I move—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill has got a very long pedigree. In the last generation alone no fewer than 14 Acts of Parliament have been adopted with regard to the subject matter of this Bill, and this is the fifteenth. Bill within the last generation to deal with this subject. It is therefore clear the subject is not only one which is very difficult on which to legislate, but is one which has caused a very great deal of public attention, and the literature which is at the back of the subject is very considerable too. Not only has there been one Act following upon another, from year to year almost, but there have been commissions, one after the other, dealing with and reporting on the subject matter, and the literature therefore is very considerable indeed. To this I have added the report of a commission which, on my initiative, was appointed by His Excellency for the purpose of again reporting and bringing up to date the subjects dealt with in this Bill. I wish to take this opportunity, and I think the House will agree, it is right and proper I should do so, to express our appreciation of the very learned and valuable report which was brought up by this commission. Although the commissioners were sharply divided on one at any rate of the fundamental issues at stake, no one can read either report, or still less both reports, without finding their intellect stimulated and their knowledge very much enlarged. I wish to extend my acknowledgments to each and all of them. The subject matter of this Bill, as I said, is of very great importance indeed, and it is of importance not only to the particular individuals who are possibly directly concerned as mineworkers, but it is a subject which interests and concerns the whole of the public, not only from the point of view of their desire to do what is right to all sections of the population, but also from the point of view of the effect that legislation upon this matter has upon the conduct and prosperity of the key industry of the country, which so largely maintains the economic standard and supplied funds to the Treasury. I have been rather disappointed, Mr. Speaker, in the Bill which is now before the House not having been introduced at an earlier date this session. My calculations were a little bit out. I had hoped to get the draft of this Bill as early as last November, in which case I would have been able to conduct consultations with the bodies most intimately concerned and to have introduced this Bill to the House at the beginning of the session. However, that was not possible because the draft was not completed, and it was not until a late stage in the Session that I was able to table it and get a first reading. The circumstances therefore were such that it is not possible to ask the House to pass a final decision on this Bill and I am not going to do so now. Indeed, I must add, Mr. Speaker, that the late date at which the draft was made available prevented even the members of the Cabinet from being individually able to consider it in all its bearings and to offer a considered opinion on it, and it was therefore resolved that the Bill should be introduced, that it should be made known, and that we should have a second reading debate on it, but that the House will not be asked to take a vote upon the second reading. The comments which are made and the criticisms which are offered, the constructive proposals that are made, will be taken careful note of, and during the recess I shall make it my business to tackle the problem anew in the light of these criticisms and see what improvements can be made. It is therefore very necessary indeed for all those members of this House who are particularly concerned with this Bill, who here today offer their opinions upon it, to offer their criticisms and to offer any constructive suggestions they have to make, in order that we may here take counsel together, and in order that I, in the light of these proposals, may be able again to devote attention, with the assistance of my Department, to the subject matter, and see what improvements can be made. I rely very much upon the advice, the criticisms and the suggestions which I will receive here today. And may I venture, with great respect to all members of Parliament, to urge this, that in criticising this Bill, in explaining this Bill outside the House, whether in the press or on the publc platform, they make quite sure they understand the measure they are proposing to criticise. I regret to say I have had my attention drawn both to speeches made in public on the Rand, and to comments in the newspapers, which show a wide and deep ignorance of the Bill. I know it is a difficult Bill; I know many of the sections are perhaps somewhat difficult to translate into accurate language, and language which is at the same time of a popular character; but, Mr. Speaker, if that be so I venture to suggest it is no excuse for making a false explanation, but there is very good reason indeed for being very reserved and careful as to the mastery of the subject before anything is said. There are two sides to this question. There is the one which is indicated by the desire which I am sure every member of the House has, and I believe the public has generally, the desire to be not only just but as far as possible to be generous in the treatment of all those to whom we are so much indebted for continuing the mining industry and having taken that up as a career, and thereby winning for us the means of financing our imports from overseas, for maintaining our Treasury, and for raising the standard of life to a degree which without it would not be possible. I say we desire, and I am sure the House will desire, to do more than justice, if possible to be generous, in the allowances that are made to those who, pursuing this industry, fall by the way with this very grievous diseáse. But I have said that there is also another side to this very same problem, and it is this. In considering the amount of compensation which is to be given and the benefits which are to be awarded, regard must also be had to the effect that has on the industry, and I venture to say that the upper limit of any generosity in the direction I have spoken of is reached when unemployment would be created, and any serious restriction of the extension of this industry would be involved. We look forward, the country looks forward, Parliament looks forward, all of us look forward to a future in which social security for the whole population will be attained and maintained by according full employment to the whole of the population. That is the basis of social security in any country, and this is now being widely recognised. I say under the conditions of. South Africa, under our conditions in the economic field in which we have built up our industries, the key industry is the mining industry, and even the great public institutions such as the railways and the steel works and electrical enterprises are all based on a prosperous mining industry, and at the present time it would be a tragedy if instead of a prosperous and an extended and expanded mining industry we would adopt measures which would restrict it and prevent expansion. I venture to say anyone examining these problems and making concrete proposals today must have that prominently before their minds. It is the easiest thing in the world to say that a pension should not be granted at £20 but £30. Any child can rub out one figure and put in another, and we can all agree it is nicer to give the higher figure than the lower figure, but the real problem is you must not extend that to a stage where it is going to destroy the industry or restrict the industry on which your prosperity has been based. That is your limit, and I am convinced that every member of this House when he is speaking either in this House or outside the House will address himself deliberately to both these sides of the question. If they propose the benefit should be substantially or considerably increased let them also indicate how that is going to be financed, and consider what the effect of that financing and expenditure is going to be on the industry as it exists and on the chances and opportunities of expanding. Without that I venture to say criticism will be of very little value. Criticism which merely goes so far as to say: What is proposed in this Bill is a mere bagatelle to what should be done, it is only a fragment of what should be done, criticism which is left at that will, I venture to say, be worth very little indeed. Any child can make an observation of that kind. But criticism which is really devoted to saying the benefits and awards should be raised to a much higher standard, and that the way to do that, the way to finance it, is so and so, and the effect of that upon the mining industry will be something else, and that one stands for all these three elements and is prepared to take the consequences of these three elements, that kind of criticism will be of very great value. I am pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, that I have had a letter from the general secretary of the Mineworkers’ Union in which he has undertaken to send me a memorandum containing proposals which will, in his opinion, satisfy the parties most concerned without increasing the burden upon the mining industry. I am delighted to have received that letter. It was made conditional on my giving certain figures which, of course, I was only too pleased to give. I have given them and I am awaiting that. Whether he succeeds in doing this or not, I welcome the statement because it is a recognition of the two sides to this problem, of on the one side the desire to get the greater benefits, and on the other the necessity of considering the financial consequences. Whether hon. members think that the increased benefits which are given by this Bill are sufficient and should be adopted, or whether they do not, they must agree that there are substantial benefits in this Bill, and the cost of them, as I shall show presently, the burden involved even by the benefits I am proposing, the burden of that is so great, that it will affect deleteriously a number of mines and endanger the precipitation of their closing. I shall go into the figures with regard to this a little later on. At the opening of my remarks I wish to draw attention to this fact. I am proposing in the later clauses of this Bill to introduce a special method of financing which breaks new ground, and I wish very close attention to be given to my proposals here, and I shall value very much indeed any constructive criticism upon it, and if my proposal in this respect does not win favour I shall welcome very much a suggestion as to a substitute. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think this Bill, as any Bill on this subject, should be considered in relation to the object which the draftsman, which the Minister who is responsible for it, has in view. I approach this question with a very definite object, and I would appreciate it if my endeavour will be judged in relation to the object with which Í set out. First of all, my object was to extend the benefits of compensation for silicosis beyond the workers on the scheduled mines. We have a very widespread mining industry all over the country, and it is not confined to gold mining. There is asbestos, there is coal, there is iron, and tin and copper and the rest of them, and in the mining of these other minerals similar injury to the lungs is liable to be caused; and I have always wondered why Parliament in the past in respect of these fourteen measures which have from time to time been introduced, and in which all the parties in this House have had a dip—they have all been responsible for one or other of the governments and have made their contribution—I have always wondered why they rested content with giving compensation to the workers on the mines scheduled on the Witwatersrand and have left the other workers untouched and unprovided for. One cannot help feeling the reason is to be found in the concentration of the voting power on the Witwatersrand and the very scattered and ineffective voting power miners in other parts of the country possess. In my opinion no responsible Minister can be content simply to rest on that. Therefore I have made it a cardinal point in this Bill (which is intended to be a consolidating measure as well as an improving measure) that one of the fundamental provisions should be the extension of the benefits given to miners on the scheduled mines to other miners all over the country. And therefore the definition of silicosis is an extended one. It is any form of pneumoconiosis which is produced through a dusty occupation in mining or any kindred occupation, and they will get compensation on similar lines. But the machinery, of course, is somewhat different. That was the first object I had in view, and I hope that I have achieved that object. The second object I had was to adopt that portion of the machinery which had proved its value or in respect of the schedule of mines, to adopt that and to confirm that, and to adopt it as far as was necessary to the special conditions of outside mines and in that way to build up comprehensive machinery which would deal both with schedules, mines and outside mines. That was the second object, and the third object was to improve the compensation as much as I could within the limits I had set myself, the limit being that in the compensation granted one should not create further unemployment. Within that limit I am prepared to act. Outside that limit I cannot go, unless Parliament will take the responsibility of finding other means of financing, apart from those that exist. There are great difficulties in the way—and I doubt whether any government would put before the country a measure which is calculated to create unemployment and restrict development of the industry on which we depend so much for our economic strength. These are the objects, and these are the limitations with which I was faced, and I have done my best in the light of these conditions to aim at introducing a satisfactory Bill. How far I have succeeded is quite another question. I have not pretended even to myself that I have said the last word or that I am proposing the last word. I do not believe in last words. I believe all one can do in human affairs is to deal with the conditions as they exist in your own time and as they are presented to you and my proposal is not based on the idea that I have said the last word. But my mental attitude is due to this, that in the conditions which exist at the present time I have made the best effort I could to deal with them. How are we to extend the benefits of compensation to outside mines? The proposal that I have adopted here, is to divide them into two portions. I keep the old designation of scheduled mines and I introduced all the others under a new category of registered mines, some controlled and some uncontrolled. Why is that necessary? In my opinion the amount of organisation, the amount of accumulated funds which belong to the scheduled mines make it quite impossible as a matter of administration to put the small mines upon the same register as the great mines of the Witwatersrand which have already accumulated many millions, as a reserve for the latent disease which has been created. I think it meets with the standard of practicability to create these two different categories. I am not closing the list of scheduled mines because I think that if fresh mines come into existence, mines of the same character under the same auspices of the same financial houses, it may be advisable and it may be right to put them on the same register. But many other mines dealing with coal or asbestos or copper or something else I propose to put on a different list and to call them registered mines. Some are controlled and some are uncontrolled. Why is that necessary? That has become necessary because examination of the problem has shown that it will not be possible to give the same medical examination initially and periodically to distant and small mines as can be given to the workers on the great mines on the Witwatersrand, and it may be desirable to have a different standard of fitness. A man, for the sake of example, may be fit and able to work on an open cast asbestos proposition, but he may not have the physique which is necessary to enable him with safety to go down 5,000, 6,000 or 7,000 feet and to work there day after day. Different standards are necessary and the key of my proposals is to keep great flexibility in respect of conditions which will put the mining proposition upon a scheduled list, upon a registered list that is controlled or uncontrolled. The difference between a controlled and uncontrolled registered mine depends mainly upon the degree of fitness which is prescribed for the two, and the degree of examination and attention which it may be possible to give. The details, of course, are set out in the Bill, and I hope that hon. members have not had too much difficulty in following them. That is my proposal. With regard to the difference between native and white, I would like to say this. It has been my aim—I do not say I have succeeded entirely—but it has been my aim to give equal treatment to both, but we have got to recognise that there are very deep differences between the Bantu mine labourer, and the white miner. I have had to recognise that and the proposals which I have introduced with this Bill, I hope, are at any rate a step towards doing equal justice to all sections. I would next like to deal with the Question of machinery which is to be set up. Before you can consider the machinery which must be of a very high standard and very well adapted to these difficult propostions, you must resolve what is to be the basis of compensation. If you are going to adopt the system which was recommended in the Majority Report of the Stratford Commission, you will want different machinery to that which is required if you were to adopt the Minority Report, or if you left the existing conditions. That brings me therefore to offer a few words as to why I have found that it was not possible to adopt the basis which was recommended by the Majority Report and by Mr. Justice Stratford in particular. He, with two of his colleagues out of the five, following the report which had been made in the United States of America upon similar problems had recommended the adoption of the standard for compensation, not injury that is done to any individual, but to the loss of wages which he may have incurred or which he may not have incurred. That was a very attractive proposition at the outset and I may say there were points about it which attracted me. This was submitted to the examination of the joint unions, of the Mineworkers’ Union, of the Chamber of Mines and of the existing Phthisis Board, and it was found that the administrative difficulties in carrying this out were quite overwhelming. I accepted this. In order to test whether there has been a wage loss or whether there has not, alternative forms of employment of course, have got to be considered. A man does not lose the whole of his wages and his wage earning capacity simply because he has silicosis in the early stages. He is still capable of doing great work. He may at the very early stage be capable of doing just as much work as he did before the finding was given, and therefore it was found that that recommendation really involved the setting up of some body which would examine the case of each individual miner and seeing what work he was capable of doing. I was advised by the Phthisis Board that it would involve the examination of the actual employment which was enjoyed or which could be enjoyed by 15,000 beneficiaries, say, at six monthly periods. That was an impossible proposition and the joint unions expressed the very strongest opposition in writing to this, and the Mineworkers’ Union followed suit, and therefore I found that I was faced with the joint opinion of the board, of the joint unions and of the Mineworkers’ Union in disapproving of this system. There was this further observation that the actual creation of silicosis was not under this regarded as an injury compensatable at all. There was no compensation until the actual loss in wages occurred. When I thought it over that did not seem to be right. I felt that to inflict upon or allow to be inflicted upon a man such an injury as silicosis, even in its earlier stage, is an injury which does deserve compensation, and therefore along that line of reasoning, in spite of the very great weight which attaches to the very distinguished gentlemen who supported it—the three of them, a lawyer, an economist and a doctor—in spite of the respect one has for their opinion, I came to the conclusion that I could not propose to Parliament that these administrative difficulties should be faced, and as the House will see, I have adopted in its essential, the existing basis of compensation which is to regard the infliction of the disease as an injury which is to be measured in different stages according to the degree of injury which exists. The next problem which arose was whether the increased benefits were to be given only to new cases or whether existing cases were to be levelled up. This introduced a very difficult problem, on which again the Majority Report differed from the Minority Report and it differed from the course which had been pursued in the 14 different Acts of Parliament preceding this one. The Majority of the commission regarded it as unjust and wrong that the employers should be called upon to pay extra compensation according to the new standard to those who had already been on the list of beneficiaries and who were being compensated on a lower standard. They said no provision had been made for this, and if any levelling was to be done, it should be done at the expense of the State. I have had to consider this, but I came to the conclusion that we should do as we did before, that we should level up and that the industry would have to bear that cost as it is doing now, and therefore, we have got to the main stage at which the basis of compensation is the degree of injury and the levelling up of two workers, past and present. I have just proposed a little alteration. Instead of calling it ante-primary, I call it the first stage. I call it the first stage, the second stage and the third stage, and the definition we have attempted is a simpler one. May I say here how much I am indebted to Dr. Schock for the very great care he took in drafting this Bill and trying to carry out the ideas for which I was responsible, and the accuracy of the language in this statement is, I think, outstanding. I continue the present system of medical control through a bureau and an appeal board, with this addition that in order to overtake the problems which will arise in remote parts of the country, through the institution of registered, controlled and uncontrolled mines, I am extending in this Bill, by the appointment of doctors, not members of the medical bureau, but doctors who will be engaged by the medical bureau and to whom can be confided from time to time such examination for the purpose of such duties as they may think fit, and in order to prevent any abuse of that through a lower degree of efficiency than the bureau itself might exercise, there is provision that no classification of a higher degree and no declaration of the actual quality of the disease shall take place without the approval of the bureau. They may approve or they may disapprove, and on the application of a miner or of anybody representing him— either the miner or his dependants—the bureau may re-examine any decision which this medical authority has come to and may vary the decision, so I think we have very efficient precautions in that respect. Now I come to the composition of the board. I am adopting the existing system of having a board which is going to function in much the same way as the present board does, but the composition of this board is slightly altered. In the first instance I want to give quite definitely some representation to those institutions which are primarily concerned with the administration of this Act, that is to say, the employers and the employees, and one has to consider the scheduled mines and the registered mines in different categories in this respect because they will each have different funds at their disposal—what I have called Fund A, for the scheduled mines and Fund B for the registered mines. So I propose that while the Minister must carry out the responsibility for the appointment of members of the board, he shall have to place as a member on this board, one whom he is quite satisfied represents the employers, and one who represents the employees on the board. I have also thought that natives should have some special protection, and the Bill provides that the Director of Native Labour or some other official appointed by the Minister of Native Affairs, must also be a member of this board. He, of course, will be charged with the special duty of looking after the natives who are concerned. Then it will be noticed that a part of the board are to be part-time members and others are to be whole-time members. I am suggesting that the full-time members should be members of the civil service. Why? It is for this reason, that whilst it is very desirable that you have the representatives of employers and employees on the board, to give its decision on any case that is brought before it, to exercise all the powers that are conferred under this Act, it is not found either necessary or desirable to impose upon them the duty of doing the administrative detail, of carrying out those decisions. In other words, although there may be fifteen thousand cheques every month, which have, got to be signed, it is quite unnecessary to have a representative of either the Chamber of Mines or of the Mineworkers’ Union to sign those cheques. The carrying out of the duties of the board can be done by men who are trained administrators, and therefore I am proposing here to have three full-time members who whilst they can give their voice and take part in the consultation of the board, with the others, would be charged with the administration and carrying out the details of the decisions which the full board has given. It has this additional advantage that it will enable the representation of employers and employees to be kept up to date and to have very close and immediate connection between the members and their constituent bodies. One of the drawbacks of the board as it exists at the present time is this, that a man who has been, say a member of the Mineworkers’ Union and has been a member of the board, proves a very useful member and we do not want to get rid of him, and as he becomes more highly trained, the greater is the desire to keep him. But it has been found that he grows out of touch with his constituents, and I have actually had a complaint from the Mineworkers’ Union that their present representative on the board, who is a very trusted and able member of the board, ceases to represent them altogether and that he now represents only the Government. I see there is an element of truth in that, and the remedy I therefore propose in this Bill is to create part-time members who may be changed quite frequently without any injury to the administration of the bureau that is so necessary. The carrying out of the decisions of the board will be in the hands of trained administrators, but the decisions may be modified by those who have much less experience but are in close touch with their constituent bodies. I commend that proposal to the good sense of this House, and I shall be glad to hear any criticism upon it, but there is one thing I deprecate and that is to suggest that the proposal I make is handing over the administration of the board to the civil service. It is doing nothing of the kind. It is leaving to trained administrators of the service, the task of carrying out the decisions of the board.

Do you not admit that the administration of anything can kill the decisions actually made?

No, I do not think so unless it is perverse, and I think the fact that all these administrators have to be members of the board, and meet their colleagues on the board, is a complete guarantee that the decisions of the board will be carried out in good faith by their colleagues. I imagine there would be a first-class row at the meeting of the board if it were found that in administration the civil service members were flouting the decision which the board in full meeting had come to. I feel confident myself that that would not arise. I want to say a word about the outstanding liability. I do not know if it is realised what a tremendous weight the outstanding liability of the scheduled mines is. It has been a millstone round their necks from the word “go”. Outstanding liability hon. members will find, is very accurately and simply defined in Clause 34, and it really represents in respect of scheduled mines the liability which is being imposed upon those mines to bear the cost of phthisis which has been created by other mines and by their own mines at an earlier period and for which no provision has been made, and it is impossible to pay out all this money at once, and therefore it is an outstanding liability which is financed in yearly instalments, and the financing of the present outstanding liability is one of the heaviest burdens which the mining industry has to bear. I have therefore given my close attention to this. The contribution that the mine has to make is, first of all, a contribution to that outstanding liability, and secondly a levy. The levy is supposed to deal with the current liabilities and to meet them. The outstanding liabilities are otherwise financed. The levy becomes increasingly heavy as the mine nears the end of its life, and this, under the present system, is a very undesirable fact, making the burden of the Miners Phthisis provision, of the silicosis provision, increasingly heavy, as the mine approaches the end of its life, a very undesirable feature and one which has been prominently before me in respect of the mines which have given notice of their determination to close. The quarterly levies are levied on a peculiar basis; half of the amount is levied according to the silicosis rate which prevails at the particular mine, and as this silicosis rate naturally in the course of events becomes greater and greater in the life of the mine and is practically non-existent when the mine starts its life, and increasing burden of 50 cent. will be outstanding. Another 20 per cent. of this assessment is based upon the assessment for normal income tax and 30 per cent. is made proportionate to earnings of the miners in the relative mines. I am very doubtful indeed if that basis is satisfactory, but it is done with the consent and by the consent of the miners concerned themselves, I propose that there shall be an alteration but the alteration which I am proposing in this Bill, with the power to vary this, was raised with the board and not with the mines themselves, and I think that the flexibility which that will give, will enable alterations to be tried and ’ tested and corrected as experience may direct. I hope that they will get a good return from that. I may say that I am very sorry indeed—and I think the whole country may have missed a very great opportunity indeed—that they did not settle the whole of this outstanding liability in one lump sum at the time the Union went off gold. At the time the Union went off gold and there was this great-increase in the value of gold I think the whole of this might have been liquidated without injury to anyone, but for one reason or another the opportunity was allowed to slip and we are now in the position where we have to face the consequences at a time when we are not by any means so ready and prepared. I turn now to the improvements I propose to introduce. The improvements outlined in the Bill, are, I think, very considerable, and should be noted even by those hon. members who think they are not sufficient. Still they are considerable and taken as a whole they involve another £100,000 per annum in the levies and increase the outstanding liability to £4,700,000 which, if it is to be financed in the same way as it is being financed at present, would involve the setting aside of £600,000 per annum for the next eight years, and the burden of that upon the producing mines at present will in my opinion be disastrous, and so I am making an alternative financial suggestion which I will deal with later. But the improvements under this Bill should be pointed out because they have not apparently been appreciated either in the speeches made or in the references in the Press. For the first stage there is practically no difference between the two Bills. On the monthly earnings at £37 it is somewhat more, but after that it becomes somewhat less at monthly earnings of £55, at which figure there is a swelling, in the average case, which would bring in a lump sum compensation of £472 10s. I am taking the average case of a miner as one who earns £45 a month and whose benefits would be based upon such a figure. There is not very much difference between the suggestion of the joint unions in this respect and the proposal in the Bill. The joint unions in their memorandum to me recommend the granting of a lump sum payment, but the Mine Workers’ Union have plumped for a pension from the very first. I went into that question and I found that the pension which would be given was so small that I thought there was very good reason for thinking that the lump sum of £472 would be more valuable to the recipient, and therefore the proposal in the Bill is that the compensation for the first stage should be a lump sum based upon-earnings with the salary at £55. We come to the second stage. Here the proposals of the Bill make a very great advance and I hope that full justice will be done to it. Under the existing Act another lump sum is paid when the man passes from the ante-rimary to the primary stage, i.e. from the first to the second stage. Another lump sum is given, which in the average case, based on wages comes to £250, so that although under the existing law £472 10s. is given as a lump sum compensation on his getting into the first stage, when he got into the second stage he only got another £250 as a lump sum. When this matter was discussed in this House years ago, and I was speaking in opposition, I took a very strong stand on this, as perhaps many hon. members are aware, and I said that I was not satisfied and that I would do my best on every occasion to get that wrong put right and to get increased compensation for the primaries who are now in the second stage. I am doing that to the best of my ability in this proposal which I now make, and that is that in the second stage everyone gets a pension; not as much as one would like, but everyone gets a pension, a pension for himself and an allowance for his wife and children. Instead of getting this lump sum of £250 the miner in the average case under these proposals now gets £7 10s. for himself, £1 13s. for his wife, and 16s. 6d. for each child, i.e. £9 19s. 6d.

He will at least be able to pay for a furnished room.

I gather from the remark of the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers) that he considers this to be an insignificant sum. I shall look forward to hearing the hon. member for Mayfair telling us not only what the figure should be in his opinion but how he will finance it and what he thinks the effect of the increased cost will be on the industry as a whole. If he will do that I will be very pleased. At present I am considering what a great advance the proposal is on the existing law, not the figure which the hon. member will give us, which may be any figure he likes, I am not judging it by that but by the standard of the existing law, and by that standard the pension of £9 19s. 6d. is a very great advance on the lump sum of £250.

What are they getting at present as an ex gratia payment?

I am glad that has been mentioned. The hon. member seems to think that the provisions of the Bill are concerned with wiping out the ex gratia payment. I was just going to say that the possibility of ex gratia payments in addition to this pension is provided for in this Bill. It is quite untrue, as I believe the hon. member has said somewhere, that the proposals of this Bill are a reduction of what the present Act provides for. The truth is that instead of a lump sum of £250 this pension is given for as long as the miner remains in that position, whether it be for two years or 20 or for the rest of his life, and he is similarly open to get a further ex gratia grant as he does under the existing Act when he is in need. So he has both. Now, that has been perverted in statements made elsewhere and I am glad to havé the opportunity here to make this statement emphatically, and I hope it will be duly observed.

Does your Department know the degree of disability of a man in the second stage?

That is for the Medical Bureau to establish and they do it by all the apparatus they have at their disposal. It is roughly calculated that 1 per cent. to 25 per cent. disability represents the first stage, and from 26 per cent. to 55 per cent. the second stage, and anything over 55 per cent. represents the third stage; but that is a label rather than a scientific description. I know of no better way of determining the amount of disability than by relying on the most competent body of medical men I can find, with the most up-to-date apparatus. If there is a better method I should be glad to hear of it and to make the appropriate amendments.

But there is a tremendous disparity between 26 per cent. and 55 per cent. disability.

Yes, that is true, and there is a great disparity between 1 per cent. and 25 per cent. I suppose one might just as well say that a pension of £7 10s. for a man with 1 per cent. disability is excessive, if it is deemed sufficient for a man with 24 per cent. But one cannot alter the percentages and as I say this description in the form of a percentage is a label rather than a scientific description. Now, the ex gratia payments are provided for and it may be given to any man in the secondary stage of silicosis who proves that he is in need. May I say at once that no one who gets the grant at present, either by way of monthly allowance, or in any other way, will in any case get less when the Bill is passed. Now, I want to point out here that there is a very beneficial departure from the provisions of the present Act in the provision for children. Under the existing Act any child over number 3 only comes in for half a child’s allowance. There is a sort of wholesale element introduced into the compensation for children which I have never been able to understand or to approve of, and the proposal I make right through this Bill is this, that when provision is made for a child on a certain basis the same provision should be made for all children, no matter how many there are. I hope that will be appreciated. I am told that there has been some misunderstanding about the provision for set-off in connection with the grant of this pension. It is a very simple position. If the phthisis subject has been compensated already with a lump sum for the second stage, if he has got his £250, it is not proposed that he should get the pension in addition to that if the grant of £250 was made not less than 25 months before the levelling up. It would create a very grave amount of dissatisfaction if some get two compensations, one of £250, and the second of a pension, at the same time. It would not be right. What I am proposing to do in this Bill is to date back the award for the purpose of the set-off and the date on which he was found to be in the secondary stage, and if he was found to be in the second stage and got his £250 25 months or more before the levelling up came about, there would be not set-off at all. He would get his pension clear from that date. But if the week before he was awarded a pension he had already been awarded £250 under the old Act it would be manifestly unfair that he should keep both, so to that extent, but no more, does the set-off work. That principle has been embodied in legislation which is already on the Statute Book. I now want to deal with the third stage and here the monthly pension is still given, but at an increased rate. The pension is also fixed on the basis of monthly earnings of £30 or more. In the average case a miner with £45 a month would get £18 as against £16 15s. 4d. in the present case, if he has a wife and children. That is to say, under the Bill he would get £13 10s. for himself. Under the Act he gets £12 18s. 4d. He would get £3 a month for his wife under the Bill, and £2 11s. 8d. for his wife under the Act. For a child he would get £1 10s. instead of £1 5s. 10d. for the first three children under the Act. That is a substantial improvement. Many members might think that is not enough. I would like to give more if I could get the money, but again I say that any hon. member or institution which proposes substantially to increase this must also face the position of how it is to be financed and what effect the financing will have on the future of the industry and the maintenance of the economic standard in South Africa. An equal amount is provided by way of pension for every child under 16 as against the provision of the Act under which each child over the number of three gets only half. When a miner is initially certified to have silicosis and is found to have the third stage, or silicosis with tuberculosis, he becomes entitled in addition to the pension to the lump sum provided for the first stage of silicosis. Under the Act the lump sum does not accrue, so that is another very substantial difference which this Bill provides for. Then there is the attendance allowance. It has been found that silicosis sufferers very often require an attendant, and the wife’s attention is taken up by her house and children. There is no provision under the existing Act for meeting that. The Bill proposes not that attendants be given instead of the wife, but in addition to it, and provision is made that the board may award a duplication of the wife’s allowance for attending in a case where it is necessary, a very substantial advantage. I turn to tuberculosis. Where a miner has had less than ten years’ service in a dusty occupation and gets the disease in a scheduled mine or within one year of being so employed, the benefit provided is a lump sum prescribed for the first stage plus 50 per cent. As a matter of fact I should raise that probably to 58 per cent. to make it work out exactly the same as it is now, but that is a mere detail. But with less than ten years’ service the tuberculotic even in a scheduled mine gets the lump sum plus 50 per cent. As under the Act the benefit accrues where the miner is working for one year or more but not to miners whose service is less than one year, the departure from the Act being made by the provision of a higher scale of pension plus a lump sum in the first stage for a miner who contracts tuberculosis after ten years, that is a very substantial improvement. A very substantial advance is made in that respect, and the justification for it is this: I am advised by the medical department, by the Board of Appeal, that after ten years’ work underground they think that there is reason to suppose that the development of tuberculosis may be attributed to work on the mines. For a lesser period than that they do not think that the evidence is anything like sufficient. In this proposal I have followed the best medical advice I could get and I am proposing to give a tuberculotic with more than ten years’ service the same treatment which is given to a silicotic in the third stage. The benefits referred to accrue to a miner whilst he contracts the disease whilst employed at, or within one year of his employment at, a scheduled or registered mine. The miner who has been compensated under the Act for tuberculosis without silicosis and whose service underground amounts to ten years will receive the pension on the date the Bill comes into force if resident in South Africa. Provision is made for the set-off of approximately £250 against the pension as referred to in the second stage. At present there are about 220 miners in South Africa who have been compensated for simple tuberculosis. Of these about 160 have more than ten years’ service underground and would qualify for the pension at once. It is estimated that only ten per cent. of that number would have to pay any set-off at all. The monthly allowances are to be converted into pensions when the amount of a pension is greater than the monthly allowance, subject to the miner being resident in South Africa. For the dependants the increase in the pension rights of miners as against those under the Act resulted in corresponding increased rights to the dependants. On monthly earnings of £30 or more the monthly pension of a widow with one child is £9, £6 for the widow and £3 for the child, whereas under the Act it is £7 6s., £4 17s 6d. for the widow and £2 8s. 6d. for the child. A departure from the Act is made in the pensions to the dependants of a miner who had tuberculosis without silicosis at the time of his death if he worked for ten years or more in the dústy occupations in scheduled or registered mines, and when the pension accrues to the dependants of the miner for whom no compensation was awarded, they become entitled to the lump sum benefit provided for the first stage in addition to the pension. Under the Act the corresponding lump sum benefit only accrues to the dependants if the miner worked in a scheduled mine for one year immediately before his death and if they lived in South Africa. Existing monthly allowances are converted into pensions. As to residential qualifications, the increased benefits provided for miners and dependants will accrue in new cases irrespective of residence, and in existing cases also but only if the beneficiary lives in South Africa, when the Bill comes into force. There is a very important provision made here about continued employment in dusty occupations. Under the existing Act, if they have taken the benefit they are not allowed to continue to work in a dusty occupation. Miners who have been granted benefits for the first and second stages of silicosis will not be debarred from working in dusty occupations in scheduled or registered mines and this will apply to miners who have been granted benefits under the Act for the ante-primary or primary silicosis. Second stage pensions will not, however, be payable if the miner is so working. In making this alteration I have been very much impressed by the evidence which was put before me of the desire of silicotics to do more work, their loneliness when not working and evidence that when they are left without employment, that is one of the factors which first of all affects their mentality and secondly tends to aggravate the disease; and therefore, although there is conflicting evidence about it, I have come to the conclusion embodied in the terms of this Bill that a miner should be allowed to take all his benefits and at his own option, if he so desires, can continue his work underground, with this qualification that if in the second stage he decides to work underground he should not get the pension for the month he worked underground, but if after a month or six months he takes some other occupation, his pension at once accrues again.

In other words, as long as he works outside the mine his pension carries on?

Yes, as long as he does not go underground. I now turn to native labourers. I want to say this, that my original design was to provide pensions for the native labourers as I have provided them for the Europeans, but the complications in the way of doing this have beaten me for the time being. Therefore I have had to content myself with increasing the lump sum. But I have taken a great step towards preparing the way for the pensions. Under the existing Act the benefit for a native is given by the mine which last employed him, and it is just a vote out of the mine’s accounts and there is no security for the giving of a benefit to a native who has got the disease after that mine has closed down. In other words, the protection given to white miners by the constitution of the Compensation Fund has, under the present Act, not been extended to natives, and there is no security for natives under the present Act. I have laid the foundation for the granting of pensions to natives in making the payment for the benefit accrue from the Compensation Fund instead of being merely a vote out of the accounts of the particular mine. That gives complete protection to the mine, whatever it may be. I am proposing under the Bill to increase the amount of compensation to the native labourers. The House will remember that under the Bill I introduced a few years ago the earnings of the native labourer were to be assessed on the estimated value of his food and lodging in addition to his wages. The average is now taken as being £5 a month. Under the Act 12 times that amount is paid for the first stage, 18 times for the second stage and 24 times for the third stage. Under the Bill there will be a flat rate of 36 times this amount. So that is a very substantial increase even though some may say it is not quite enough. It would involve the Compensation Fund in an increased amount of millions. The benefit to a native labourer who has less than eight years’ service in dusty occupations in a scheduled mine, and who contracts tuberculosis, is 20 times his monthly earnings with a minimum of £100, the minimum in the other case being £180. If the native labourer is found subsequently to have silicosis as well as tuberculosis the benefit will be increased. An additional amount of compensation will accrue to Union native labourers who become entitled to compensation under the Act during the three years preceding the date the Bill comes into force. The Director of Native Labour will receive the payments and will administer them. Finally, I am providing for miners who have had military or naval service during the war. Miners who proceeded on such service will not be prejudiced simply because thereby they have been prevented from submitting themselves for medical examinations that are prescribed. The Board of Appeal has power to extend any prescribed period within which any person should have made application or should have submitted himself for examination, if he has been prevented by circumstances arising out of the war. Those are the main advantages in the way of increased benefits which flow from this Bill, and these increase the amount in levies jointly of £305,000 per annum and of payments to the Trust Fund for the outstanding liability of £600,000, making in all an increased liability per annum of £905,000. The outstanding liability is £4,700,000. Now the effect of this on producing mines is pretty terrible. Even this amount which I have indicated will involve the producing mines in expenditure which I do not think the House will agree to advise. I have had for this purpose calculations made in respect of ten mines. Some of these mines for the purposes of illustration, are those which have given notice to close, and some have not given notice to close but have more or less a long life. I am not going to give the names of the mines. These are the figures. There are 10 mines. In respect of the first mine if these proposals in the Bill are carried out and if this mine works for another year, it will need to find an additional £108,000, equivalent to more than nine years’ working profit on that mine. The effect of that, if this is done, is that the mine will shut down at once. The case of the next mine if it works for another year it will need to find £145,900, which it is absolutely impossible for it to obtain from profits. Another mine—which has not given notice to close—would have to find £38,300, which would represent 12 per cent. of its working profit. Another mine if it worked for another year, would need to find £62,500, which is double its last year’s working profit.

Do you think it is fair to base your calculations on mines that have already given notice to close?

It is very important for this reason, and I will intervene now to answer that. At the present time we are expecting demobilisation. We expect many of our troops to come back, and if they come back and find a series of mines closed down just at this juncture the effect will be disastrous. In order to get an extra year’s life out of the mine is worth a great deal. I am giving instances both of mines that have given notice to close and mines that have not given notice to close, in order that the House may appreciate the position. To continue: Another mine will have to find an additional £233,000, which is equivalent to more than two years’ working profit. Another mine, a very important large mine, would have to find another £132,100, which would represent about 19 per cent. of its last year’s working profit. Another mine would have to find £35,700, which equals 13 per cent. of its working profit. Another one would have to find £117,800, which would represent 3s. 2.2d. per ton milled and would amount to 1⅓ years of its working profits. Another one would have to find £57,000 and would represent 3½ years of its working profit. Another mine would have to find £27,500, which would represent 22 per cent. of its working profit. I have just had these calculations made for the purpose of showing what the effect of the proposals in this Bill will be. Those are the amounts involved in the proposals in the Bill. The House will therefore appreciate that if there is to be a substantial increase in the benefits proposed these amounts will have to be increased, and the effect would be much more far-reaching in the rest of the industry. The effect on the industry is not limited to the consideration of those figures I have given because, as the working costs go up—and under our present administration and laws the cost of compensation for miners’ phthisis goes towards working costs—the possibility is more and more reduced of winning low grade ore and the industry is restricted not only by the closing, and the precipitation of the closing of individual mines, but by the restriction of the ore reserve of the whole of the mines right through the country. I am not saying we have not got to face up to some of those things. But I wish to emphasise that those who claim we have to pay greater benefits than are provided for must face up to the position whether they are going to do this even though it precipitates the closing of mines, and puts out of commission a certain amount of low grade ore, and on the effect it will have on inducement to go in for fresh mining ventures. The effect of that I consider to be very grave indeed. One of the chief reasons I have looked forward to this second reading debate even if it is not concluded, is on account of the opportunities I have of putting before the House, before Parliament and before the country the dual aspect of this problem. The one is the desirability of raising the standard of compensation and giving further benefits; and the other is the effect these proposals are going to have on the mining industry as a whole. During this Session I have had important deputations come to me from the municipalities along the Reef. One in particular came to me from Benoni pressing on me the desirability of doing everything to extend the life of the mines for one year, or for six months even; every little bit would help and would be of the utmost importance to the community. I know it is important, but if notwithstanding those considerations you are going to adopt a measure which will precipitate the closing of the mines, you have to face the issue, and you have to realise that you are driving into unemployment a very considerable number of persons. In order that the House may have an idea of the number of people involved in this, I have taken out the number of white employees in these 10 mines to which I have referred. The number of white employees who would be involved if and when these 10 mines were to close is 8,927.

How many are working in the five mines that intend closing down?

About half and half. There are 10 mines and the figures I gave referred to five who have given notice to close and five who have not. I have had these chosen for the purposes of illustration. But even though they have given notice to close down they have got the chance and the prospect of working for another 12 or 15 months at a period when we have to provide for all our troops coming back. I think it will be a position no Government could face that we should have unemployment suddenly increased by the adoption of a measure which would cramp the leading industry on which our prosperity depends. With the utmost desire to give the most we can no responsible Minister, and I hope no responsible member of Parhament, will venture to go before the country and make proposals which would bring about this increase of unemployment. With pointing out the effect of this on the industry I have come to the end of what I want to say, with one exception. In order to meet this great financial burden which the, mines could not face without some special proposal I am proposing to meet it largely like this—to relieve the producing mines of all responsibility and of the outstanding liability, and I am proposing to do that by creating a special fund which will be fed by the new mines coming into being, not the old and existing mines, but the new mines. I do it in this way. When proposals come for the creation of a new mine they nearly always depend on getting a mining lease over a considerable area—all the bigger ones do—when the mining lease is granted through the Mining Leases Board we can attach conditions, and I propose a condition in the grant of any new mining lease of a particular magnitude should be a surcharge, that 5 per cent. of its shareholding should come to the Silicosis Board; that is to say 5 per cent. of the shares—it would if you like involve a watering of the capital—but 5 per cent. of the shares of the new Ventures are created for the express purpose of meeting the silicosis incidence. I think that may be done without any practical injury to mining development. I think it may mount up to such a sum as will relieve us of the whole of this responsibility. At any rate, the prospects are so good that the Treasury under the proposals of this Bill undertakes that if at the end of 20 years it does not amount to £4,700,000 the Treasury will provide the balance, and in that way we will relieve the producing mines of all responsibility for this outstanding liability of £4,700,000, and of contributing upwards of £600,000 a year in payments. I have indicated the reasons for and the results of the proposals in this Bill, and I now move.

I intend to address myself to the House in the language of the Minister. The Minister has given us a very long recital of the implications and complications of the Bill before us. We appreciate the difficulties involved, particularly those of us who have not had the contacts or the environment he and his colleagues have. Therefore whatever we can contribute must be regarded as the outcome of a genuine attempt to understand the Bill, to measure its implications and to draw our conclusions. This is a very important question. I regard it as a national question, and it is as such we have attempted to approach it. I therefore want to give the Minister as well as the House the assurance that whatever I may say in the course of this debate must be interpreted as the outcome of an attempt to avoid looking for any Party or sectional advantages. But at the same time I state that I and my Party differ very widely from the view taken by the Minister and probably by some of his supporters, and therefore he must expect that we do not agree with him in every respect. I want first to express my very sincere regret that the Government and the Minister have delayed this very important national question for approximately two years since the publication of the report. The significance of the question was perceived, and properly perceived four years ago, in 1941, when the Stratford Commission was appointed, and on whose findings the Minister has properly remarked that it was a very sympathetic report, a very searching report and a very valuable report. The commission took approximately two years to investigate the problem in all its aspects, and since the publication of its report another two years have gone by. In view of the urgency of the problem, in view of its significance, in view of the indigency and suffering, I think it is most reprehensible on the part of the Minister and of the Government to have postponed this very important question so far. Then we have been asking since the start of this Session for the Bill to be produced as early as possible; we got it actually about a month ago. Time has only been made now to bring it before us in order, as stated by the Minister, to discuss it but not to proceed with it. I wish to express our sincere regret, the joint feeling of my Party, that in postponing this matter and in the delay in dealing with it the Minister has excelled the old Roman in delaying, delaying and delaying. He is the delayer par excellence. The Minister must expect us to criticise the Bill in all its aspects and to urge on him and on the Government, in view of the problems involved, to attempt to bring forward a simpler measure to bring relief to the urgent cases. I know the argument he will probably raise later on and avail himself of, but nevertheless that does not relieve the Government or the mining industry of the delay in this very important measure. I have before me a document which is a report, fairly well documented, and drawn on figures submitted and supplied by the Medical Bureau of Miners’ Phthisis, showing the national aspect perhaps more than would be pleasing to the Minister. I want to point out that these are conclusions and implications which must be considered. The Minister referred in his speech to the fact that there were some 1,500 beneficiaries. In the Stratford report—in the minority report—reference is made to approximately 5,000 beneficiaries.

The Minister alluded to the second stage.

That, of course, explains it. Nevertheless there are 5,000 beneficiaries, sufferers from silicosis. In view of the number of sufferers, and the number of their dependants—according to the minority report something like 13,000—there is a total of 18,000 persons who are affected directly, and this matter cannot be allowed to drag on from time to time and from year to year. It is too important for that. And before I come to the report in my hand I want to express my sincere regret at the partial aspect taken by the Minister. The Minister has surprised me. In the Budget debate, in a perfectly uncalled for way, he praised and defended the mining industry. In the course of his speech this morning he has referred to the miners’ interests more than once, but I challenge any member in this House to express a contrary opinion on the question of the bias displayed by the Minister. Let us reflect on it. We have a Minister and Ministers who regard themselves as representatives of certain interests, not as a Government representing the people as a whole, and who regard these industries as sources of income and wealth. I do not want to blame the Minister. I still find he was biased in favour of the mines.

That is absolutely untrue and without a tittle of justification.

I should like any member to draw his conclusions from the impression he gained this morning. I want to confine myself to the national aspect.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned for lunch I was trying to point out the urgency of the position as disclosed by various reports and I was going to refer to two aspects of the report of the Stratford Commission itself. I want to proceed at once with regard to the actual position of the suffering of the beneficiaries. In this connection I wish to read from paragraph 5 of the report where the commissioners state—

The same tenor is also found in paragraph 31 of the commissioners’ report. I am not going to read that, however, Mr. Speaker, because I think that the passage which I have read sufficiently indicates the approach to the position as disclosed by the evidence and by the enquiry of the commission. I want to reiterate that in view of the urgency it is tragic indeed that no steps are to be taken at this stage during the present Session to alleviate the condition of the sufferers as disclosed in this report and in the other report which I read from this morning. Therefore it must be clearly understood that whatever else we may have to say about the Bill before the House now that I personally, and the Party to which I belong cannot associate ourselves with any Bill that is not taking measures which are essential for the improvement of the conditions of the silicosis sufferers and their dependants. Now in regard to the second aspect of the matter in regard to which I want to draw attention, there can be no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill intends to create or set up machinery which will definitely be an improvement on the existing conditions. The Minister has already this morning enumerated the number of improvements and from my own list, which is not as long as his—I may say that most of my list was covered by his own—there can be no dispute that we are agreed that the Bill intends to bring about an improvement in the condition of silicosis sufferers and their dependants. That does not, however, mean to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Bill is by any means the ideal one which we would like to see applicable to silicosis sufferers and their dependants. I listened with attention this morning when the hon. the Minister asked for the close attention of members of this House in regard to this matter and to give serious consideration to the implications of the Bill and to assist where possible. I want to assure him that in so far as I am personally concerned and with the time at my disposal I would like to give more attention to the implications of the Bill if it is not to be proceeded with at the present juncture and whatever assistance I am able to give, I will be prepared to give. I shall also be prepared to give further time to the consideration of the Bill and I am sure that any member whom he would like to approach would be prepared to give him any assistance that he can. Mr. Speaker, apart from certain important improvements the Bill does not meet the position that we could regard as satisfactory. I have listened with attention to the limitation, enumerated by the Minister this morning, in regard to the needs and extent that he might go to make provision for the silicosis sufferers and their dependants. I will however come to that point later on, but before doing so I should first of all like to point out that it appears to me that some of the definitions in the Bill need some slight alteration in order to be more practical to begin with. There is one in particular and that is the definition of silicosis. We appreciate and welcome the extent of the application to the numerous dust diseases but it appears to me that sub-para. (b) of the definition may lead to difficulties of interpretation and I think that ought to be cleared up. That, however, is a matter of detail and can be considered at the Committee Stage. Secondly I think the concept of industrial diseases to the mining industry must be broadened and expanded in the Bill. I know the Minister will reply that that is a form of disease obtaining in the mining industry but it must not be regarded as essential to operations in the mining industry or underground mining. There is a great difference of opinion in regard to that and the weight of opinion at present as disclosed in evidence, is in support of the Minister’s view or rather in support of the view as outlined in the Bill. I think that if he gives consideration to the various factors involved in mining work underground, he will find that the conditions prevailing there must seriously contribute towards the aggravation of and the earlier contraction of the disease in mining. That, however, is a matter which I think requires a good deal of consideration. That is a temporary measure and must be regarded more or less as a matter of charity.

It is not charity.

It provides for the creation of a fund to which applicants must apply. It is not a question of right. I think the Bill should be extended and particularly in that regard I wish to refer to the question of tuberculosis. I have in mind now the important provision of the Bill which provides that sufferers from tuberculosis may claim a pension after 10 years’ service. In my opinion the period is far too long. Although I cannot speak from recent experience myself, I may inform the hon. the Minister and the House of my own faith or belief that there are very few people resident in cities today who do not carry the tubercular bacilli in their lungs or in cavities in their system. Personally I tested myself to the reaction 25 years ago and I am still alive today to record the fact that I was a carrier even at that time. Therefore there are very few people who are not carriers today. It has been said that 75 per cent. of the people are carriers in cities. There is a prevalence in the cities. Notwithstanding the fact that people are carriers they are able to live comfortably and to discharge their duties efficiently. The conditions prevailing in the mines, however, are not such that the sufferers or carriers are able to sufficiently hold out against the disease. Therefore I say and declare with emphasis that I regard conditions in the mines as contributing to the early contraction of the disease of carriers of the bacilli and if they had not been miners, they would have been able, as I have, to overcome the disease and survive. Therefore I think the period for which a man must work in the mines before he is entitled to a pension must be definitely curtailed. I hope to discuss that at a later stage with the Minister. The third point to which I wish to draw attention is that the Bill provides no comprehensible basis for adequate compensation. The Minister referred to this matter this morning. I want to draw attention to the statement made by the Stratford Commission which appeals to one not only because of the clarity of the reasoning thereof but which at the same time suggests the basis on which to build something else whereby one could find a formula on which to base the calculation of compensation. The Minister has replied that in practice it is likely to be unworkable. It is difficult for us who have not had close contact with the development and the intended application of the thing to controvert that statement but at the same time I think every member of this House must feel that until you have a decent theory or basis on which to estimate it the compensation must be arbitrary. That, I think, is unsound. I want to refer to the paragraph of the commission’s report, paragraph 41, to point out what appears to be very sound reasoning—

And it says that the mines and industries must determine their contributions in that regard on the basis of the wage losses which it is estimated will be suffered by the whole body of sufferers from compensatible diseases of the lungs arising from employment in the mines and industries concerned, together with the additional compensation mentioned in the next paragraph. It continues—

Now in practice it may be difficult to estimate because it includes the loss of capacity and of wages earned, the period of life spent in the mines, the curtailment of life, the significance to the industry, but it should be possible for an efficient department to find a proper basis by means of which to determine the measure of compensation, a method which cannot be stigmatised as being arbitrary, as the present method is. I want to point out that there is this additional difficulty in the Bill, namely that we cannot convince ourselves that the provisions are in any way adequate. I tried to point out that whereas the Minister has departed from the basis outlined by the commissioners and has resorted to these methods for fixing compensation, I think that in view of the loss of earnings, the suffering and the curtailment of life, the provisions in the Bill for compensation are not adequate and are not comprehensive enough to provide in any way anything calculated to balance the sacrifices made by the individual in the service of the industry and of the State. I do not think that can be maintained by the Minister, and therefore we have this difficulty that I can only say that we regard the compensation arrived at as insufficient. The Minister will perhaps have his replies ready but first of all, in the absence of any data as to the manner in which these compensation payments have been made, we may be allowed to state that we are entitled to a little more information as to the basis on which the payments are framed. It appears to me that the Minister is not quite clear. He must have had the guidance of his actuaries and other assistants to come to the conclusion that the payments provided for in the second stage are adequate. He must have had some data before him but we have none. Whether he placed the Bill before us for criticism or for sanction, seeing that we say that we are not Convinced that the payments are adequate, the duty rests on him to supply us with the data of his findings. He should make the reports of the actuaries available. If the Minister is not prepared to proceed with the Bill at the moment it is no secret when I say that we are giving serious attention to getting data to assist him, but at the moment we are not satisfied and it rests with the Minister. The duty rests on him to supply data of his finding that the payments are adequate. Actually there is another difficulty that I wish to point out before I proceed. It appears to me that the establishment of a committee to guide and assist the beneficiaries to find employment when they can no longer have employment on the mines should be considered. It should be compulsory on some department to make provision for that. Once your miner has rendered service to the industry and to the State to such an extent that he is no longer fit for work, or fit for work only in such directions where there is no risk of shortening his life, there should be a duty on some department to find employment for him. Where we criticise the inadequacy of the provisions of the Bill we have certain data before us submitted to us-from certain quarters. We have the condition prevailing at present. At the same time we have the condition sugguested in the Bill, and I want to frame something comparable from the data given in the report. The Minister will remember that paragraph 105 of the Stratford Commission’s report outlined certain considerations and payments calculated to make up for the loss of earning capacity. It appears to me that his own provision, no better than the provisions of the existing Act, do not go as far as the benefits outlined by the commission. I admit at once that the commission, proceeding on different principles, can with difficulty find anything comparable to what the Minister arrived at with his particular line of approach, but nevertheless the difference is striking. In the Stratford Commission’s report it is estimated that the additional money which will have to be found exceeds his own estimate of this morning. The Stratford Commission estimated that whereas the present payment on the mines would be approximately £1,400,000, it would be £1,800,000. But at the same time the Minister has already indicated to the House the comparable figures between the proposed payments and the actual payments. Now, whilst we welcome the change-over from the second stage onwards, that when the miner can be entitled to a pension, and whilst we are not able to express an opinion on its adequacy or otherwise, we welcome the fact that he is entitled to a pension. In regard to lump-sum payments, that is still a question I have to decide, whether it should be possible to leave to miners the choice, once they become entitled to a lump-sum payment to convert that lumpsum payment into something approaching a pension. That is still a question for me: Why has the Minister approved of the creation of a ceiling? In regard to the second stage, the maximum stage is reached at a salary of £30 a month. There are figures supplied by other authorities in connection with wages on the mines, and £30 a month is not the average. It is too high. Why does the Minister arrive at a ceiling on the low figure of £30?

If I took it at £45 it would be less.

That requires some arithmetic.

If there is a ceiling at £30 it makes a difference to the miner, and he gets more than if I take it at £45.

I would like to reconsider that. I want to make this point in reference to what the Minister said this morning. Where we say it is our opinion that the proposed payments by way of pension do nöt provide adequate compensation for the sufferings involved it must be made very clear that the attitude we have adopted is not in consequence of any hostility towards the mining industry as such. We fully appreciate the significance of the mining industry to the economy of the country but we proceed from a different angle, the angle outlined by the commission in 1920, namely that the State is entitled to see that its citizens are compensated in every respect for disabilities incurred in serving the industry. I want to refer the Minister again to Section 5 of that report, which is to that effect. That is our attitude. Before industry can be allowed to develop it must make provision for the implications of its development, that is, compensation for any industrial disease must be a first charge on the industry. For that reason I want it to be very clearly understood that the arguments I have advanced do not emanate from any sense of opposition to the mining industry. I have a responsibility and we all have a responsibility. Where we are trying to defend the interests of workers it must not be interpreted as meaning that we are against the mining industry. It is only that we think that the industry should have as a first charge the duty of looking after their employees. My time has almost expired but I wish to express my appreciation, not for the delay, but if the Minister is going to delay in any case he should give us an opportunity to consider the matter; but that should not be regarded as an excuse for his failing to submit this Bill earlier, which I think is serious.

I do not wish at this stage to go into the pros and cons of this Bill. Nor do I wish to weigh up its advantages and disadvantages. I wish to confine myself to certain specific points and to touch on a few of the principles involved in the Bill itself. Last Session the Minister told us that he would introduce the Bill this Session. I am speaking on behalf of a very big mining community and not only am I expressing my own disappointment but that of large numbers of miners in my area. I realise only too well that we are living in abnormal times, and I appreciate that the Minister has had difficulties, but I sincerely hope that out of this debate today we shall definitely get a Bill on the stocks next Session. Another point I wish to refer to is the complicated nature of the present Bill before us. The ordinary man in the street experiences great difficulty in understanding it. After all, the man in the street is an individualist and is not concerned with masses of technicalities. It merely serves to confuse him. In any event we now have an opportunity of introducing a Bill which we hope will be simpler. The Minister has to remember today that there is another very important factor which affects the basis on which the Bill was drawn up. It is a fact that the majority and minority reports have been taken as the basis, but we in my constituency,—and I can talk on behalf of the many others interested in silicosis—feel that the interests of those vitally affected have been ignored. I would like to know from the Minister to whom he has referred. Has the Bill been based solely on the information furnished by the minority and majority reports? Has he, for instance, approached the Underground Officials’ Association. I have in my constituency eleven mines and I have been compelled to create a committee to study every aspect of this Bill. I have certain other observations to make, particularly with reference to the benefits which I maintain should be retrospective from the 1st January, 1945. I would also like to suggest to the Minister that he gives consideration to the formation of a committee composed of members of all sides of this House to go into this Bill during the recess. I wish to emphasise that this is not a political matter; it is beyond politics. It has become a national matter, and as such it concerns all parties in this House. I want to throw that out as a suggestion because we, particularly on this side of the House, are anxious to see something really concrete next Session, and unless we can secure the collaboration of everyone in this House, I fear we shall not see a Bill on the stocks next Session. After all, the longer we can prolong the lives of the mines, the longer the interests of those who work on the mines will be safeguarded.

I find myself in the unhappy position that I am also one of the potential miners’ phthisis sufferers, and I trust that the Minister and the House will overlook it if I do get a bit wound up in connection with this matter. I feel myself compelled, Mr. Speaker, to move an amendment to the Bill introduced by the Minister. I have thought whether I should not accept and support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Nigel (Maj. Ueckermann) that a committee should be established in connection with this Bill consisting of members of all sides of the House to study this measure during the recess. But my experience of the hon. Minister of Mines, and what I have had from him up to the present, will not allow me to accept that he will be agreeable to such a proposal. But if the Minister will intimate at this juncture that he will accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for Nigel I am prepared not to move my amendment. As the Minister refuses to intimate whether he intends accepting the suggestion I am compelled to move my amendment. It reades as follows—

1. (a) pensions to all miners’ phthisis sufferers and their dependants irrespective of the stage or degree of the disease from which they suffer;
2. (b) compensation to dependants of mineworkers who succumb to any disease after completion of nineteen years’ employment in a dusty occupation; and
3. (c) compensation to the dependants of all miners’ phthisis sufferers who succumb owing to any other cause if the mineworker concerned had been warned by the Miners’ Phthisis Bureau that he was suffering from silicosis, tuberculosis, asbestosis, anthracosis or any form of pneumoconiosis.”

The reason for my moving this amendment is a document which has come into my possession from Southern Rhodesia. It is the Miners’ Phthisis Legislation of that small colony. If Southern Rhodesia is in a position to make provision for the unhappy victims of the gold mining industry as is described in this document, I see no reason why the powerful organisation of gold mining companies in South Africa cannot do the same. I have here before me a document which was introduced by the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia. On that occasion he spoke as follows—

He continues—

And then he explains it as follows—

And this is very noteworthy—

In other words, that man must not lose his economic value to the State—

I now want to deal with the compensation for which provision is made in the Bill, as has been said by the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia in this regard—

1. (a) In the case of an unmarried white mineworker the pension shall be one-half of his monthly wages;
2. (b) In the case of a married white mineworker the pension shall be two-thirds of his monthly wages plus a monthly allowance for his children calculated on the following scale:

There they also draw the line as the Minister does. Then there is the position that wages in the mine should be calculated on the basis of £40 per month. The Minister has asked me to submit an alternate scheme to this House. There is my alternate scheme. That is a scheme for this House. I believe that the Government of Southern Rhodesia would be only too pleased to send a copy of it to every member of this House.

Do you want to close down all the mines?

I will just now come to the parrot for Orange Grove (Mr. Waring). The question will now be asked where the funds should come from. Where do the funds for the scheme come from? It is a well-known fact that the mines in Southern Rhodesia are low grade mines, or let me rather put it this way, that there is no continuous reef in which a person may invest his money with the assurance that he will get it back and will make a profit; except in the case of one or two mines. If the Minister needs an actuary or a financial brain to tell us where the funds should come from, I propose that he go along and borrow that brain and the actuary from Southern Rhodesia. We know that the Rand mines are of a uniform nature, as far as the value and the continuity of the blanket reef are concerned. Directors of gold mining companies know, before they sink a mining shaft, what they can possibly expect from the reef. They are in a position to determine the life of the mine; they can determine the profits and the values of specific tonnages. Why are they then not able to determine what should be paid to the unfortunate victims of the industry when they have lost their employment value for that industry, and not only for that industry but for the whole of South Africa? Once a man has been discarded by the gold mining industry he is a worthless article to South Africa. I am reading here, and that is in reply to the hon. member for Orange Grove, an extract from “South Africa” of 3.4.1943. It deals with the Rand Mines group of gold mines—

That is where the funds come from. We read in the Bible that the labourer is worthy of his wages, and if the labourer is worthy of his wages, how much more is the man who has sacrificed his life for an industry not entitled to compensation? Is that not the first claim on any industry that the worker who suffers in respect of his health should first be paid from the profits of that industry? At the annual meeting of one of the Rand mines, held on 21st May, 1943, the chairman—our old friend, Mr. John Martin—said—

That is my reply to the Minister where the money has to come from to pay these people equitable compensation for the services they have rendered to the powerful industry. It is very encouraging for me that nobody less than the Prime Minister for Southern Rhodesia realises that justice should be done to the unfortunate victims of the mining industry in Southern Rhodesia. It is encouraging to me for two reasons. Firstly because most mineworkers in Southern Rhodesia are former Union nationals and many of them are still Union nationals.

They have a Miners’ Phthisis Act in Rhodesia?

Yes. I am in a position to supply the hon. member with a copy of this legislation of Southern Rhodesia. In the second place it is encouraging to me that the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia is sympathetic towards the mineworkers because he is not himself a mineworker. It was also very encouraging to notice that the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) went to such trouble as to point out to the House that South Africa is losing in respect of manpower and life on account of the exploitation prevailing on the Witwatersrand. I do not propose to enter into all the details of the Act of 1925. It will take up too much time, but I would like to make a comparison between what is being proposed in Southern Rhodesia and what is being proposed in the Union of South Africa. Where the highest amount of compensation in Rhodesia is approximately £30, in the proposed legislation in South Africa it does not exceed £18, and here incidentally I may say that where the 1925 Act made provision for a maximum of approximately £22 per month, the proposed legislation provides for a maximum of £18 per month. I trust that the Minister will not again say that I talk wildly. What I am saying is an eternal shame to the different governments which South Africa has had, and it is a criminal shame to the various Ministers of Mines with whom South Africa has been cursed in the past. We live in an enlightened century. We live in a time in which the mineworkers of South Africa have to a large degree contributed to the victory achieved in the war. Thousands of my co-mineworkers have not yet returned to their fatherland. I say that the proposed Bill is the greatest injustice which could be inflicted upon mineworkers who have spent five and six years in the trenches in Northern Africa and in Italy. They are not here today, either to welcome the Bill or to reject it. What is being done by the proposed Bill to remove the stigma put on our country in the past? The Minister considers that it is a surprisingly good Bill, but I say that this Bill does nothing to remove the stigma on South Africa. It may appear to the Minister that he is doing justice to the mineworkers of South Africa. I do not say that he is intentionally insulting the mineworkers of the Witwatersrand in this manner. I rather ascribe it to the fact that he is not a potential miners’ phthisis sufferer and has no children who are potential miners’ phthisis sufferers or the dependants of an unfortunate miners’ phthisis sufferer. I do not ask the impossible. I merely ask for justice, more or less on the basis of that which Southern Rhodesia metes out to its mineworkers. I intended making a few remarks in connection with the Miners’ Phthisis Bureau but I would rather not do so. I will just say incidentally that I extend an invitation to any hon. member of this House, when he is on the Witwatersrand, to get in touch with me and I will point out to him the real suffering in ten or fifteen places on the Witwatersrand, the suffering which miners’ phthisis sufferers have to go through. In this House there is today somebody suffering from miners’ phthisis in the earliest stage, the hon. member for North East Rand (Mr. Heyns), and see what he looks like. It is an injustice which is being done to mineworkers by an ungrateful South African nation. The suffering of the miners’ phthisis sufferers is terrible. What does this House intend doing to mete out justice to them? Let us now put our heads together and say: Thus far, and no further. It cannot go on like this. We cannot allow our nation to be infected by tuberculosis. We must call a halt. Two hundred is the figure given by the Minister of people suffering from tuberculosis who have been kicked out of the mines and have been left to the mercy of fate. What has become of those 200 men?

Have they been put into institutions to be treated? No they have been let loose all over South Africa. They have been released to spread the disease. Then we find scandalous collections being held at street corners for tuberculotics for the sufferers of the disease which is being spread by the mighty gold mining industry of South Africa. I do not say that the gold mining industry is altogether to blame, but it is in any case partly to blame. Those figures we obtained from the Minister. The Minister made several quotations from remarks which I was supposed to have made on the Witwatersrand in respect of the proposed legislation. What I was supposed to have said on the Rand, he now wants to explain to the House that I said because the voting power of the mineworkers is strongest on the Witwatersrand. I deny that. I addressed the General Council of the Mineworkers’ Union on the Witwatersrand, and that Council is representative of every mineworker in South Africa. I now want to ask the Minister whether Blyvooruitzicht is on the Rand, a place where the voting power is so strong, or is it an exception which I made there to take up the case of the mineworkers? I want to ask the Minister whether Hlobane is an area where the voting power is so strong, and that I therefore took up their case in connection with the catastrophe which occurred there? The same applies to the Northfield coal mine. I took it as my aim from the time that I entered the House until I leave here to fight for mineworkers and miners’ phthisis sufferers in particular, and the Minister’s eloquence will not let me deviate in the slightest degree from that course. I shall keep on until such time as I leave this House. The Minister’s shorthandwriter probably also informed him that I said at Krugersdorp that I desired not to make poltical capital out of the legislation. I still added the other remark that I am prepared to co-operate with the devil if I could only obtain justice for the mineworker, and I said that I would also co-operate with the Minister, if it is possible to co-operate with him. I just want to say that the Minister has accepted the principle of pensions in this proposed legislation, but only in respect of the second stage. Then a mineworker will be entitled to approximately £250. That is to say one-half plus 5 per cent. of what he had received previously. Why not pay pensions from the very start? Why not from the first stage? If the principle to pay pensions in the second stage is right then surely it is also right in respect of the first stage. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) will mainly deal with chapter 5 of the Bill, and therefore I intend not to devote time to that, but what I said on the Witwatersrand is that repayment will have to be made in respect of the £7 10s. per month. I repeat that it will have to be done at approximately 34 per cent, of the meagre £7 10s. per month, for which one is almost able to rent a furnished room on the Witwatersrand. This proposed legislation provides that a man must have been employed underground for 10 years before he would be fully compensated for tuberculosis. The Minister now states that he is prepared to review the compensation. Why does he not then review the period, so that the unfortunate victims of the feared disease who contract it before having served ten years underground will receive the same compensation as any other man contracting tuberculosis in his vocation? The Minister says that if a man has been in the mines for a short time and contracts tuberculosis, one is unable to ascribe it definitely to his occupation underground. But anybody with a knowledge of underground work will realise that the examination which is held is conducted once in six months. Thus a person may be suffering from tuberculosis and still be employed underground. The place where you work is very small. There are 12 to 15 natives in an area of 15 feet by 6 feet and you must work along with them; some of the natives suffer from tuberculosis and you are in such close contact with them that their perspiration comes into contact with your naked body and the germs are directly transmitted to you from him; you have to breathe in what he breathes out; and if his experts and scientists or whatever he may call them, if they tell me that persons cannot contract tuberculosis in that way under 10 years or five years or even five months they still have a lot to learn. Will they endeavour to allege that? When a man is being passed by the Miners’ Phthisis Bureau and if they are as clever as they give out, which I do not believe, then they should not permit such a man to go underground who will within 10 years be liable to contract tuberculosis, and if they do that then I repeat that they are still very ignorant. The Minister and the hon. member for Orange Grove want to frighten us with the poor mines which will have to close down if you allow justice to be done to mineworkers and to the miners’ phthisis sufferers and their dependants. That ghost of the poor mines has become hackneyed since 1910 and they still use it and they will use it until there is no longer any mining industry. If they can succeed in robbing the mineworker of his right to which he is entitled they will continue with that. It pays the mining industry to keep it going. To have a few mines which just manage to come through this month and lose a few pounds next month. They keep such mines specially for that purpose. In 1919 I was employed in a mine, the Simmer Deep, and only ask people’ who know. Simmer Deep closed down in 1921. But if hon. members travel between Germiston and Johannesburg and they look south of Driehoek station they will find that Simmer Deep is still there today and is working. Its management has been changed and the ore which was in the mine at that time is at present still being worked. That low grade ore is today being worked although they had to close down in 1921. What about Van Rhyn Deep? The Van Rhyn Deep wanted to buy out New Kleinfontein 12 years ago. New Kleinfontein was finished. I think the Government did not even claim taxation from that mine. Van Rhyn Deep wanted to buy them out. Today it is Van Rhyn Deep which wants to close down, and I will almost prophesy that if it closes down New Kleinfontein will buy it, that poor adjoining mine which wanted to close down 12 years ago and which is today making a fair profit. That is how a game is being played. It is a game of chess played by the Chamber of Mines and their handymen to deprive workers and their dependants of their rights. It is high time that South Africa puts an end to that game and says that the people who shorten their lives, who sacrifice their lives, should be rewarded and compensated for the suffering which they endure until the time of their death. I intend going to the expense of having miners’ phthisis sufferers sit in the gallery over there. Then I shall show to the House the ungodly manner in which our flesh and blood are being treated by the great industry of South Africa. The mines are a blessing to the gamblers, the gold mining industry is a blessing to the country, the industry is a blessing to every person in the country, but it is a curse to the man who extracts the gold. And as far as the miners’ phthisis sufferers are concerned, if you believe that there is a God, the various Governments which South Africa has had in the past and the Government which it has at present will have to pay retribution for the injustice committed before God.

I second that amendment. Before I deal with the Bill I have one or two preliminary remarks to make. I do not know whether the House is aware this is the 13th Miners’ Phthisis Bill ….

Why were you not here to listen to my speech?

This subject has been the political football of all the Governments in the past, but the Minister will remember that six years ago he promised the House that he would introduce a Bill which would finally remove miners’ phthisis from the political football field.

I never said it was a final Bill, I said a Bill “to improve”.

The hon. Minister has probably forgotten his own words. In that very same speech he said: I am going to introduce in this House a Bill which is going to remove it finally from the political football field.

That is not correct.

That is what ….

The hon. member must accept that from the Minister.

I must accept it because it is your ruling and the ruling of the House, but I shall get an opportunity later on when I shall read a passage out of Hansard. It is no good him saying it is not true.

Order, order. The hon. member must observe my ruling.

I obey your orders, Mr. Speaker. Six years ago he promised to go into the question. He eventually appointed a commission which took years before it presented a report, and it took the hon. Minister a long time after he had the report to introduce legislation. Today we have a Bill standing in his name and I will deal with it later, but before doing so I want to say in support of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers) that we have always advocated a pension for all miners’ phthisis sufferers and dependants, and I want to make it clear to the House that when we asked that there should be only one stage of miners’ phthisis, we do not mean the third stage; we mean the first stage. I want to warn the hon. Minister that if he is going to make the miners’ phthisis pension payable to all miners’ phthisis sufferers, and if he continues with the present definition of “miners’ phthisis” then it simply means that he will keep these men underground until they are dead. Instead of taking them out of the mines and paying them a pension while they can still enjoy a few years of life the Minister will keep them in the mines until they are dead. That is, in fact, the position today. When I introduced a Bill in 1934—1935, which reclassified the definition of miners’ phthisis, I was informed by the then Minister of Mines, the late Sir Patrick Duncan, that it would cost at least another £700,000 per annum to the mining industry. Do you know what it means? It simply means that today your are practically having the same number of men working underground, suffering from miners’ phthisis, as you have on the surface. In other words, the present definition of “miners’ phthisis” is a very cunning way of keeping the poor miner underground until he is dead. Then I want to emphasise that when we ask for a pension for all miners’ phthisis sufferers, and their dependants, we do not want them to be kept underground until they reach the third stage. Those men have given the best of their lives to the mining industry. I want the House to realise that these men must be first class before they receive the red ticket to enable them to work underground; they must be classified Al. I remember that years ago when I gave evidence before the Low Grade Ore Commission, one of the bureau doctors informed us that every mineworker—and it still holds good today—is a potential miners’ phthisis sufferer. In other words, every man whom you allow to go underground, is a potential miners’ phthisis sufferer if he is not removed from underground in time, or if he is not killed underground.

What do you mean by “in time”?

I thank the hon. member for making that interjection. Medical opinion is that if you remove a man from underground work within ten years, you will then reduce the number of potential sufferers to 9 out of every 1,000. He should be taken out before he reaches the stage where the underground work will shorten his life. That is the time when you must take him out of the mine.

Is not that too late?

I wish the hon. member would not interrupt me so often, because I have only got 40 minutes and I have many points to cover. The Minister is trying to score a point by telling the country that he is now moving a Bill which provides for the payment of a pension to miners’ phthisis sufferers in the second* stage. That is the direct opposite of what we have been advocating. I will point out to the hon. Minister later, that if this Bill becomes law, there is practically no such thing as a pension at all, because under Clause 61 he now gives the right to the medical bureau to reclassify or cancel any certificate limiting children’s pension.

That is a complete misconstruction.

We have had that often under the old Act. When the bureau reclassifies a case, they say that the man does not suffer from miners’ phthisis in the secondary stage, but in the ante-primary stage. We have had hundreds of those cases, and the Minister knows it as well as I do. But he is now going further. He is giving the bureau power under Section 61 to do whatever they like with that certificate. In other words, if a man has been certified to be suffering from miners’ phthisis in the first stage, and if he dies, the bureau can quite easily turn round and say that they have now discovered in the post-mortem examination that the man was not suffering from miners’ phthisis in the ante-primary stage, and bang goes the so-called pension. The same applies if he works on the Mines. They can do the same with the man suffering from miners’ phthisis in the primary stage. They can say: “We have now discovered in the postmortem examination that the man did not suffer from miners’ phthisis in the primary stage but in the ante-primary stage,” and bang goes the pension. Then there is another very important point. The Minister is now trying to enact the same principle which was laid down in the Hofmeyr-Harris Agreement Act, which hon. members will remember I fought. The Minister now says: “As long as you live your wife and children will receive a very small pension, where you were found to be suffering from miners’ phthisis in the primary stage,” i.e. in the second stage under the present Bill. “But if you play the game and if you die tonight, then from tomorrow morning your wife will receive £6 and the children will receive £3. But your wife and children will only receive that if you play the game and die tonight.” That is a principle which I will fight to the utmost; I may say that it is impossible for us today to deal with everything contained in the Bill, because at least 200 amendments are required before it will be a suitable Bill. But I want to deal with the most important clauses, and I will inform the House to which clauses I object. The definition of “mining operation” reads—

In other words in the case of certain individuals, track layers and pumpmen, the Minister is taking power to say that in his opinion the man is not qualified for a miners’ phthisis pension because the work he was performing does not fall under the definition of “mining operations”. The next point is the wonderful composition of the Compensation Board in the future. That has been a very sore point in the past. The mineworkers were very concerned, because, as you know, there is a great difference between the way the Act is administered by one individual and the way in which it is administered by another individual. In the past the Minister always appointed someone out of the rank and file of the workers, and today there are not less than two men, union men amongst the mineworkers, who serve on the Miners’ Phthisis Board—Mr. Williams and Mr. William Becker. The Minister now says that he is taking power to re-appoint them, but hon. members will find in Clause 3 (1) that when these members die, the Minister is going to appoint men out of the public service to fill the vacancies on the board. In other words, they may be complete strangers as far as the mineworkers are concerned.

It is a pity you were not here this morning to hear my speech.

It is a pity the hon. Minister did not show the ordinary decency and the kindness, which he usually shows, to inform me that he was going to introduce the Bill this morning.

The hon. member must withdraw the words “ordinary decency”.

Am I not entitled to say that the Minister always accords me ordinary decency? I am paying him a compliment

What about the notice which appeared in the “Cape Times” this morning?

Hon. members will notice in sub-paragraph 5 of Clause 3 that the chairman of the board is now practically going to appoint the rest of the members of the board, because it says that the Minister shall not appoint anyone unless he has consulted the chairman of the board. That means that the chairman of the board is practically a dictator on the board. In Clause 5 it says that even in the case of the part-time members, the Minister must consult the chairman of the board first. Then in Clause 42 (2) hon. members will notice that for the first time you are now going to have various types of certificates. It is quite true that in the existing Act we used to have the red ticket and the white ticket which allowed the man 100 hours per week underground but the Minister is now going to have various tickets for various types and various classes of mine. That is where you will give the individual a second class ticket; after he has worked there a couple of years, he will be warned if he had contracted tuberculosis, and it is there that the Minister now gets away with the ten year period before the man is entitled to compensation. We say the man must be fit before he can go underground and he must be able to perform all classes of work. If the man is once under ground, he must be able to qualify for the position of mine manager and any other position. When I was dealing a moment ago with the powers of the bureau I think I made a slip of the tongue when I said it was Section 61. It is Section 60, sub-sections 1 and 2. You will notice in sub-clause 2 that the bureau has the power to do anything with the certificate that they like.

That applies to children.

What children?

His children. You have missed it altogether. This applies to withdrawing the certificatte from the child.

I hope the hon. member is not going to try to take up all my time by continually interjecting. He will have plenty of time to make his own speech. I now want to draw the attention of the Minister to Clause 87. If anybody interprets this Bill incorrectly, you will know who to blame? [Laughter]. I do not know why hon. members on my left are always so fond of making jokes, when one is dealing with a serious subject. Sub-clause (3) reads—

It says that the miner who has become entitled to a pension under this chapter, namely Chapter 5 which deals with all benefits, shall not be entitled to a pension if he works for the State. In other words, if the poor phthisis sufferer, cannot live on that miserable £7 a month, he and his wife will have their pension reduced, and if he tries to find a job with the Government, then immediately he works for the State, in terms of this clause, and bang goes the pension. The Minister smiles, but he must smile in the way he drafted the Bill.

You cannot understand the Bill.

I am calling upon you, Sir, and every member in this House to bear me out is this clear language or is it not—

That is not correct. The hon. member is not reading the section correctly. It goes on to say—

That is quite different.

The Minister said the other day that in his opinion this is a very clear Bill. Now I want to read to you Clause 80, and Clause 80 comes into conflict with sub-clause 9 of Clause 61. In subclause 9 of Clause 61 the hon. Minister tries to make out as if he was protecting the soldiers who went on military service. But just listen to this: This is what he says here; he does not say, “save as is provided in subclause 9”, but he says this—

This chapter is still Chapter 5—

You see, any mine worker who left the mine and went farming or who went into business, who tried to get away from that miserable hole, is now going to be forced by the Minister to come back before the 1st April, 1945, But why he selected the 1st day of April, one can just guess. He says: “If you are not back by the 1st April, you are going to lose all your benefits”. You know what it means, Mr. Speaker. Let me quote one case. I have in mind the case of a cerain gentleman who last worked in the mining industry in 1905. When the bureau came into existence in 1916, he was examined. But he had already left the mine. When the bureau came into existence in 1916 it certified that he had no silicosis whatsoever, and since 1916 up to 1935 this man was examined every year by the medical bureau, and every year the bureau informed him that he had no silicosis whatsoever. He died in 1935. I took the case to the Appeal Board. The Appeal Board stated that he definitely had silicosis in the ante-primary stage, which means that that man was walking about with silici dust in his lungs from 1905 to 1935, for 30 years. Does not that justify us in saying that there are men suffering from silicosis who have never been warned in time. And the Minister is now forcing these men who have gone out, to come back. The Minister says: “You must come back by the 1st April, or otherwise you are not going to reap any benefits out of the mining industry”. It will be noticed that the hon. Minister endeavours to reduce the workmen’s compensation payable to a poor miners’ phthisis sufferer if he finds a job on the mines. He now wants to grant the right to the industry to injure a man twice and to compensate once, and he wants us to be satisfied with that. I would like hon. members to concentrate only on Chapter 5 for a few moments. Section 58 deals with benefits. The Minister does not do anything for the ante-primary stage silicosis sufferers. Is that correct? The Minister does not reply. It is the first time the Minister agrees with me. Sub-section 3 says there is no additional benefit for the primary case. The old Act primary stage case now receives a pension of £7 10s. for himself, £1 13s. for his wife, 16s. 6d. for each child, but will only receive one sum. This means that an average of about £240 must be recovered from the miner before he receives the full pension. The point which hon. members must remember is that in this Bill the Minister now says: “I am going to give you a pension in the second stage of miners’ phthisis”, but he takes away the second lump sum which they were entitled to, and if they have already received that second lump sum he says: “I am going to give you a pension, but I am going to recover the whole amount of the second one-sum. This means that £240 must be recovered from the miner before he receives the pension. In other words, the deduction from benefits in this case is made retrospective. Sub-clause 4 (b) of that section takes away the benefits from a phthisis sufferer which he received under the old Act, usually known as the second one sum. You will notice that in all the clauses rights are taken away every time.

That is quite incorrect.

The same applies to sub-clause 4 (b). This sub-section provides for a 36.43 per cent. deduction from a pension to be made retrospective to cover repayment, to recover the second lump sum. Sub-clause 5 dealing with tuberculosis cases, gives a pension to T.B. cases only where they have had at least 10 years’ underground service. Let me inform this House that when I was organising secretary of the Mineworkers’ Union, the first compensation case I handled was that of a man who contracted tuberculosis in the mines after he had less than four years’ underground service. I am now asking the Minister what he proposes to do for those men who contract tuberculosis in the mine before they have had 10 years’ underground service, because in this Bill he only provides for a pension if they have had at least 10 years’ underground service. Subsection 5 (a) takes away the one-sum benefit to which a tuberculosis sufferer was entitled. There you find that this benefit of a pension will be granted but it is set off against his pension until they recover that amount of benefit. Sub-clause 5 (b) brings the one-sum benefit to silicosis or T.B. sufferers down to 64.63 per cent. of the benefit under the old Act, and in 5 (c), if he has already received that money, then an amount of 36.364 per cent. of his pension is deducted. Sub-clause 6 lays down a pension of almost the scale that a pensioner was entitled to under the old Act. Sub-clause 7 reduces the pension of widows and children by 36.364 per cent. in order to recover money which was already paid out under the old Act, which means a reduction in benefits in retrospective. The hon. Minister can smile as much as he likes.

You have not the faintest idea what the Bill says.

In sub-clause 9 the Minister now tries to make provision for the soldiers, but that is useless if he does not make that safeguard in Clause 80. Clause 80 definitely says that nobody is entitled to any benefits. It does not say: “Save as is provided in sub-section 9 of Section 61.” Now we come to the new Act cases in Section 59. These cases I have dealt with are the existing miners’ phthisis cases. The question is what benefits is the Minister going to grant to these new cases? It is quite clear that it is absolutely nothing. The new Act for the first stage of silicosis lays down a one-sum benefit to the sufferer which at the first glance appears to be a little bit more than the benefits granted under the 1925 Act, but if the benefits granted under the 1938 Act, the Hofmeyr Act, is added to this, then the provision made under the new Act allows less benefit to the sufferer than what he was entitled to under the existing Acts, in other words, 5 per cent. in the primary stage, and 10 per cent. in the ante-primary stage in addition to the lump sum. You will find that you are now granting these people less than what they were entitled to under the old Act. Section 61 of the new Act deals with secondary stage sufferers. Once the benefit is granted under the old Act, but instead of that they now get £7 6s. But that is only where the man earns £30 a month or more. If his monthly earnings were less his pension is still further reduced from this wonderful sum which the Minister says so much about, namely to £6 for himself and £1 5s. for his wife and 13s. for each child. But the Minister says that if the poor man dies he is prepared to pay a higher pension to his wife and children. Why insist on waiting for the man to die I cannot understand. Surely if the man contracted the disease he should say that during his lifetime his wife and children are entitled to these benefits. Why must he first die? Then there is the other wonderful figure of the Minister. When a man dies the Minister gives the children £3 each and the wife £6. If the Minister were a married man he would know that when the man dies there will hardly ever be children under 16. I describe that as being cunning, a cunning way of giving compensation because the fact is that while the children are still under the care of the father they get a miserable £1 5s., and when he dies they will be grown up or almost so. What is the good of giving them £3 a month for one year when they are 15? Why does the Minister not say that the widow and children can get the benefit during his lifetime? It will bluff the public. The people will think it is a wonderful thing, £3 for a child, but at the time the pension comes into effect the children will be over 16 and then there is no pension whatever. The Minister must understand this. It is not what is so bad in the wording of his Bill alone, but the implication. It is a “slim” thing to concoct a Bill so as to deprive people of their pensions to which they are entitled. I can continue with this clause in Chapter 5 and I say that the Minister is trying to frighten the country by saying that this will cost the mining industry more in future. They told the same story in 1938 and the Minister’s own figures supplied to me this year are 1,000 per cent. proof that there was no increased cost to the mining industry with regard to miners’ phthisis compensation from 1926. On the contrary there is a steady decrease in the compensation, proved by the Minister’s own figures. In 1938 we were told that the additional burden to the mining industry will be at least £200,000. I challenge the Minister and any clever fellow here who wants to talk for the mines to take up these figures and show me that it cost a farthing more. Now, why do we insist on a pension for all? We say that if that 7s. 6d. per day which the mining industry pay every day per shift underground were put into a fund day after day, as the mining industry claim they do with it, we will never ask them for a farthing again. If you take 20,000 miners underground at 7s. 6d. a day, which is £117 a year per head, it means £2,300.000 per annum. That is what the mining industry try to make people believe that they pay, but the compensation actually paid out by them is not that. It is nonsense to say that the mining industry was called upon to pay more. If we got that 7s. 6d. we will have sufficient to compensate every phthisis sufferer and his dependants on a scale nearly twice that laid down for the present compensation and what the Minister proposes in this Bill. No, I am afraid that the voice of the mineworker has always been drowned. We have never had sufficient men in this House to persuade the rest of the members of the importance of the issue and of the sufferings of the mineworker. There are only a few men in this House who have seen the sanatorium where phthisis men are looked after, and if they see the tragic ending of those men they will take more notice of the matter. If the world realises the condition of some of these sufferers I think that the buyers of gold and the rest of the world will really be ashamed of us. I appeal to the Minister to lay down a pension for everyone, based on the first stage, not on the last one, to try to lengthen the life of the mineworker, to see that the treatment he gets at the bureau is fair and that the findings of the bureau are subject to appeal to the courts of law, so that the mineworker can satisfy himself that he is getting a square deal, because we are in doubt, and we have produced evidence more than once that we have every reason to doubt whether we receive a square deal. [Time limit.]

The time at my disposal will not allow me to analyse the remarks made by previous speakers, but I wish to say that my hon. friend, the member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) put a wrong interpretation on some of the clauses of the Bill. I am sorry that that is so because I do not doubt his sincerity. He made a few remarks about the sincerity of the Phthisis Bureau. I do not think anyone can say that the Phthisis Bureau does anything wrong because it stands to gain financially. Therefore I am sorry that my hon. friend made that remark, because I have had numerous dealings with the Bureau and I can definitely state that it is an honest and most sincere body. Whilst welcoming the efforts of the Minister in trying to find a solution of a question which has troubled us all for a number of years, a solution to which the miners themselves have looked forward too for many years, I feel that the Minister did go out of his way to find a solution. It is a very important question which should receive the attention of everyone, irrespective of politics, but at the same time I must say that the Minister has not succeeded in finding a solution for this grave problem. As the result. I want to propose an amendment. I make this amendment because I feel that there will not be enough time for the Bill to go through the House and in its present form it is unacceptable, and therefore I propose the amendment—

I regret that the hon. member cannot move the amendment in the form proposed. The hon. member can proceed with his speech but the amendment does not comply with the provisions of Standing Order No. 161. I suggest that the hon. member gets one of his colleagues to redraft the amendment to bring it into conformity with the rule.

The position as we find it at present is simply this, that this Bill has certain clauses which are not acceptable to the miners. Objection is made, and I object to it too, to the composition of the Board. It was definitely stated by the Minister that the Board would be composed of civil servants in future. The present members may be re-appointed but from then onwards they will be civil servants. May I draw the attention of the House to the fact that the miners are of a suspicious nature and to do this makes them feel that they are being done out of their rights. I would appeal to the Minister to accept the composition of the Board as we had it previously. I know political appointments were made on previous occasions but I want to appeal to everyone concerned that we should not have a political outlook in appointments to a Board of that nature. That is as objectionable as having a Board consisting of civil servants only. There is one respect in which they criticise a Board consisting of civil Servants. The Board has the right to make investigations and to take statements from beneficiaries. We know that the men suffering from phthisis are irrritable and abnormal, and if men are sent to interview them who are not used to them and who do not collaborate with them it may lead to ill-feeling. The civil servants appointed to this Board will be elderly men with no experience of miners and I can foresee trouble arising. Secondly I come to the clause dealing with the second stage, the pensionable stage, and I would ask the Minister to revise that clause and to make it more acceptable to the miners and to the House. It is quite unacceptable to offer a man who has given up his work £10 a month. It is inadequate. I am sure the Minister will agree with me. If a man then feels that his compensation is not enough to make ends meet and he seeks employment—and that is the only place where he can look for it, being a miner, he should not be deprived of his pension whilst he is employed underground. He should not be penalised for wanting to work. A man should not be penalised for wanting to provide for his wife and children. If he has already been given a pension it is not right to penalise him. He should rather be encouraged to work and if he can earn an extra £50 a month above the pension, that does not affect anyone. The pension is due to him in any case. I ask the Minister and the Department to reconsider that clause and not to impose those penalties. I know these men want to be kept busy; they want to work. Then there is the other matter raised by the Minister, the amount of compensation. I do not think we need say much about that. Hon. members have referred to certain mines closing down. Some would have closed down but for the gold standard, and the Kleinfontein, which had to be subsidised by the State to keep going, has since discovered a black reef which is going to keep it going. But it is a known fact that if further liability is cast on the mines, many will close down, and the position is that you will be closing down mines in order to give adequate compensation to some of the men, with the result that many other men will be out of employment. That is a matter which has received attention from numerous quarters, and I say we should look upon the mining-industry from the national point of view and not look upon the mines as an enemy. The mines undoubtedly are a national asset, so much so that they have placed us in a position where we can write off millions of war debts and interests and subsidise farming commodities and other ventures, without them this country would have been ruined. We know what the position was in 1922 to 1932. Why should the mines not still be regarded as a national asset, and why should the State not advance money to these mines to enable them to compensate the men, as they have subsidised other industries? It is no use saying that the mines themselves should do it. We are today receiving so much from the mining industry that we can well afford to consider compensating the mines for the compensation they pay to the miners. I would appeal to the Minister during the recess to contact the various bodies interested and to see what can be done in that direction, and I am sure that the Government should not refuse to do so. The Minister has exposed himself to a certain amount of blame for not having consulted interested bodies last Session and when this Bill was being drafted, bodies which may have been of great assistance to him in the drafting of this Bill. The Minister fell between two stools when he drafted the Bill not in accordance with the majority or minority report of the Stratford Commission, but when he and his Department simply acted on their own. I have discussed this matter fully with the Minister on various occasions and it was felt that co-ordination and co-operation is required in a matter of such importance. I understood from the Minister at the time that he would do so but as far as I know no one has been consulted and as a result the Minister comes along with a Bill which, to my mind, even though I appreciate the advantages and extra privileges contained in it, must be disappointing to the miner for the simple reason that the miners have clearly understood, as we have, that by this time an acceptable Bill would be presented to the House making their position clear. Since that has not been done I am hoping that the Minister will make it his business to consult various bodies even the Chamber of Mines and the Gold Producers’ Committee, who are mostly concerned.

He has already consulted them, don’t you worry.

I am sure he has not consulted them but I feel they should be. I am sure that the Mine-owners’ Association would go a long way to helping the Minister to draft an acceptable Bill which can be accepted by the House next year. If possible I would still like to suggest that a commission of members of Parliament be appointed to assist the Minister during the recess. I feel sure that we dare not come along next Session and tell the miner that we have not got an acceptable Bill. This matter has been dragging along for years and the only Act we have is that of 1925 and that has been amended several times, having been brought into being by the Pact Government. The miners have been living in hopes since 1925 and I feel that something definite should be done now. Before sitting down I propose this further amendment—

I second the further amendment. Those of us who represent underground workers in this House have been immobilised for five years on the question of conditions. I think it was in 1940 or 1941 that the so-called Stratford Commission was appointed by the Governor-General and it took some considerable time in bringing out its report. I think it appeared some 18 months ago, and during that period the Minister and his staff have apparently been very busy weighing up things, and it is only a fortnight or three weeks ago we received this new Bill. One can fully imagine the amount of work and the amount of thought underlying this big work, and although we have been disappointed at the delay I would rather have had this matter delayed if eventually we could bring about a Bill not only satisfactory to the employers and the employees, but to those of us who will be responsible for the passing of it. Before going any further I should like to answer one or two criticisms. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) may, I think, be congratulated on a very well reasoned speech, but I cannot imagine why he started off by telling the hon. Minister of Mines that he was obviously biased in favour of the mining houses. I could see nothing whatsoever in the Minister’s speech this morning to convey that impression. If the hon. member for Ceres gathered that from the Minister’s remarks about the serious financial predicament of certain mines I am afraid he was quite wrong in doing so. The Minister would have failed in his duty in presenting this Bill if he had not presented both sides of the question. After all, everything that goes up has to come down, and everything that is paid out has to come from somewhere. We know what a popular habit it is for people with no responsibility to make demands without considering in any way how these demands are to be met. I think the hon. member for Ceres made a misplaced and unwarranted and unjustified remark when he accused the Minister of a bias in favour of the mining houses. Then I should like to address a few remarks to my old friend from Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg). I agree with the hon. member for North East Rand (Mr. Heyns) that none of us could ever doubt the sincerity of the hon. member for Krugersdorp when it comes to phthisis legislation and benefits to the phthisis sufferers. But my hon. friend has rather run away with himself on this occasion. If one analyses his speech and his remarks at Krugersdorp, I am afraid he is found to be definitely guilty of running away from the facts of this Bill.

There are the implications.

I will take the facts, I am not dealing with implications. I do not wish to quarrel or cross swords with my hon. friend. He and I have been friends for many years in connection with miners and miners’ interests. I would like to tell him though we do not belong to the same political party, the sincerity with which I credit him is held and enjoyed by every representative on this side of the House. But we have the responsibility, and under no circumstances are we prepared to get the miner himself excited or wound up or in any form of frenzy over this Bill. I may tell my hon. friend that as it is it is not acceptable to me. May I just refer in dealing with the hon. member for Krugersdorp, to Clause 62 (c) ?

You can leave that alone now.

I am not going to leave it alone; I want to explain how the hon. member went wrong. It is typical of 90 per cent. of his speech and 90 per cent. of his remarks at Krugersdorp. He went off the handle over Clause 87 (3); the Minister put him right, but that is another one where he is very, very wrong. Then we heard what he said about Clause 80. We read what he said about it in Krugersdorp. But if he only looks at the title of that clause he will find it does not refer to scheduled mines at all, only the registered mines. He gives the Minister no credit at all for turning round today and registering the mines in order to secure control over an industrial disease. May I ask my hon. friend and his colleague to keep cool on this Phthisis Bill? He and I thinking as we do have to work together on this question. It is over a quarter of a century since I worked and lived on the mines, worked alongside phthisis sufferers and buried many of them. My heart is with them, but one cannot allow oneself to get into a state of frenzy like the hon. member for Krugersdorp. We have to work together. To get back to the Bill; I am very conscious of the advantages of the Bill over the present Act with all its many amendments. It is a decided improvement and the hon. member for Krugersdorp cannot dissent from that view, nor can the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers). That it is a decided improvement is admitted by the executive of the Mineworkers’ Union. The Mineworkers’ Union themselves have admitted that principles are embodied in this Bill which they have been fighting for for 30 years. But my hon. friend feels, and so do I, that the Bill has not gone far enough. Why I differ from him is this. I am not going to take up the time of the House nor run up and down the Reef condemning the Bill; because it is far better than the Act. I challenge my hon. friend to say that is not so. Will he tell me that introducing the pension in the second stage is not a step forward? If it is not a step forward what about some 1,500 men in the second stage today who were in the second stage over 25 months ago, and who will get nothing under the present Act ….

The ex gratia allowance is bigger.

The full provision of the ex gratia allowance remains; this is in addition. I am almost on the point of accusing the hon. member of trying to mislead the people. Full provision is made for the full application of the ex gratia fund as it exists today. The hon. member has no justification for standing up in this House and saying that the proposed pension in the second or old primary stage is to replace the ex gratia payment. There is not a tittle of evidence to that effect. In the Bill itself provision is made for both, and I am very sorry to find him suspicious as to imagine that this pension is to replace the old ex gratia payment. There is not a shred of evidence to support his contention. The facts stamp his remarks as ludicrous. He has completely gone off the rails on this occasion. Mr. Speaker, one must appreciate the increase in the widow’s pensions. Again I agree it is not enough. But how can I turn round and condemn an increase? I am not satisfied with it, but I am not going to tell my 3,000 underground workers in Springs: This is no good. Must I say to them: You must stay as you were. This is a big improvement, but I seconded the motion because I am not prepared to accept it; it is not enough. By all means condemn it on those grounds, but do not turn round and give the country the impression that this is a rerospective Bill. The Mineworkers’ Union, which are after all—in addition to this House—the voice of the mineworkers, have openly admitted the acceptance in the Bill of principles they have been fighting for for 30 years. We have the relaxation of conditions by a man in the secondary stage who may work two or three more months underground if he wants to. How many miners have not asked the hon. member for Krugersdorp in the years gone by if it would not be possible for them to do that? Dozens and dozens of miners have stated to me: If only I could continue for six months so as to get my finances right! We should allow such a man to go down. I do not say he should be allowed to do rockbreaking, but he might act as a shift boss or something of that sort. This will be a popular feature. This is a feature the miners themselves are keen on. The question of registering what used to be unscheduled mines is one of the most progressive steps taken in industrial legislation. We know what happened in the past. The hon. member knows, and so do I. Men on the Reef had to get out of the mines on account of phthisis, and they went to places like Pilgrims Rest and Sabie and worked on mines which are just as silicotic, and in which there is no control whatsoever. Here the Minister is tightening up the regulations and bringing those mines under control, and registering them. What is more, men who are not fit initially have been going into these mines. I consider this is a step that the Minister and the Department deserve congratulations over. It is a very progressive step. Surely the hon. member and the Labour Party should be able to observe an advance in this industrial legislation. If the hon. member professes not to see it I do not think he is sincere in his belief. I feel myself that numbers of improvements have been embodied in this Bill. I feel that the consolidation of the original Act and the 14 amendments into one Bill gives much more hope to the phthisis sufferer in the future. It is far better legislation than we have at present. I am a great sympathiser with the underground man, especially with the phthisis sufferer. I am perfectly satisfied in my own mind that the silicotic and the tuber-culotic, who are the product of the underground conditions, have never had anything like the justifiable reward this country owes them. I am perfectly satisfied about it. This country has just marched to a wonderful victory in the war. Our agriculture and our secondary industries are developing very largely on subsidies and protection, and I have no doubt in my own mind that our successes in the war, and our successes in agriculture and in other industries, has come via the miner. Without the revenue from the gold mines which has been made possible by the fact that human beings, both European and non-European, have gone down the mines of this country for the past 50 or 60 years, this country would not have reached its present stage of development. We owe no stronger debt to any section of the community than our debt to the phthisis sufferer of today. There are people who try to base out obligation on the same basis as workmen’s compensation. I cannot see eye to eye with that at all. Workmen’s compensation is in 99 cases out of 100 payable as the result of an accident, and inside a few months the amount of compensation is determined and paid, but this is a progressive disease that ends only with death. When a man goes down a mine, there is no doubt about it, if he stays down long enough there is only one end. The Minister asked for suggestions. I agree with him—whatever the hon. member for Mayfair may read out—that the mining industry, apart from its payments for phthisis contributions, bears a stiff load today in the form of general taxation, and some mines are sailing periously close to the rocks. What we want is a rebate of general taxation in the gold mining industry. The country has to surrender something. Something has to come out of the pockets of the taxpayer; whether he is living in Cape Town or elsewhere. He is deriving a benefit from the mining position as its exists today and he should be asked to make a minimum allowance of £750,000 of the £21 millions he receives today, to ensure that silicotics are well catered for, and that they are given by the nation the comfort and consideration they so richly deserve.

All the evidence suggests a very general dissatisfaction with the Bill which the hon. Minister has now produced to the House. I may say that probably no one is more dissatisfied than we who sit on these benches; and probably nobody is more justified in being dissatisfied with this Bill than we are. It is true that for the native miner as for every other section of the mining community, there are certain gains, there are certain improvements in this Bill. But I suggest that these fall lamentably short of what we and they had the right to expect, and what we and they have expected for the last four years. While this whole question of miners’ phthisis has been under consideration, we felt that the country and the Government were waking up to their obligations to the native workers of this country. We therefore fully expected that this Bill, when it came before us, would give us what we legitimately asked, that is something comparable with what the Government feels is due to the European miner. I want to remind the Minister and the House of the basic facts of the situation. They are these. For some 20 years there were no changes, no improvements, in the level of compensation payable to the native miner suffering from phthisis. For over 20 years the native worker remained on a simple lump sum basis of compensation, a basis laid down when the conditions of his life were very different from what they are today. He was given 12 months’ pay for the first stage of miners’ phthisis. He was given 18 months’ pay for the second stage, if he had not been compensated for the first; and for the third stage of this disease he was given two years’ pay. And that pay, I want to remind the House, over a period of 20 years showed no tendency to increase at all. So for that long period he was being paid a small lump sum which ranged from £36 to £72; which was the return we made for his having given his life to the foundation industry of this country. The present Minister of Mines has the credit of having made the first statutory improvement in that position. When in 1941 he amended the law to take away a pre-existing discrimination that was the only improvement introduced for 20 years. That was when he imposed on the mining industry the obligation to calculate the cost of food and lodging at 30s. a month, as part of the native miners’ earnings against his claim to miners’ phthisis compensation. That is the only improvement that the native miners’ phthisis victim has had since 1919. I do not need to remind the House, because the Minister himself reminded the House this morning, that in the meantime there have been continuous improvements in the miners’ phthisis law as it affects other miners’ phthisis sufferers. The Minister mentioned this Bill is the fifteenth amendment that has been introduced to the basic Miners’ Phthisis Act, and apart from the 1941 Act it is the only one which has provided any improvement in native miners’ phthisis compensation. Fourteen improvements have taken place in the last generation in the compensation of miners’ phthisis sufferers, and not one of these improvements do I grudge, as I said on a previous occasion. I agree with the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) that even on the basis of this Bill we are not within measurable distance of compensating adequately the miners’ phthisis sufferers of this country for the services they have performed to the country. I do not wish to be betrayed into any suggestion of putting up the claims ofthe native miners’ phthisis sufferers against those of the European miners’ phthisis sufferers. I am only stating the fact that, with the political support which they have behind them, the European miners have been able to get progressive improvements from the mining industry. They have been able to get increasing rewards from the mining industry for the services they have given and the sacrifices they have made. But the position in regard to the native population is a conspicuous contrast to that. In the course of time also, as I said, the whole condition of life of the native mineworker has changed. At the time when the foundation of the Miners’ Phthisis Act as it has applied to the native worker today was laid, the native mineworker was to a large extent still an agriculturist giving a comparatively short period of service to the mining industry, and maintaining a more or less traditional standard of living that had some security to it as the result of the greater accessibilitiy of land to him. Since those days the standard of living of all natives in this country has changed under the pressure of a European cash system. The native has ceased to live on a subsistence level. He has become bound by all the obligations of a money economy; and in the meantime the increase of population coupled with the introduction of the Native Land Acts has progressively reduced the availability of land. Today unfortunately their holdings are generally smaller, and in many cases there are no land holdings at all to give any reality to the continual assumption that the native mineworker is indeed a peasant. Yet over the whole period, as I have said, thanks to the operation of the migrant labour system under which new sources of labour are continually being tapped whenever our own sources showed a tendency to achieve a scarcity value, further native earnings have been kept at a uniform level. The first real improvemént, the only real improvement in that level took place last year as the result of the Mine Native Wages Commission. And I would point out to the House that, on the evidence of this Bill which is before us, the whole difference which the improvement consequent upon the report has apparently effected is to raise the average earnings of a native mineworker, including the 30s. which is the estimated cost of food and lodging, from £4 10s. a month to £5 a month. It is clear from the calculations upon which this Bill is based that the mining industry calculates the average earnings of the native mineworkers now, including the 30s. estimated value of food and loding, at £5 a month. In other words the whole improvement has been some 10s. all over. Now the result of the changed condition of the native labourer has been to widen the range of poverty among the community from which the native mineworkers are derived. We have stressed that ourselves in the House on various occasions on the basis of the information available to us, but since the subject was under discussion before, since we stated our case on the amending Bill of 1941, we have had the report of the Mine Native Wages Commission which has substantiated our contentions beyond our wildest dreams. That report has shown most conclusively the extent of the poverty of the natives from whom the mines draw their labour supply, and the enormous dependence of the native who goes to the mine upon the earnings he obtains at the mines. The commission showed that it was in fact the poorer natives of the reserve who come to the mines, that they are in many cases becoming in fact permanent labourers and not casual labourers in the old sense, that the period of contract has steadily extended and that the period of so-called rest in the reserves has steadily declined. Thus, the commission states, a great proportion of these mineworkers are in fact practically permanent workers on the mines. In the circumstances, the level of compensation payable to those who fall by the way has become of vital importance to the whole of the community to which they belong. In view of those facts we have continually pressed in the last few years that the terms of the Miners’ Phthisis Act should be applied straight through to the native mineworkers. We had worked out what that application would mean, and we know that on the basis of the application of the Miners’ Phthisis Acts as they apply in respect of other miners, the native mineworkers would not even then be able to maintain themselves on the compensation which they could get, that the Government would have to do what it has been forced to do for European miners in the primary stage of the disease, that is it would have to provide a special fund out of which the poverty and the need of the people might be relieved. Our contentions in that regard were submitted to the Phthisis Commission, arid those members of, the House who have read that commission’s report and who have taken the trouble to read it right through (since the native sections come at the end in all cases), will see that both the majority report and the minority report fully supported our contentions in regard to the native population and accepted our recommendations. They supported our contention that the native mineworker is derived from an extremely poor community, that his loss of earning power has most catastrophic effects on the standard of living of his family and serious effects on the community from which he comes. In all these circumstances, they agreed, there is grave responsibility upon the mining industry to compensate adequately and continuously and to accept continuing responsibility for the native phthisis sufferer, as it is accepted that they have continuing responsibility for the European miner. I only need to read this paragraph from the majority report, which was in fact endorsed by the minority—

And on the strength of that finding they recommended, in regard to native mineworkers, what they recommended for all mineworkers, that there should be a pension basis for all phthisis sufferers. The minority report took up exactly the same attitude. They insisted that in their view the mining industry owed the same obligation to the native phthisis sufferer as to any other phthisis sufferer, and they accepted the principle adopted by the majority report that that responsibility should not be met except on the basis of a pension, a continuing liability on the part of the mines to support their own victims. I may say of course that it is extremely gratifying to find that our contentions have been so fullly accepted by the Commission on the strength not only of our information but of all the other information which came before them; and in all the circumstances, I think it may be clear on what foundation we expected the incorporation into this Bill of what was our basic demand, a pension for the native sufferer. In this connection I want to remind the House that phthisis affects the native mineworker in a different way, on a different scale, from Europeans. In normal circumstances the incidence of simple silicosis is much less among native workers than amongst Europeans, but tuberculosis complicated by silicosis shows a much higher incidence amongst natives. That is, the bulk of native miners’ phthisis sufferers fall into the second and third stages of the disease, and on such evidence as we have the mortality rate amongst the native sufferers is very much higher than amongst the Europeans. The verdict of the Research Committee which investigated this situation some years ago is the basis of most of our information in this matter. Its evidence is rather old in date but it is all we have and it claims that normally 60 per cent. of natives who contract tuberculosis plus silicosis die within two years. In all the circumstances, the House and the Minister will understand our emphasis upon the necessity for a pension basis for native phthisis sufferers. And they will appreciate from the facts I have given in respect of the incidence of the disease that we are concerned mainly with the large number of native sufferers who are in fact practically 100 per cent. incapacitated by the disease, and therefore cannot work while, as the minority report stresses, natives suffering from phthisis find much greater difficulty in obtaining other employment than do Europeans. We had reason to believe, on the basis of all the information put before the Minister, that this Bill would introduce pensions for these native sufferers. It was with the greatest shock of disappointmeint that we realise we were not to get this. All that the Bill has given us is that in future we shall have one stage only for native sufferers and that all of them will be compensated in the same way and get the equivalent of three years wages. That is going to average out, on the figures before us, at £180. It is quite true that that is a considerable improvement at first glance. It means on the £5 a month average operating since last year that people in the ante-primary stage jump from an award of £60 to £180. Those in the second stage, the old primary stage, will get a double lump sum. Their compensation will be increased from £90 to £180; and those in the third stage will rise from £120 to £180. But I want to emphasise again that the bulk of the native sufferers are in the second and third stages, and not in the first, and they must therefore be our main consideration. The fact is that they are now to be given a flat level compensation which will mean that the man in the secondary stage will get a lump sum grant increased by some £60. Now, I must say that that is a situation which we find impossible to accept. I sincerely hope that the final form in which this Bill will come before the House next year will not carry this provision. So far I have not been able to decide in my own mind, on the information before us, exactly what the reasons have been for the failure of the Minister to grant pensions for natives. He told us today that he wanted to establish the pension basis, which means, in effect, that he really believes that that would be the just and sensible thing to do. He did not make it clear to us why he did not do it. He said that there were a number of difficulties in the way and rather suggested that these were administrative in character. As I understood him, he did not lay particular stress on the financial side. He did suggest that the pensions in the Bill will cost the industry a considerable additional amount, but he did not suggests that it was the increased cost of the pension system that had prevented him considering it. He did say that one of the difficulties in the case was that there had been no guarantee for native miners’ phthisis compensation in the past and that he was laying the foundation for a possible pension system by now beginning to build up a fund to which the mines would contribute and from which benefits to native sufferers would in future be paid; but I do not think he suggested that the absence of that fund was the cause of his failure to establish a pension system how. So I do not see any real necessity for arguing that case. I cannot in any case see that there is an argument for it. We are beginning new services. There is no reason why we should not lay the full foundation for the new service now instead of later. I cannot see why the compensation fund should hot now be launched to carry the type of service which we want, instead of what the Government is offering us. If a purely financial issue were involved, I must say that I was surprised to hear the Minister, who was very emphatic about the financial difficulties of the mines, telling us, that he had decided not to follow the lines suggested by the majority report that the levelling up of awards to people who have already been compensated under other Acts should be levied upon the State and not upon the mining industry. That was one of the findings of the majority report which I thought would have commended itself to the Minister as being completely legitimate. The argument upon which that finding was based was an eminently reasonable one, namely that the cost of compensation for phthisis is a cost of industry and to pay awards on a higher scale to people for whom that cost was not originally computed is to put a tax on the industry. The Minister to my surprise did not accept that argument. Instead, he said he proposed to lay on the industry the cost of this levelling up process. If that is the case I do not see why we should be concerned about the financial implications of establishing the position of the native phthisis sufferer. But the White Paper suggests that the real difficulties in the way of establishing a pension system for natives are purely administrative. The White Paper says it is not possible to extend to the native the method of compensation proposed in the Bill for the European miner owing to the impracticability of having periodical medical examination for the great majority of natives once they have ceased to be employed on the mines and the administrative difficulties in connection with identification, proof of payment and questions of dependency. If these are the grounds on which the Minister and his Department decided not to bring the awards to natives into line with the principles established for Europeans, I can only say that I do not accept any of them; and in not accepting any of them I am in very good company indeed. I am not only in the company of both the majority and minority of the members of the Miners’ Phthisis Commission but also of the Native Affairs Department, and in the last resort, I believe possibly also in the company of the Chamber of Mines itself, although I am not quite sure what sort of company that means. I want to remind the Minister that for the last six years the Burëau has actually been administering a policy under which native miners’ phthisis sufferers like Europeans have been receiving the compensation due to those who progress from one stage to another. We used to be told that that could not be done because of the absence of this medical examination, but it has been done under that ex gratiia system for the last six years, so it has obviously not been impossible.

But it has not been very successful.

On the other difficulties raised in this White Paper statement, I’ would only refer the Minister to the majority report which has given the evidence of every one of the interested governments to the effect that they will find it quite simple to administer a system of pensions and that they will have no difficulty at all in tracing their miners’ phthisis sufferers; and in so far as the question of dependency arises, I would again refer the Minister to the first report of the Centlivres Commission on the Civil Service, which was presented to us during this Session. That Commission was called upon to consider the question of children’s allowances as part of the cost of living allowances, and it was suggested that this could not be instituted because it would be impossible to apply this to natives. Against that contention, the Native Affairs Department emphatically stated that there would not be the slightest difficulty in applying a system of children’s allowances to the native population. That is the evidence of a Government Department itself. In all the circumstances, I hope the Minister will explain more fully why he and his Department find it quite impossible to accept the pension basis of compensation for native phthisis sufferers as we requested him to do and as we feel is justified. I am not going to say much more. I will only say this that our failure to compensate the native miners’ phthisis sufferers and other native sufferers from occupational diseases which incapacitates them for work to the point at which they can maintain themselves and their families, we are guilty of inhumanitarianism and of social folly. If we do not enable those who are Willing to work to maintain themselves and their families when they can no longer work we are being party both to injustice and to the waste of our human resources. We are creating poverty and distress and to the extent that our social conscience calls upon us to relieve that poverty we must impose a burden on the whole community. I am going to do my best to see that the other members of the Government are aware of the problem I see implicit in the question. This matter of miners’ phthisis compensation, as has been said, is a national problem. It is not a matter for the Department of Mines or the Chamber of Mines. It is a matter for the Government as a whole. Are we going to protect the victims of this industry through the industry itself, to which they have given their services, or are we going to throw them back on the community, to be assisted by some other means which will throw a tax on the community and subject them to charity? The Government must make up its mind about that, whether the cost of the maintenance of native sufferers and their dependants is to a production cost of the mining industry or a tax on the general public. My anxiety is that they may decide on a tax on the general public. I know what that will mean for the natives. It will mean in the last resort that the native will neither have a reward for his labour nor receive any compensation from the industry to which he has given his service nor relief from the community who has failed to secure him that reward. We know the fight that goes on over every penny provided from national revenue for services for natives. For these reasons I feel that the Government would be unwise to throw back the responsibility on to the community and I hope the Cabinet will carry the hon. the Minister of Mines with them in seeing that this shall not be done.

At the outset I want to join the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) in giving the Minister an assurance that whatever suggestions may come from this side, we in all sincerity intend on behalf of our Party, to assist him to place a Silicosis Act upon the Statute Book for the thousands and tens of thousands of mineworkers on the Witwatersrand which will comply with the demands of those people. That is the full assurance which we give to the Minister. I am bitterly disappointed with the introductory speech made by the Minister in this House. The Minister spoke about something stated by the hon. member for Ceres as “the assistance of my Party” and also about the memorandum received from the Secretary of the General Council of the Mineworkers’ Union. Let me say to the Minister that for years now this question has been dealt with and through all these years thousands and tens of thousands of mineworkers keenly looked forward to the day when justice would be done them. I want to say that the Minister must get away from that political complex of his. This question of miners’ phthisis legislation is a national matter. It is not concerned with any Party. The United Party opposite, just as the Nationalist Party on this side and the Labour Party, is concerned with it, and I therefore desire to express the hope that the Minister will not continue along that road which he has taken, but that he will consult those who are actually interested in the matter, whatever Party they may belong to. Something which is very peculiar to me is the manner in which the Bill has come before the House. The Minister promised the House sincerely that he would introduce a Bill during the current Session which would solve the whole position as far as miners’ phthisis sufferers are concerned. Four days before the end of the Session the Minister puts this Bill before the House! But now I want to ask the Minister what is the object of his statement to this House that he would make a speech on the Bill, that he would give us an opportunity of expressing our criticism and that the Bill would then be left there? The Minister must not take it amiss when I say that it is nothing else but bluff. On the other hand, the Minister is engaged in an endeavour to keep his own people together. Nobody can tell me that there is a single member in this House who is fully satisfied with this Bill. There are certain principles in the Bill which are improvements and which I want to welcome. I want to be fair and I will come to them. But what I want to see is that during the current Session we shall still receive a proper Bill which will comply with the requirements and needs of the miners’ phthisis sufferers on the Rand. We owe them that, and we have promised it to them. Much has been said about Chapter 5. At the moment we are only able to exercise criticism and do nothing further, and I would like to deal with the Bill briefly from the beginning, one chapter after another. We come to the first chapter which deals with administrative provisions. It is a very important chapter. Then we come to the constitution of the Silicosis Board. It is constituted of at least three and at most five full-time members. They are officials appointed by the Minister. Then there are three or five part-time members. There is the Director of the Department of Native Affairs, or another official of the Department. One person will be appointed in respect of the scheduled mines. He of course represents the mines. There is one representing the workers in those mines. A fourth represents registered mines and then there is somebody representing the workers in the registered mines. If the Minister has a knowledge of the psychology of mineworkers this board would not have been so constituted by him. Every worker, in whatever category he may be, has the desire to be recognised on such a board. Now the Minister comes along and he does give recognition but the representatives of the workers are men of an inferior status on that board. The members who act on behalf of the workers are part-time members. If we now take into consideration that only a full-time member may be chairman of the board or may be appointed as chairman if the chairman is absent we may realise that the workers will not be satisfied with it. If we further bear in mind that the part-time members, as far as gratuities are concerned, drop out and not the full-time members, we see that those men are being placed in an inferior position. I say that if the Minister wants to give satisfaction to the mineworkers he should give them one or more of the permanent members, and I think we owe it to them. But I am not satisfied with the constitution of this board. I rather go back to the report of the Stratford Commission. I regret very much that the Minister pays so little attention to the report of the Stratford Commission. Judge Stratford who was the chairman was also the secretary in 1902 of the first commission which was appointed to investigate this matter. That was the commission known as the Milner Commission. He therefore has at his disposal profound knowledge of this matter and he was able to give guidance to the commission. But here he is being passed over by the Minister. The Stratford Commission proposed that this board should be constituted as follows. The chairman should be the representative of the National Insurance Silicosis Commission; then there should be a representative of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation; the chairman of the Medical Bureau; a representative of employers and a representative of employees. I still want to say, as far as this board is concerned, that I give preference to the proposal made by the Stratford Commission to that of the Minister. I want to express the hope that the Minister will take it into consideration. I now come to the Medical Silicosis Bureau. The Bill provides: “The Minister shall appoint so many doctors as he deems necessary”. The Minister knows, and his Party knows, and it is a fact, that mineworkers have no faith whatsoever in this board. They simply have not that faith. I have no suspicion about any of the medical men on that board. Personally I have no suspicion, but the fact remains that mineworkers have no faith in that board as it is constituted. I now want to put this question to the Minister. He knows that the prominent mines all have their own doctors known to all the mineworkers. Now give the mineworkers an opportunity of having these doctors as their representatives on the bureau. Then that lack of faith which the mineworker has would disappear immediately and we will again have unanimity and establish our faith amongst the mineworkers themselves. That is one of the points which I would like the hon. Minister to take into account. Then we come to the Medical Board of Appeal and here I welcome the constitution proposed by the Minister. The Minister is giving representation to the mineworkers. If the Minister is able to grant it in respect of the Board of Appeal, I cannot see why he is not able to grant it in respect of other boards, in order to create satisfaction and faith among mineworkers. Then we come to the other board and that is the Research Committee. A research committee should be welcomed by all of us. I congratulate the Minister on that committee but I want to ask the Minister when such a committee functions some day that it should specially exert itself in respect of the prevention of the forming of dust, in the first place, and in the second place the elimination of dust in the air and, thirdly dissolving the dust in large quantities of air. Now the Minister will tell me that that has already been done. The fact remains that the mines have in the past always concentrated their efforts to fix and determine the life of the mines. They were however not so much concerned with the conditions of mineworkers, and I want to appeal to the Minister to make that the special task of such a research committee which is to be established. Chapter 2 mainly deals with incorporated and registered mines. Here we have an improvement on the old Act which I welcome. I am glad that the Minister is making this provision that all small gold mines and other mines which at present are the cause of silicosis, asbestosis and other lung diseases will now also be declared registered mines. Here the Minister is making provision for a long felt need and I welcome the provisions of this chapter in general. Then we come to the third chapter. The third chapter is mainly concerned with the levying of finance. I welcome it. But now an actuary will determine what levies must be made on the mines to provide funds A and B with the necessary capital, and from those funds the industrial fund will be financed. I now come to a matter which I cannot get past, and that is Clause 33. Clause 33 provides explicitly that the levy in respect of mine-owners must be sufficient to cover the debts to be financed from the funds. The Minister leaves it like that, and he does not say a word about it until he comes to the penultimate clause of the Bill and he says the State must contribute £50,000 to the fund. Secondly, the Minister retains the right that, should an amount of over £4,000,000 not be collected over a certain period by way of levy, the State will be liable for the difference. I am not prepared to support this matter. My objection in the first case is to our granting a subsidy of £50,000. Here we are creating a very dangerous precedent. We here establish the principle that any industry may come along and say: There you granted a subsidy of £50,000; we now must be subsidised by £50,000. For that reason it is impossible for me to give my support to the Minister in this matter until I have further information. Then I come to Chapter 4, medical examinations and certificates. I have no objection to these clauses. We then come to the most important chapter. That is the chapter in respect of which all other members came to a standstill, namely Chapter 5. I think this Bill was really intended for Chapter 5, because mineworkers have been alarmed for years. They desire better remuneration, and now I want to say to the Minister that, with all these fine provisions in the Bill, I must reject the Bill as such, because the compensation which will accrue to mineworkers under this Bill do not in my opinion go far enough. There I agree with the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) who is of opinion that it does not go far enough. What is the position? I have here the comparative scales of the existing Act and this Bill which has been brought before the House in this manner. Let us take the first stage, here I want to congratulate the Minister on the designation, the old designation of ante-primary, primary and secondary stages was misleading. I welcome this designation. We now refer to the first, the second and the third stages. Under the existing Act a person who earned £20 per month received a lump sum of £252 when the bureau certified that he was suffering from silicosis in the first stage. The Minister introduces this Bill which is presumed to effect improvements and what does he give the mineworkers? Instead of £252 he gives them £250, £2 less. Where that is the case why has the Minister altered it? He has only made the position worse. But he goes very much further. Under the existing Act the lump sum pension which he drew could gradually increase, according to the salary scale, to an amount of £616 17s. 6d. The highest amount which he can now attain is £472 under this Bill. It is quite logical to say to the Minister that if that is an improvement which he intends giving to mineworkers in respect of the first stage, we elect to remain where we are. There is another matter. Supposing a person contracts silicosis in the first stage and he ceases working and he leaves; would it be possible for that person to gain restored health in his lifetime? Does the disease stop there or does it develop? My experience after consulting different medical men is that one is able to say that in 99 cases out of 100, even though you remove the person from underground, once he has contracted silicosis in the first stage, he develops it in the second stage and the third stage until he dies. In this case we find that the mineworker has a grievance. The mineworker considers that if he contracts that disease in the mine equitable compensation should be provided for him. Where there is a difference between mineworkers, where some desire a pension and where others desire a lump sum payment, I want to suggest that the Minister makes this matter optional and leaves the choice to the men. When we have fixed a proper basis for the first stage the mineworker has to choose whether he wants a lump sum or whether that sum should be converted into a pension. The money accrues to the men. Let them then choose in what form they want to have it. I come now to the second stage. I welcome the improvement that in respect of the second stage a pension will be paid instead of a lump sum, but here my objection is that the pension is hopelessly inadequate. I want to say to the Minister, honestly and sincerely, that we on this side want to help him. At a week’s notice we would have submitted to the Minister a scientific basis upon which pensions could be calculated. We do not want to shoot at random. Such recommendations are of no assistance. If the Minister requires our help we trust in the near future to give him every assistance on behalf of the Party. We cannot at the moment tell the Minister what the amount should be. We have practically determined it on an actuarial basis and I think it will satisfy the Minister. That we can discuss subsequently. I merely want to say to the Minister that his pension for the second stage is a hopeless failure. A man drawing a salary of £30 perhaps works for 20 years, but after 19 years and nine months he may contract silicosis according to the bureau. I am grateful for the progress which has been made on the mines that it now requires such a long period for a man to come to the second stage, but when a man reaches the second stage he has given his best years to the mines, and what does the Minister give him? He gets a pension of £7 10s. for himself, £1 13s. for his wife and 16s. 6d. for each child. The Minister can rest assured that we will not agree to that. When that person reaches the second stage and he still remains underground he does not get paid that pension. He only draws a pension from the date upon which he leaves the mine. It is his life which is being given to the mine. If that man does not draw his pension it should be placed to his credit so that his pension may be supplemented when he leaves. The Minister should take into consideration the amount of loss. That money should be credited to that man’s account and what is more he ought to be paid interest on it. When the Minister considers that any capital in the country doubles itself in 17 years at 4 per cent. interest, the Minister will agree with me what a terrible loss it is for the mineworker when he is unable to get that pension to which he is entitled and no interest is being paid to him on it. It is our wish that he should get it in full and I trust that the Minister will take this matter into serious consideration. That is what I desire to suggest at this stage. When the man reaches the last stage he is finished. He has reached the end of his life, and as we know mineworkers, when the tuberculotic reaches the third stage, his life means nothing to him. I say that the provision which is being made for benefits is far too meagre. The Minister ignores the report of the Stratford Commission. The Stratford Commission makes provision for £27 10s. in cases where wages amount to £40. These people have had suitable actuaries who worked out the matter for them. They award £27 10s. where the Minister awards the highest amount of £18 in respect of the third stage. Thus the Stratford Commission goes much further than the Minister. I know why. The Minister is bound to the Chamber of Mines. The Minister will notice that the minority report as well as the majority report of the Stratford Commission emphasises the fact that the gold producers were not desirous of having pensions changed. The Minister knows it. I think it is one of the reasons. These are a few of the most important matters which we desire to bring to the notice of the Minister in respect of pensions. I once more want to say to the Minister that if we on this side can be of any assistance to him we will give him that assistance and we mean it sincerely and honestly. We proceed from the point of view on this side that compensation should be placed upon such a basis that the mining industry in South Africa should have a proper chance in this country. The mines must exist on that basis but on the other hand we say this; we say that the mining industry is important in our national life, and in the economic structure of the country, but we say that the industry must be so developed that the nation will obtain its share of those profits after the mineworker had been granted his justifiable share. That is our point of view. The English newspapers want to make the public believe that we desire to kill the mines. That is nonsense. We appreciate the importance of the mines. But we must keep an eye on the manpower producing the gold, the mineworkers. These are a few or the important matters in connection with this Bill which I desire to bring to the attention of the Minister and I trust that the Minister will give his serious consideration to them. I want to conclude and say to the Minister that I welcome the improvements contemplated in the Bill, but as a result of these meagre pensions I am unable to vote for the Bill and I desire to move the following further amendment—

I second. My thoughts take me back to the days before 1939 when the hon. Minister was still a representative of one of the mineworkers’ constituencies. We are able to visualise the Minister in those days as pleading for mineworkers. How the expectations of mineworkers rose in 1939 when he was taken into the Cabinet as a Minister and especially when he was made Minister of Mines. But what have we received since that time? Practically up to the present the only improvement which the mineworkers have obtained is the small ex gratia award which has been increased somewhat. I can say freely that this side of the House has contributed much towards the appointment of a commission. We welcomed the appointment of that commission. The commission was appointed to enquire into miners’ phthisis legislation and also to go into financial grants. The commission was appointed in 1941 and for four years the Minister has practically been hiding behind that report. He made the excuse that they were engaged upon investigating the matter and that he was unable to do anything until they submitted their report. What do we find now? The report was submitted 18 months ago and today the hon. Minister comes along and asks for a further extension and does not see his way clear to put through that legislation during the current year. It is no wonder that people are asking whether he is really serious about the matter to improve the conditions of mine workers. We must in all sincerity say that he is apparently not serious. In the meantime we have to see tuberculotics struggle to make a living. They are virtually being starved at present and consequently the Minister is able to appreciate what the feelings of those people must be. It is impossible under such conditions to find a satisfied mineworker. The mineworkers see how they have to extract the wealth and they receive no proper compensation and what are their prospects? We find that they lose their health and when they look to the future they are faced with famine. On the one hand today wealth is being accumulated, especially from the mining industry, and on the other hand you find famine amongst the men extracting that wealth from the earth. I say under such conditions that one is unable to find a satisfied mineworker. We are able to picture for ourselves the disappointment which must prevail now that the Minister is again coming forward with the excuse that he cannot put through the legislation during the current year. We have in mind the possible extension which could take place. I have my own constituency in mind. It has been developed fairly far. In the Free State there are great possibilities. We view the future with concern when we think that there are thousands and thousands of young Afrikaners who have to enter the mining industry and sacrifice their health and there is no future for them. All that faces them is undermining of their health. I think how between 1911 and 1941 10,330 succumbed to miners’ phthisis excluding occupational diseases contracted by them and also accidents as a result of which they lost their lives. The Minister again told us today that many of the mines are not able to bear the cost. My opinion is that when a mine is unable to pay its workers proper wages it is in the interests of the country for that mine which is unable to pay proper wages to its workers to be closed down, rather than that the people should lose their health. I want to express my regret that the Minister is not putting through the legislation during the current year and improve the lot of those people.

Mr. Speaker, I think that each and everyone of us is very anxious to assist in putting through a measure that will provide better benefits for the victims who have contracted an occupational disease, but as this silicosis Bill is not the desired measure I was very pleased to hear from the hon. Minister this morning that it was not his intention to proceed with it through all the stages. I was also very pleased to hear that he would welcome criticism, and as this measure may have a very far-reaching effect upon our national economy, I also feel that it is appropriate for Us to express our views and I wish to assure the hon. Minister that I will do so with an unbiased and unselfish mind. Mr. Speaker, in comparing this Bill with the existing Act, I find many improvements, and I find that the hon. Minister did make an honest attempt to improve the benefits for silicotics. But I do feel that this Bill is not the desired measure. Notwithstanding the fact that this Bill provides for increased benefits, I still say that these benefits are not commensurate with the sacrifices that have been and are still being made by the men who through a force of circumstances have to take up employment whereby their health is impaired and whereby their span of life is shortened. I also feel that not sufficient consideration is given to the mining industry. Mr. Speaker, the time has arrived to make a drastic change in our policy in regard to the mining industry, and speaking as an ex-employee of one of the largest gold mines on the Witwatersrand, I want to confine my remarks to the gold mining industry and to the European employees of that industry. I have said European employees, not that I consider the natives of less importance, but because I feel that the representatives in this House of that section of the community are quite able to plead the cause of the natives. Let me say, Sir, that I view the gold mining industry as of national importance, and that this Bill will not do justice to the employee, the industry or the State. It is my intention to approach this matter objectively, and I trust that any criticism that I may level against this Bill may be considered as being of a constructive nature. Mr. Speaker, this Bill does not take into consideration the value of the industry in providing employment for a large section of our community nor does this Bill take into consideration the stimulating effect this industry has on secondary industries, which in turn provide increased employment as well as absorbing the products of our steel industry. Nor does this Bill encourage the mining of low grade ore in order to produce the maximum amount of gold for the benefit of the State. This is all evidenced by the fact that this Bill proposes to place a further burden of about a third of a million pounds on the working cost of the industry. Therefore I wish to make a few suggestions with a view to improving this measure and to give relief to both the employee and the employer. The majority report recommends the abolition of the provision in the present Act dealing with the forfeiture of compensation on the continuation of underground work. It also recommends that silicotics, irrespective of the degree of the disease, should continue to work underground. As I do not fully subscribe to that recommendation, I support sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 49 of the Bill, whereby silicotics in the third stage are debarred from working underground, but I do not support the provision whereby the pension of the silicotic in the second stage is suspended while he is employed in the mine. Although no further restriction is imposed ….

On the surface as well.

No, not on the surface. Although no further restriction to that of Section 49 (3), is placed upon the miners certified to be in the second stage of silicosis, his health is nevertheless further impaired than that of the miner in the first stage with the result that his earning power is still further reduced, and it is only fair and just that the deficiency in income should be made good by a pension. It is also very conspicious that the penalty imposed upon an employee under this sub-section is absent in so far as the employer is concerned. Then with regard to the provision made in Clause 65 of the Bill, for compensation to the dependants of deceased miners in the first stage, where silicosis contributed to the death. I feel that this provision does not go far enough. Silicosis may not have contributed to the death, but it may have been a contributing agent in contracting an illness in so far as the powers of resistance have been impaired. In order to make proper provision for this I would suggest that the medical profession be consulted. Further, I do not consider the pension to the widow of a deceased miner is sufficient. I feel that a widow is entitled to treble the amount of compensation allotted to her whilst her husband was alive and not only double. These are only a few suggestions, but I feel they would make for a great improvement, and as they will place a further burden on the working costs of the industry in addition to the burdens imposed by the Bill, I wish to suggest a radical change in the imposition of a levy in order to provide for compensation. Mr. Speaker, I suggest the Government should take over the outstanding liability. I also suggest that the amount standing to the credit of the Trust Fund be now paid into the Compensation Fund, and that the Government make good any shortfall as well as provide for all compensation by adjusting present taxation on profits to meet the circumstances, and thereby relieve the mines of the present burden. I should like to see the compensation paid out of consolidated revenue, to be made good by taxation on profits. I want the hon. Minister to deal with the gold mining industry as a whole, as one unit, and not as individual mines or companies.

The Chamber of Mines objects to that.

The mines with larger profits should pay more than those with smaller profits. After all the rich mines who are in such a fortunate position today as to be mining high grade ore owe their establishment and development to the profits made by the low grade mines during the days when the latter had high grade ore to mine and were making good profits. Furthermore, the high grade mines of today have reaped the benefit of the experience gained by the low grade mines when they were experimenting with the prevention of occupational disease. In making this change we will not only be able to provide increased benefits but we will also be able to extract the gold from the low grade ore, which is a national asset and which gives us our overseas purchasing power. We will be able to continue to provide employment in our low grade mines and thereby stimulate secondary industries, which in turn will provide increased employment, as well as absorb bigger supplies from our steel industry and so assist in stabilising our national economy. I anticipate a great deal of criticism. It may be said that the mines will only mine the lowest grade ore in order to escape the tax, but I can assure you, Sir, that the shareholders will not be satisfied with that. They will want a return on their money invested. It may also be said that the mines will not take the necessary precautions for the prevention of occupational disease. Let me say that mineowners are not inhumane. They are very much concerned about the health of their employees. Indeed they are amongst the finest employers you can find. But in case some official should become negligent, then the regulations can easily be tightetened up, whereby inspectors shall be guilty of an offence if they notify the management in advance of their intention to inspect working conditions. Mr. Speaker, I have tried to prove to the hon. Minister that this Bill is unacceptable and I want to appeal to him to accept the amendment by the hon. member for North-East Rand. I trust he will not fail us.

This Bill before us today is one of the most important pieces of legislation that has been presented to this House for a long time. It deals with a very important section of industrail employees and with a very important industry. Mining is regarded as a national asset, and my submission is that the miners themselves are equally a national asset. We were pleased at the high level at which this debate has been maintained during the day, and particularly by the example set by the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals). In view of the circumstances surrounding this Bill and in view of its importance, it is urgently necessary that it be kept above Party politics. The Bill is to stand over, we cannot pass it. I personally support the amendment that the Bill stand over and that further advice be obtained. No doubt some people will be disappointed that it should have to stand over, and we can appreciate that when we realise there are several thousand beneficiaries and 3,500 widows drawing pensions. I trust that when the Bill is presented in a better form next year the benefits that may flow from it will be made retrospective to the beginning of 1945, particularly when we remember that our miners have been looking forward to this Bill since 1936. In 1936 the then Minister of Mines promised he would proceed with this Bill. Presumably owing to circumstances beyond their control the Bill has not been introduced by the Government until 1945. But it may prove in the best interests of the present beneficiaries that the Bill has had to stand over. This Bill will be passed against a background of postwar adjustment, not only in financial relations but in the matter of mining taxation. We on the Government benches are urging in particular increased benefits in the secondary stage. We should like to achieve that object, We would like to see bigger benefits. Will it perhaps not be easier and in the best interests of the miners to have this Bill made effective after the readjustment in mining taxation has taken place whether or not the present deficit has to be made up by the State or by the shareholders? The Bill is definitely an improvement on the existing Act. It is not the ideal thing, but nobody can deny it is an improvement. It is hardly necessary to particularise the improvements individually. They have been mentioned and enlarged upon by the Minister. I should like, however, to refer to the fact that an important principle has been introduced in that a pension is now being paid in the second stage. One cannot accept the objection raised against the Mineworkers’ Union’s suggestion to have the pension introduced from the first stage. A commission sat and if one studies the Bill one finds the Minister has taken points from both reports, the minority report and the majority report, and his Bill is based on them. Time does not permit me to describe the differences, but I suggest to members that if they study the differences they will find it helpful in understanding the Bill. The hon. Minister has always told us he would give us a very simple measure; on the contrary, this is a very complicated measure, and we hope that next year he will bring forward something simpler. The Bill has several points which can be criticised, but the Minister’s idea, in fact he explicity stated so, was that he would like to hear suggestions from all parts of the House. The most important suggestion is in the amendment from the Government benches, namely that the consideration of the Bill stands over pending further consideration with the employers and the Mineworkers’ Union. We hope that the Minister will not only have these consultations, but that he will also during the recess consult members of this House and see whether something better cannot be evolved. In the first place there is the question of pensions in the secondary stage. I think it is the consensus of opinion in this House that pensions should start in the very first stage. I may refer the Minister to a memorandum by the Mineworkers’ Union where they point out a man’s life in the ante-primary stage is 4½ years; in the primary or second stage 4 years; secondary to death 7 years. In other words, a man has a life of 15½ years only after he has contracted the disease. It is entirely wrong that a man should have to wait for a pension until the last few years of his life. I think we all hope the Minister will see his way clear to make it a pension from the first stage. There is a great need to eliminate the distinction in the various stages. Then there is the question of the doctors who examine miners and potential beneficiaries. One has no intention to cast any reflections on these officials, particularly as they have no opportunity to defend themselves in this House, but it cannot be denied that one comes across cases where doctors themselves who are outside the bureau, tell of men they have definitely found to be suffering from phthisis, though the bureau states there is no sign of phthisis. There is no doubt that there is a certain amount of misgiving in this regard, and I sincerely hope that some way will be found for it to be removed. I submit that those doctors who examine the miners and the phthisis sufferers must constitute a panel on which doctors should sit representing the Government and the Mineworkers’ Union. Then if there is a difference of opinion the doctors are bound in consultation to find a way out. After all, there is the old saying that two heads are better than one. We feel that doubt should be eliminated. The second aspect I wish to mention is: Have we gone far enough in curing the phtihsis sufferer? I am convinced he would rather be cured than compensated. Can health be compensated in terms of pounds, shillings and pence? We never know whether first of all it is possible to take a man out of the mine at the stage where he has not yet contracted that disease. I suppose the average time would be about ten years. It would be better if we could pull him out of the mine after ten years and give him other employment. Why wait until he has contracted the disease and then try to make it up by payments in pounds, shillings and pence? That is an aspect which should be scientifically investigated. Then there is the question of residence, whether a man could not be taken from that atmosphere. I am told that cases have occurred on the Witwatersrand where people—in one case a Woman—who had never been underground but who have merely been living near a mine, have contracted silicosis. If that is so, then the question of atmosphere in respect of a potential sufferer is important, and it might be best to take the man away to a different environment where possibly his life could be extended instead of him being lost to the country. We cannot deny the fact that our miners constitute the cream of our manhood. Why? Because of the high level of physical ability and efficiency they must be proved to possess before they are permitted to work on the mines. Go into your war records and you will find the Mines Unit was one of the best. They constitute an asset to the country, they are the cream of our manhood, and it is our duty to preserve them in the best possible physical condition.

Both black and white.

Yes, naturally. I wonder to what extent the possibility has been investigated of taking steps against the contraction of tuberculosis. I am assured by a medical man that the tuberculosis germ is very weak in strong light, but very strong in a dark atmosphere. We know what the mines are like underground. Cannot artificial sunlight be introduced, if light is such an important factor in resisting the tuberculosis germ. I think this question of strong artificial sunlight should be investigated. Another important suggestion is this. I would make it compulsory that our miners should have a change every year, if not every six months. What happens today? In many cases they cannot afford a holiday to a seaside resort, one factor being the high fares on the South African Railways. If they could get away from their homes for three or four weeks in the year their health would definitely be improved. I go further. A Minister of Railways in this country once promised that railway fares would be so regulated that a worker, no matter what time of the year he got his leave would be able to travel at concession rates. I think the time is arriving, particularly in view of our so-called social security measures, when we should grant an annual holiday to all our workers and enable them to have this change. I would suggest there should be a State seaside resort for these people. I said in my opening remarks that the mining industry is a national asset; the miner, too, is a national asset, in the same way as labour is an asset as well as capital. Therefore let the State look after this asset. If the employee working for the Minister of Railways can have his holiday in a seaside resort established at Mossel Bay by the A.T.K.V., why on earth cannot the State do the same things for our miners, who are performing such an important task? Lastly, there is the question of the examination of these men. While reiterating I do not wish to cast reflections on the personnel of the board, it cannot be denied that the bureau has to cope with an enormous number of men every day. The members are pushed for time. It is only natural that examinations become nothing else than office routine and when the health and life of people are at stake we cannot allow it to become a matter of routine. The examinations should take place more frequently, at least every three months, and more time should be devoted to the men who have to be examined. In conclusion, I think every section of this House is prepared to help the Minister not only for the sake of the industry but also for the sake of the men who have upheld that industry for so many years. Let me say, too, I have had the pleasure of attending a meeting of the Mineworkers’ Union. I do not think these people are unreasonable; on the contrary, I found them a very reasonable crowd, and I am convinced their executive will co-operate 100 per cent. In talking with one of their most prominent officials, who incidentally is on the board today, I learned from him they would rather wait 12 months in order to have a proper Bill. My submission to the Minister this afternoon is that he makes use of all the possible advice he will get from that organisation, and that he should even go so far as to induce them to draft a Bill of their own and compare it with his and try to evolve a decent Bill. Let us hope next year will see the placing on the Statute Book of a charter on the lines of social security for the miners of this country.

I am sure the House was impressed by the Minister’s statement this morning when he introduced this Bill. One mus†* admit in all fairness to the Minister he has gone very fully indeed into the matter, otherwise he would not have been able to give the very ample and detailed explanations he gave us in connection with this very important matter. The question has been asked where he derived his information from? My own impression is that he has conferred with someone with special knowledge. If he had not done that he would not have been able to furnish us with the enormous amount of information he gave in introducing the second reading. Having thus expressed the opinion I have of the Minister, I want to go a little further and to say that I, like many others, am disappointed the measure has not been brought into operation this year. But the Minister, in making his explanation, said he was prepared to receive suggestions, and he mentioned that he had not the opportunity of conferring with members of the Cabinet as he would like to have done, and this was one of the several reasons why he had to postpone bringing the Bill into operation. I consider it a very sensible explanation, and on hearing it I made a mental note that it would give me an opportunity on my return home of consulting my supporters and my constituents, and to place before them the facts on the lines as set out today. Perhaps I am not in a position to know as much about miners’ phthisis as some hon. members think they do, although I have lived in a mining division for over 40 years. I thought I did know something about it, but I find I have always something to learn on an important matter like this. I am glad that the Minister has made the suggestion that we should examine the thing thoroughly, and I hope next year to have the opportunity of offering some practical suggestions to the Minister. Now there is one point in connection with this discussion which has not been mentioned yet, namely, this: This is purely a Silicosis Bill. I understand at present that on account of the deep level mining the miner is likely to contract ill-health in more ways than silicosis, and as regards deep level mining they are more liable to contract other diseases. That is a point I wish to impress upon the Minister, before the Bill is introduced to see whether it is not possible to have some provision for these men under this Bill. This is entirely a new suggestion but it is not out of place and in my opinion it will have to be dealt with in the near future, because I understand that silicosis is petering out. I am very glad to know that, but other ill-health is coming in on account of deep level mining. It is a well-known fact that on many occasions the question of the welfare of the miner has been my hardy annual. I have made many suggestions and the suggestion I am going to make now is largely on the lines I indicated before and on the lines suggested by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter), namely, that the miners are largely instrumental in producing the wealth of this country, and the country benefits to the tune of twenty millions plus another five or six millions war contributions. I want to suggest this to the Minister: When the railway employees wanted a pension fund to be put in good standing the Minister of Railways was not slow in coming forward to ask for large sums of money for that purpose. If it is possible for the State to do that I say again that the State should come forward to assist the miner on the lines suggested by the hon. member for Springs and as I will suggest. I suggest that the Minister should not take only the silicosis man into consideration but also the miner who is suffering in health from working at a depth of 8,000 feet below the surface. These men need the same consideration because they will not live long enough to contract silicosis but will have to leave their employment before that and will not get any compensation at all. The plea I am putting forward is that these men should be compensated in some way. I think I have made my point clear in connection with that and I am glad of the opportunity to voice my opinion. I want to go further and say this, that if the Minister can increase the benefits by a contribution from the State he should consider that, because the State benefits from the mines and from the efforts of the mineworkers, and the workers should participate in some of the benefits they bring forward. There are one or two other things I would like to mention in connection with the phthisis man. I have seen generations of phthisis men go since I have lived on the Rand, and if there is any section of the community which deserve the care of the country, it is they. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) mentioned children’s benefits. He argued that when they reach the age of 16 the contributions towards children drop away. I want to suggest to the Minister to make the age 18 years instead of 16 in special cases, because there are many children of widows who are being trained in some trade or business, and they have just begun to get training at the age of 16, and if this contribution is then taken away their training is stopped. If he could extend it to 18 years in special cases, for example where the child is receiving a commercial training, it would enable the child to continue learning. I also understand that the phthisis widow cannot draw her pension outside the Union. Does that apply only to present beneficiaries intended by this Bill, or are existing beneficiaries subject to it? There are many Cornishmen who lost their lives mining on the Rand and many of their widows would have liked to go back to Cornwall, but as the Bill stands now they cannot live there unless they get special permission. I fail to see why one pensioner is to be differently treated from another, for a pensioner in the Civil Service can go and live in Timbuctoo if he likes, but the poor widow of a phthisis man must live in this country. Will the Minister tell me whether these people will get this privilege or not.

I have listened to the debate with interest and was pleased to hear from the Minister that he did not propose to proceed further beyond having a discussion on the Bill. The Minister outlined his position clearly and I assure him that there are many points which are acceptable and which are a great improvement in the Bill. At the same time I want to assure the Minister that in the present form of the Bill I am not prepared to accept it. There are matters, as regards compensation and pensions for phthisis sufferers, which I wish to discuss. I think the pension is inadequate and that an improvement should be made, and I feel sure that the Minister will do that. There is the matter of the miners presenting themselves to the Bureau. The miners complain that they do not get fair treatment there. I would like to support the hon. member who said that we should have an impartial man there as well as the members of the Bureau, because that will do away with the feeling that they do not get justice from the Board. I do not say that is actually the case, but that is the feeling they have. Then there is the matter of the pension for the second stage. I think it is a good step forward in the Minister’s Bill but I appeal to the Minister to see whether it cannot be reconsidered, that the pension should start from the first stage and not from the second stage. I am speaking from the point of view of the miner. I know their conditions and I have seen their sufferings, and I know the lengthy period to which they live after being declared the first, second or third stage sufferer. It was said here that they go on for 15 and 20 years, but I have known cases who only lasted a few months and I think it is an exaggeration to say they last for 20 years. I know of numbers of cases, and on these grounds appeal that the Minister should have the pension from the first stage. I think the House has debated this matter at great length today and I ask the Minister to accept the adjournment of this debate. I move—

I second.

If those are the proceedings I wish here and now to accuse the United Party Chief Whip of a grave breach of faith because only a few minutes ago in consulting with him he said I should allow several other United Party members who wished to make short speeches to speak before I spoke myself.

You did not accept that.

That has nothing to do with it. It is a question of breach of faith between Whips which has arisen several times before, and the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) always has a ready excuse. The hon. member cannot do that. Now the adjournment of the debate has been seconded by the Chief Whip himself. That is a deliberate breach of faith.

Order, order. The hon. member cannot say that.

It is the truth.

The hon. member cannot use un-Parliamentary language and charge an hon. member with a deUberate breach of faith.

If that hon. member was a gentleman ….

Order, order.

On a point of order, can an hon. member say things like that?

I ask the hon. member to withdraw.

I withdraw, but in the very exceptional circumstances of the arrangements, may I ask the hon. member for Von Brandis to explain.

The position is as follows. I spoke to the hon. member a little while ago and told him that the programme was to adjourn this debate. He informed me that under no circumstances would his Party consent to the adjournment and I asked him whether he would move the adjournment after he had spoken. His reply was that they were opposed to it. There was no understanding or agreement. A discussion took place but no agreement was arrived at. I did, during the course of the discussion say that there would be one or two more United Party speakers and would he follow and move the adjournment, but the hon. member was adamant and I am afraid that in his present mood he did not appreciate what I was saying. There is no question of a breach of faith.

The position can be cleared up by the withdrawal of the motion for the adjournment. I made it quite clear to the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) that I wanted to use the full forty minutes. I explained that the decision about the adjournment rested with the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers) who has moved an amendment. There the hon. member for Von Brandis must be under a misapprehension. If that is the kind of attitude adopted by the Chief Whip the business of the House cannot be carried on. The hon. member for Von Brandis can prove his good faith by withdrawing the motion for the adjournment.

If the motion is withdrawn and the hon. member has an opportunity of speaking, would he move an adjournment of the debate after he has concluded his speech.

Certainly not. The hon. member for Mayfair, as Vice-President of the Mineworkers’ Union, is determined to oppose the adjournment of the debate. If the Government does not wish us to continue with the debate they must follow their own course. It is well-known that this question of miners’ phthisis is one of the chief preoccupations of the Labour Party. At this stage we are not prepared to make debating terms with either the Deputy-Prime Minister or the Chief Whip. We want to show the country what our objections are to this Bill. I am surprised at the Deputy-Prime Minister putting a question like that to me. It is extraordinary, because he must know that we are not going to be forced to make arrangements with which we do not agree. When we make arrangements we abide by them. We have abided by them for six years. But I take a poor view of the situation which has now arisen. I ask the Deputy-Prime Minister, in the interests of his Party and of the dignity of this House, and of truthfulness ….

Order! Order! The hon. member must not accuse anyone of untruthfulness.

I am not. I am asking the Deputy-Prime Minister to rise in the interests of truthfulness and to withdraw this motion for the adjournment of the debate.

I merely want to ask the House to vote against this adjournment for two reasons. The one is that there are members left who want to speak on this Bill and who desire to make their suggestions to the Minister of Mines. The debate cannot be closed in this way. We are dealing here with an important matter, and on the ground of the information supplied here to the Minister and because of the discussion which takes place here he wants to introduce this legislation again next year. Therefore we should at least be fair by affording those members who still desire to speak a fair opportunity to submit their views to the Minister. The other reason why I am opposed to the adjournment is because several amendments have been brought before the House on this important matter. One of those amendments must be accepted by the House or otherwise the whole discussion of this afternoon has no meaning. The United Party has moved an amendment; the Nationalist Party has moved an amendment and the Labour Party has moved an amendment, and let us now become acquainted with the instruction of the House, as a result of this discussion which we have had this afternoon, which it gives to the Government. For these two reasons I oppose the adjournment of the debate.

I oppose the adjournment of the debate for the following reason. The mineworkers have now been waiting for nine years for new legislation in connection with miners’ phthisis. On the 16th February of last year the Minister of Mines made the following statement on miners’ phthisis legislation—

That is why I oppose this motion. This House has been elected to carry out the work of the nation. The people who are affected by miners’ phthisis in respect of its economic effect count approximately 100,000 Europeans and approximately a million natives and even if we remain sitting till January, I will still oppose the adjournment of the debate and the adjournment of the House until effective miners’ phthisis legislation has been placed on the Statute Book. On the 16th February of last year the Minister of Mines gave us an assurance—I will read what he said—

I was assured on that date that the Minister already had expressions of opinion from the Mineworkers’ Union, and if the Minister’s Department was unable in a period of 16 months to submit a satisfactory Bill to this House, there definitely must be something wrong, and then that section of the population has a right to ask that there should be a change in the Department of Mines. During the war years troubles frequently brewed amongst the mineworkers because they had not received justice. The years of war were used as an excuse to say to mine workers that right and justice could not be meted out to them before and until such time as the war had been successfully fought out. The war has been successfully concluded. In the meantime mineworkers have been kept quiet. We have had no important industrial difficulties on the Witwatersrand which definitely would have taken place had the mineworkers known that they would receive this treatment after the war. Let this House remain in Session—it has been elected to carry out the work of the nation—although it were to sit for five or six months to pass a just Bill for miners’ phthisis sufferers. We learn from the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Wilkens) that more than 10,000 mineworkers have already become the victims of this disease. Those are people who died with a grievance in their hearts against the rest of the population. How many are still to die with a grievance in their hearts against their fellow-beings? Have we meted out right and justice to those people? No. We have no right to give this stepmotherly treatment to mineworkers. They expect legislation. That legislation must be introduced during the current year. They ask for it. The Minister has had time; his Department has had time and why at the last moment come to the House with such legislation? Four days before the adjournment of the House this legislation is introduced when the Minister had made a promise to introduce it as one of the early measures which would be dealt with during the Session of 1945. For that reason I oppose the adjournment of the debate.

Our point of view in respect of this Bill has been clearly put by the hon. members for Ceres (Dr. Stals), Westdene (Mr. Mentz) and Klerksdorp (Mr. Wilkens). I therefore propose not to speak about the Bill itself. I merely rise on behalf of this Party to register our protest against the manner in which the Government treats not only this House but makes fools of the mineworkers, because that is the only way in which I can describe the action of the Government. Year after year promises were made to the mineworkers and these promises disappeared into the air every year like bubbles which have disappeared in the course of the Session. The same is happening on this occasion. There cannot be the slightest doubt that mineworkers at the beginning of the year were brought under the sincere impression that in connection with this serious social matter something would be done during the current year, and what does the Government do? It submits a Bill to the House and it knows that it will not make the slightest effort to have the Bill passed. It wastes the time of the House, and I say again it makes fools of the mineworkers.

It is all pretence.

Yes. It is pure pretence. I rose to register our protest against what I can only describe as the inhuman treatment of mineworkers. I want to express the hope that, if there are mineworkers in the future who allow themselves to be blinded by members of the Government, I hope that what is happening here now will be a lesson for all time and that they will no longer put their faith in people who have no sympathy for the workers, but who are just there and are out to be the obedient servants of the big capitalists of South Africa. I merely rose in these few words to register protest against the action of the Government in connection with this matter.

One of the back benchers over there suggested that the Labour Party in opposing the adjournment of this debate, was merely interested in propaganda; that is an unworthy suggestion. The Labour Party is at times interested in propaganda and on some occasions it shapes their actions. But on the question of silicosis and whether this Bill should go through this Session I do not think any political organisation would treat it so light-heartedly as to be governed entirely by questions of propaganda. Let me assure the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) that the Labour Party is primarily interested in the walfare of sufferers from silicosis.

Are you in favour of this Bill?

We have an amendment.

There is not a single person in favour of it except the Minister.

The amendment would be meaningless unless it made it clear what the attitude of the Labour Party is, and we are anxious to have it fully discussed. We were anxious that the promise made this Session and in previous Sessions would be implemented, and that phthisis sufferers would have a new Bill more in accord with what they are entitled to expect. The hon. Minister denied that he stated last year that silicosis was to be taken out of the political football field, and in the absence of any recorded statement through Hansard to the contrary the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) quite correctly accepted the rejection of that suggestion by the hon. Minister concerned.

On a point of personal explanation, what I denied was that I had promised to bring in a Bill which would finally dispose of this question. I never made any such promise.

That is precisely on all fours With what I was saying. I merely said the hon. member for Krugersdorp, in the absence of any record through Hansard to the contrary accepted what the Minister said. I accept it also without any reference to Hansard. I accept the Minister’s statement. What I say to the hon. Minister in turn is that we on these benches are anxious to see the whole question of silicosis taken out of the political football field.

Hear, hear.

We are anxious to see at the earliest possible moment miners’ phthisis sufferers given a Bill which would correspond with what they are entitled to expect from the mining industry after they have given service to the industry and become the victims of silicosis. The Minister made a statement last year and again subsequently that a Bill was to be introduced. The House was expecting the Bill to be introduced last Session. As it did not materialise the House was at least entitled to expect that in the interim period ample time had been given to the Minister, particularly in view of the fact the commission had already made its recommendations, to produce a Bill for the early part of this Session and that he might announce some decision on the way in which phthisis sufferers are to be treated. Instead of that the Bill has come up at a very late stage of the Session, and I am bound to feel this is a new method by which the Government is beginning to handle subjects of this nature. If I were in the Lobby I would use the words “a new racket” to deal with these things ….

Order, order! The hon. member has used the word and has used it in a very improper way by recognising the fact that he was not allowed to use it.

I withdraw it. I thought I would be allowed to say it in that way in the House. It appears to me to be a new method in which questions of this and a similar nature are being dealt with by the Government, and I can conceive what is likely to happen during the interim period between this Session and the next Session. I can visualise this Bill being presented to the Mineworkers’ Union and the Government practically saying to them: This is the best we can do for you; you either take this or nothing at all; take the small increased benefits there are in some directions, and unless you are prepared to accept that we are not prepared to introduce any benefits whatever.

I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, but he must confine himself to the motion that the debate be adjourned. The hon. member is now going into the merits of the Bill.

I thought that was a reasonably good argument to show why the question should be disposed of during this Session, and as a consequence the adjournment should be opposed. As I was saying, they might go to the Mineworkers’ Union and say: You accept this, or you get nothing at all; and under that threat the Mineworkers’ Union might be compelled to accept half a loaf as being better than no bread. The Government will then come back and say: This is an agreed measure. The Mineworkers’ Union have agreed to this measure; and they would use that as ameans of getting the Bill through the House. That, I think is not a justifiable way to deal with the question of silicosis. If the Government have a Bill and feel that it is the best they are able to do, the Government should accept the responsibility of putting it before the House and letting it take its full course without asking for an adjournment, so that during the interim period they might adopt some means of being able to come before us at a subsequent Session to say it is an agreed measure with the Mineworkers’ Union. Another important reason for our opposing the adjournment of this debate is that the question of silicosis is not a subject that is unrelated to other things. Silicosis and the treatment of silicosis sufferers is related to the whole of the mining industry, and while this question is deferred it will have its repercussions. In particular is this subject related to the question of the country making up its mind as to what is to be done with low grade mines. Until the country knows the extent to which low grade mines or for that matter high grade mines, are to be loaded with a liability ….

Order, order! The hon. member is now going quite beyond the scope of the motion before the House.

I will give another reason why this adjournment should be opposed. It should be opposed if only for the reason that those members on our benches who wanted to speak on this particular Bill, and it is a subject of considerable interest to every member of our Party, whether he represents a Rand constituency or otherwise, those members especially in the case of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) have not had an opportunity to speak. The hon. member for Fordsburg refrained from speaking because of representations made to him by the United Party Whip. I regret that the hon. member for Von Brandis (Mr. Higgerty) did not take steps to see that the motion for the adjournment was withdrawn, because the statement by the hon. member for Fordsburg was explicit and should not have been subject to any misunderstanding. The Chief Government Whip desired that members of his own Party should be given an opportunity of making what he referred to as short speeches, after which the hon. member for Fordsburg would then be expected to have the opportunity of making a speech without the necessity of moving the adjournment at the end of his speech. It is not alone the hon. member for Fordsburg who is interested to speak on the question. I should very much like to have had the opportunity of advancing the argument which you have perhaps quite properly ruled me out of order on. Phthisis sufferers are looking for amelioration in respect of the benefits meted out to them. It is not alone the members of our Party who are concerned to see the introduction of this Bill and the final settlement of the question of silicosis. There are numberless people in Johannesburg discussing it this very evening as a result of such information as may have been conveyed to them in the Press, and they are wondering what the final decision may be on the question of the Silicosis Bill. It is a dreadful disease and is naturally a matter of very grave concern not only to those people who have that, gnawing fear in their hearts, not only to the victims but to their wives and families who know the time is coming when the breadwinner of the family has to give his life as a victim of this disease.

Order, order! The hon. member is again going right away from the subject.

I really feel that the fact there are so many people on the Rand who are victims of phthisis and who are desperately interested in knowing what the results of this debate will be, and who are expecting that the House will dispose of the question this Session, that that fact is a good and sufficient reason to oppose the adjournment and why members on these benches should have an opportunity of expressing their views.

Motion for the adjournment of the debate put and the House divided:

Ayes—50:

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden. W.

Bodenstein, H. A. S.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Cilliers, S. A.

Connan, J, M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Derbyshire. J. G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman. B.

Gluckman. H.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Jackson, D.

Johnson. H. A.

McLean, J.

Morris, J. W. H.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payn, A. O. B.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Stallard, C. F.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Tighy, S. J.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—24:

Bremer K.

Brink, W. D.

Bumside. D. C.

Cilliers, H. J.

Conradie, J. H.

Erasmus, H. S.

Klopper, H. J.

Latimer, A.

Le Roux, J. N.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, C. R.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Wanless, A, T.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and J. J. Serfontein.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

I move—

I second.

I object to the hon. Minister putting this down for tomorrow. The hon. Minister has shown himself, in his dissertation on the Bill, that this is a very complicated Bill. Hon. members also have shown it is such a highly complicated Bill that its discussion should be postponed to a date a great deal later than tomorrow in order that hon. members, particularly hon. members on the other side who are inclined to support the Bill, may be induced to study it and see what it really means.

That is what the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) ought to do.

I realise what a mistake I have been making for a long time, and we cannot possibly have the second reading of the Bill tomorrow. I do not know whether the Minister really means it. I doubt anything he says. Does he or does he not want the debate continued tomorrow? Why not tonight? Why could we not carry on in this House? Instead of stupid things like Dongola and Kakamas ….

The hon. member will please come back to the question.

I suggest the hon. Minister should change his mind and the debate should be continued say a fortnight tomorrow when most of us will be in Johannesburg, where I can assure the Minister we shall be in a much better position to continue consideration of the Bill than we are here.

Motion put and agreed.

Debate adjourned; to be resumed on 6th June.