in the hands of these highly qualified technical people—will develop satisfactorily. There is this instance of a man being promoted over the heads of others, a man with a number of third-class passes arid supplementary examinations. The Minister may say that a man with a bad university record may not turn out to be a bad technical man, but I think it is only in exceptional cases where that holds.

Can I say more than that I will go into it?

But I want to put a few more points. The man who has been promoted senior geologist has been promoted purely and simply on the grounds of his war service in the north. Other men who tendered their services for the war were too valuable to release, and the man whose services were of the least value was sent up north. The other men were kept here, carrying on investigations for war purposes on all types of minerals, and as the Minister is aware they did not receive promotion, but the man who went north has got promotion purely and simply on account of his red tabs. If that is the system the Government is folowing in respect of promotion it is nothing more than the old system of spoils that was carried out in the United States. If that is the so-called merit system, the sooner we do away with it the better. To my mind, in technical cases especially where the qualifications of a man can so readily be determined, the time is overdue when the whole system of promotion in the Government service should be changged, and some definite system should be laid down under which the best man can get the job. What is more, this man who was up north and who has now been promoted to senior geologist was at one time under the Director of the Geological Survey Division, who would not recommend his ordinary annual salary increment; not only had he all these third-class passes and supplementary examinations, but at one time before the war the Director of the Geological Survey would not recommend his ordinary increment. Still, he has been promoted above the heads of all the others because he is wearing red tabs, in spite of the fact that the other men were just as willing to serve in a military capacity and remained to do similar and more important work in the Union. I hope the Minister will be good enough to go carefully into the matter, and not give it just a casual examination. The Minister will realise how important it is that such an important section of the Government service, and such an important section of his department should function satisfactorily and that the best men should get the best jobs.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 32.—“Lands”, £390,000,

I move—

Agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 15th May.