May I ask the Minister to be good enough to point out to his colleague that this question has been standing over since 12th February and that we still have not received a reply?

On Question No. IV by Mr. Marwick standing over from 19th February:

1. (1) How many resignations of public servants took place in 1943, 1944 and 1945, respectively; and
2. (2) what were the principal reasons which led to the resignations of the officials concerned.

[Reply standing over further.]

May I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the answer to this question requires only four figures, but it has been standing over for a month.

I will draw the attention of my colleague to that fact.

I move—

called upon the members who were willing to allow the motion to be put, to rise in their places.

Upwards to fifteen members having so risen, the motion for the adjournment was then put.

From the reports which have appeared in the newspapers for a few days now, hon. members have learnt about the strike which is at this moment taking place on the Witwatersrand and more particularly amongst the workers on certain gold mines. As I have already told the Speaker, this strike has assumed considerable proportions. In any case the matter in itself and the consequences it may have are serious enough for this House to give its serious attention to it immediately and that, in any case, the House should ensure that the necessary steps are taken by the Government to bring this strike, if possible, to a speedy end, and if there are any grievances that have to be removed, that they will be removed. If there are any grievances which stand in the way of the termination of the strike, steps should immediately be taken by the Government. In any case, it is necessary for a statement to be made’ by the Government to this House and to the country in connection with the strike. It is for these reasons that I am moving the adjournment of the House.

This strike had a comparatively small beginning. The original cause was ostensibly something which is not of very great or urgent importance. A worker was dismissed from one of the mines and the reason for his dismissal was that he had been dismissed from the Mineworkers’ Union. Under the arrangement of the closed shop, the principle of the closed shop, which applies in the gold mines the employers, the managers of the mines, were compelled to dismiss him. The reason was that he had not paid his membership fee. He was in arrears and he was expelled from the Mineworkers’ Union and his dismissal from the mine followed automatically. I say that there was only this small beginning, but it has developed comparatively rapidly. The strike has followed and at first it only affected the one mine. I think that almost immediately afterwards it affected six other mines and I think that the next day it was reported that it has spread to thirteen mines. The next day it was reported that twenty mines were affected, and I think in this morning’s papers it was reported that it had spread to no fewer than twenty-three mines which have all been affected by the strike. Then as regards the number of strikers concerned, it was at first reported that 5,000 had struck. The next day the number had increased to 6,200, and I think that the evening papers yesterday reported that the number was still 6,200. This morning the report was that the number had further increased to 6,500. The contention, therefore, the grounds I have given to the Speaker for this motion, that the strike is assuming greater proportions, is perfectly correct. The strike is apparently only amongst Europeans. I understand that there are something over 30,000 Europeans employed in the mines. Well, if 6,500 of that number are at present on strike and the strike spreads, then it is obvious that in itself it is a most serious matter and that it causes a major dislocation of the gold mining industry and thus affects the economic life of the country. It is a matter which is serious enough for this House to give its attention to it and for the Government immediately to take the necessary steps which it may be expected to take in connection with a matter of this nature. The seriousness of the matter can be realised to a still greater extent if we bear in mind that the human material on the Witwatersrand, as we all know, is inflammable. The position there is always inflammable. If there is any trouble the danger is always there that it may easily spread. Often it happens that where the trouble affects only a certain group of interests, other matters are easily drawn in which have nothing to do with the point at issue but which are in turn the beginning of further trouble. We must not forget that on the Witwatersrand there are employed twice or three times the number of natives than the number of Europeans employed there, and more often than not, particularly amongst a type of labourer who on the whole is ignorant and who also has a grievance or who believes he has a grievance, it happens that amongst these people all sorts of other difficulties arise which actually have no direct relation to the point at issue, but which in consequence of the dispute, may develop further. For that reason it is necessary that this strike should be brought to an end as soon as possible. There is one aspect of this strike which is in a way encouraging, and that is that this is not an ordinary strike of workers against their employers. Nor is this a strike of one section of the population against the Government, at any rate not directly. It is apparently a strike which was caused by a dispute between the workers who belonged to the same trade union, namely, the Mineworkers Union, and for that reason it should be easier to solve their difficulties and do so speedily. The workers who have come out on strike appear to have a grievance. This grievance actually has very little to do with the original cause, namely, the dismissal of a worker who was in arrears with his membership fees, but apparently that event was seized upon in order to bring a serious grievance to the attention of the people, of the Government and of the public generally. This grievance exists against the Mineworkers’ Union, or rather the management of that Union. As we all know, there have been unrest and opposition or shall we say a measure of distrust of the executive committee in the Mineworkers’ Union for a long time. A reflection of this distrust has been evident in this House for a few years now when matters affecting the Department of Labour or the Department of Mines have been under discussion here. That feeling of aggrievedness and distrust has found expression here. It is therefore something which has been in existence for some time. Under ordinary circumstances there is a remedy. The executors of the Mineworkers’ Union can under ordinary circumstances be subjected from time to time, as far as their policy is concerned and the question whether there is any confidence in them or not, to the decision of the mineworkers themselves. An election can be held; but during the six years of the war it has been so arranged that no elections have taken place, notwithstanding the measure of dissatisfaction and distrust which existed. Within six months of the cessation of hostilities an election was to take place. Now it appears that the election has not yet been held, notwithstanding the fact that the war had come to an end in May of last year. The distrust which exists of the executive of the Mineworkers’ Union arises from the fact that it is alleged that the executive is not representative of the mineworkers. There have been allegations of abuse of their powers and that they have resorted to unlawful and fraudulent methods. As far as I know there has never been any proper, thorough and impartial enquiry into the matter in order to examine these accusations to their very roots, and in order that everybody concerned in the matter could be satisfied as to the truth or otherwise of these accusations. As far as I know, no such enquiry has taken place, and one can easily understand that under those circumstances dissatisfaction could easily arise. That probably was the initial cause, and the demand put forward by the strikers, as far as I can make out, is that an election should now be held and that the war measure which was taken to prohibit an election should now be suspended in order that an opportunity be given for the actions and the constitution of the executive to be subjected to the decision of the workers themselves. Further, I understand that they also demand that if an election is held it should be held under the supervision of the Department of Labour. It appeared in the past that there was no confidence in the manner in which the elections were conducted on previous occasions, and for that reason the mineworkers demand that the election should be held under the supervision of the Department of Labour. These demands do not seem to be unreasonable, and therefore it is necessary that the Government should take the necessary steps in this matter without any delay. Trade unions are essential in our economic life. The trade union system is an essential cog in the machinery of the economic life of the country. Trade unions are not only recognised as such today, but the existence of trade unions is welcomed today on all sides; but if that is so, and if the trade unions are an essential wheel in the machinery of the State, it is obvious that proper supervision should be exercised over the activities of these trade unions. It is obvious that steps should be taken to ensure that they are not in any way misused, because not only is the trade union part of the machinery of our economic life, but it also affects the interests of the working class as well as the general public —which justifies interference on ’the part of the Government in circumstances such as these. But especially where the closed shop system is in operation, as in the case of the gold mines, the Government should exercise proper supervision over the activities of such a trade union. If the Government does not take steps to ensure that there is no abuse of this system, one can realise how easily it can develop into tyranny over the individual worker. The trade union is in a very strong position in relation to the person, particularly if that person is not sure about the rules. If the trade union has anything against a worker who is not prepared to say “Yes” to every decision of the management, they can easily victimise that man, expel him from the trade union, and he consequently loses not only his membership of the trade union, but also his livelihood, and he becomes unemployed. For the very reason of this principle of the closed shop, it is so necessary for the Government to keep an eye on the activities of the trade union, and where any trouble arises the Government should take the necessary steps as soon as possible to enquire into the matter and to terminate the strike and to remove any legitimate grievances. For that purpose a thorough investigation is in the first place necessary, and for that reason in the second place the grievances should be removed, if there are any justifiable grievances, and in the third place it is perhaps necessary, and the most effective manner in which to end this strike, to accede to the request, to the legitimate and reasonable request of the workers, that an election should be held in the near future in order that the workers may themselves determine who shall be their executive committee and who shall not.

I second. My Leader has stated this matter so clearly that it is not necessary to say much more. As he has said, these difficulties have existed for a long time. There has been dissatisfaction. During the war an election should have been held. Then the constitution of the Mineworkers’ Union was amended. The members of the Mineworkers’ Union did not amend it, but the executive in terms of the constitution has the power to do so, and it was determined that no election would be held until six months after the Governor-General had proclaimed the end of the war. That is an important amendment which was made without consulting the members. That was the cause of the trouble. But every time we raised this matter we were accused of trying to make political propaganda. That was not so. There are still some hon. members who think so. The position simply is that a large section of the mineworkers is not satisfied, and, judging from the present strike, a very large section is not satisfied, and in consequence of the developments, serious losses and difficulties may be caused. Complaints were made against the secretary of the Mineworkers’ Union, Mr. Broodrick, and many complaints against the executive. It is some years ago now that I presented their balance sheet here in this House, and the Minister of Labour at that time agreed with me. It is a large trade union with lots of money at its disposal, and what happened to the money we do not know, but a few years ago funds had to be collected once more, and they have also disappeared. In any case, these people have many grievances, and it is their trade union, and any person who considers himself to be a democrat will admit that these people have the right to manage their own affairs, and that can only happen if they are given the opportunity, when they are dissatisfied with the executive, to elect another executive. That is the only thing to be done. I think that since 1941 there has been no election, and it is clear that the time has now come for something to be done. Whether they are satisfied with the executive or not is a matter for them to decide, and it can only be decided by means of an election, but an election has been refused despite the fact that the executive knew well enough that a large measure of distrust in them existed. The executive made the election impossible, and now they sit there relying on a constitution which they amended themselves.

Who has the power to amend the constitution?

The constitution provides that the executive may do so, and the executive did so, but what gives the whole affair a bad odour is that the executive itself amended the constitution in order to retain itself in office. People who have such power should be very careful in this regard.

Who gave them that power?

The constitution provides in what manner the executive may amend it and they made such amendment. If any amendment was made in which the members were consulted it was a totally different matter, but the members of the executive amended the constitution in such a manner that they could retain the management. I think hon. members will all agree that that is an untenable position. The executive exercises a dictatorship over these people and everybody feels that the time has come for the mineworkers to be given an opportunity of giving their judgment by means of an election. The last election took place in March, 1941. The war is over, the soldiers have returned and there are soldiers amongst the strikers, according to newspaper reports. There are many complaints in connection with wages and difficulties, and there is no confidence.

Have there been complaints in the past?

I myself raised the matter here on their instructions. At that time it was argued that a number of these people were at the front and could not vote, but almost all of them have now returned and some of the soldiers are amongst the strikers. Any person who has the knowledge of the facts irrespective of his political views, will sympathise with the strikers. We believe in government by the majority. We do not believe in tyranny. But what gives this affair such an ugly complexion is the fact that the people who have to submit themselves to such an election are the people who amended the constitution in order to maintain themselves in office. Whether the complaints were justified or not, it is not necessary for me to go into that. But these people should be given the opportunity of regulating their own affairs and to elect their own executive. The members of the Mineworkers’ Union also feel that they have not always been treated honestly at previous elections. They ask therefore that the election should take place under the supervision of the Government. Let me just remind the House that when the last election took place we had one of the ballot boxes used at the election here in the House to show to hon. members. The ballot box had a secret door underneath it which could be opened for ballot papers to be put into it or taken out. For that reason they demand a proper election under proper supervision which would allow no dishonest practices. I take it that the Government will have this matter investigated because it is important to the Government and I take it that the investigation will be thorough and that steps will be taken to terminate the strike and to remove the grievances. All sorts of allegations have been made that the people who are objecting belong to other trade unions but that should be left out of this dispute. It has, thank heavens, nothing to do with this matter now. This movement arose spontaneously amongst these people themselves. They have formed an action committee which is now arranging matters and it has kept entirely out of politics. It is not a complaint against the Government or against the mines but against their own trade union, the executive of which has, according to them, degenerated into a body of tyrants, because under the system of the closed shop a person who does not belong to a trade union is simply expelled and loses his employment. He may be a man with a wife and a number of children, but the trade union prevents him from obtaining other employment. That is why this matter should be dealt with so carefully and why the mineworkers should be enabled to elect their executive in a genuine election, or otherwise trouble and strikes will follow. The Government should take immediate action in order to prevent the matter from assuming still greater proportions.

I am very glad, Mr. Speaker, that in your wisdom you have allowed this important matter to be discussed in this House. There is no doubt that the present strike is of a nature practically unknown in South Africa. The matter is becoming more serious by the hour, because the strike is extending from day to day. What makes the matter more serious is that it is a strike in one of the most important industries in the Union. For the rest it is a serious matter because it is not a case of a difference between employers and employees, a difference which can be solved by proper negotiation, but we are dealing here with a difference which cannot be solved by the existing Industrial Conciliation Acts, because a difference of this nature is not included in those Acts. Therefore the Government must immediately interfere and use the powers at its disposal. There is no other method of solving the difference. For that reason we are glad to be able to raise the matter here. The strike is spreading. I suppose every hon. member realises how seriously it has spread. Let us just pause briefly at the facts as they have been given to us by the Press to which I want to add information acquired by me last night personally from a very well-known person who is also one of the strikers. I rang him on the telephone in an endeavour to obtain first-hand information in connection with the position and the grievances, and to discover how the strike can be solved immediately without its spreading further and in what manner the men could be satisfied and why these people are striking and why the strike is spreading. The position is that during the war years the argument was used that an election of officials of the Union, of the Executive and of the General Council, these three bodies, could not be held because a large number of members of the Mineworkers’ Union were on active service in various parts of the world. That was a reasonable and acceptable argument. But conditions have now changed, and there are other factors which the Government should take into consideration at once. The war is over and practically all the men, members of the Union, who had been absent are back and have resumed work in the mining industry. Those people together with those who remained on working in the mines, feel that the time has arrived when a new executive should be elected. The present executive which is at the head of affairs, does not want to have an election That clearly emerges from the strike against the old executive which is still in control.

Why do they not want an election?

I hope the hon. member will not interrupt me, because I just want to make a statement which may perhaps help the House to be au fait with the surrounding circumstances, and I want to try to explain how the strike can be settled within a few minutes. As hon. members saw in the Press, the trouble started with the dismissal of one of the members. He refused to pay his subscription because he was dissatisfied with the fact that the executive refused to hold a new election for the General Council, the Executive Committee and for paid officials. The result was that this member was then expelled and lost his work. Then his friends on that shaft joined him in his protest and struck, and this man got more and more sympathy and more and more of the members associated themselves with the protest. In that way it developed to the stage it has reached now. Apart from the demand for a new election for the three bodies, I then asked this trustworthy person whose name I am prepared to give, what the position is. He told me that last night’ another great meeting would be held at Roodepoort in the centre of the West Rand, and that it is anticipated that the strike would extend still further. I then asked him what could be done immediately in order to end the strike and to remove the grievances, and the reply was precisely what I pleaded for yesterday in a private interview I had with the Minister of Labour, namely that the Minister of Labour should interfere and give instructions to the Divisional Inspector of Labour on the Witwatersrand to take over the office of the Mineworkers’ Union, to take possession of their office, in trusteeship pending the election of a new General Council— that is a council consisting of a representative from each shop on the whole Rand who is elected by the mineworkers of each shaft. For the rest I said that the Executive Committee should meet at least once every month, and that the election should take place under the supervision of the Department of Labour. Until those three bodies have been properly elected under the supervision of the Department of Labour, the difficulty will not be solved. The moment the new executive is elected, the Department of Labour can then surrender the keys and books to them and say: here is your property; you will find everything here. Whether members of the old executive are re-elected or not makes no difference; whether a brand new executive is elected makes no difference, but the miners feel that they want to elect a new executive right through the Witwatersrand which will properly represent the views of the mineworkers and which will have the confidence of the great majority of mineworkers. That is what I plead for now. I believe that the mineworkers will only be satisfied when the Department intervenes and takes possession of the office, the keys and the books; and says: We shall retain this until the new executive is elected under the supervision of the Department of Labour. If that were to happen, I believe that you will find that every mineworker who is at present on strike would immediately be satisfied that he will have a reasonable opportunity to elect a new executive under proper supervision which nobody will be able to criticise. That is what I plead for. May I just say that if the Government does not now intervene, the Chamber of Mines will be forced to give three months’ notice to the joint committee to suspend the closed shop agreement, with the result that for three months, during the period of the three months’ notice, there will be tremendous upheaval on the Rand, and things will become much worse, because the miners will then be afraid, and will have reason to be afraid, that during those three months irreparable damage will be done to their union. In other words, they fear that in those three months things will go so badly that instead of having a union which will have the confidence of the majority of mineworkers, they will be hopelessly divided amongst each other, which can only lead to the fact that there will be innumerable points of difference on the shaft, which will develop into a quarrel between employer and employee. This is the only reasonable and possible opportunity for the Government to intervene immediately in order to put an end to this strike, which can assume still more serious proportions and which may have far-reaching results for South Africa, and I suggest it with all modesty and humility, and I say that unless the Government intervenes now there will be serious results. There is no other way, and I plead that the Government should intervene immediately. If the Government intervenes, no reasonable man, no reasonable miner and no reasonable official can have any objection to having an election under the supervision of the Department, so that people can be put into office who have the confidence of the majority of miners.

There is no doubt that it is in the national interest that the strike which has broken out so suddenly on the Rand should be stopped as soon as possible. We all agree on that, and there is no argument about it. The matter began very suddenly and the Government would like to know what is going on. Yesterday we heard that a meeting had been arranged by the Mine Workers’ Union, or the executive of the Mine Workers’ Union to see what steps they could take to end the strike. Late yesterday afternoon the Government received information that the Mine Workers’ Union did not intend taking any special steps. They acquiesce in the position as it exists. The executive think that they are in a legal position and they acquiesce in that position and leave matters to develop. In those circumstances it is, of course, impossible for the Government to sit still while the fire is burning and rapidly spreading, a fire which may eventually assume proportions which may seriously affect the national interests. The Government then decided to send to the Rand this morning the Secretary for Labour, and Mr. Walker, who is my special adviser in such matters, to consult with both sections of the Mine Workers’ Union—both the governing party and the remonstrating party who are now taking action, in order to see, after consultation with them, in which way the difficulty can be solved, and then to advise the Government as to what steps we should take on our side in order to bring the strike to an end. That it has to be stopped and as soon as possible does not admit of any doubt. We cannot allow circumstances once more to arise such as have been well-known in the mining industry. These negotiations will take place today or in the next few days with both sections of the Mine Workers’ Union, and we await the result of discussions there and the advice we shall receive from the officials we sent up. We are in this difficulty, and I would like the House to keep this in view — that whatever we do must be done within legal limits.

Whom did you send?

Mr. Buchanan, the Secretary for Labour, and Mr. Walker, my adviser on labour questions. These two have gone there to consult with both sides. But the Government must remain within the limits of the law, and the legal position thus has to be taken into account. The hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) made certain suggestions here which cannot easily be reconciled with the legal position. For the Government just to step in and to take over the existing Union and to administer it for a certain period until elections take place is something which cannot be done within the limits of the law. There will have to be a modification of the law. I do not despair of our reaching a solution, but the sooner the better, and we should like to do it in a manner which has the approval, if possible, of both sides. The Government is seriously considering the matter and I think it is better for us not to go too deeply into the merits of the matter. We know there is a dispute, a rather far-reaching dispute, between the two sections of the Mine Workers’ Union. I do not think that we shall be doing the right thing by participating* in this dispute in this debate and by choosing sides before we know what the position is. I think it will be wise for the Government and for the House to await the advice we shall receive from the officials entrusted with the negotiations, and as soon as we have heard from them what the position is the Government can decide what steps to take under the circumstances. It may be that drastic steps will have to be taken. If it becomes necessary to do so in the national interest, it will be done. But I do not think we should take sides here or use arguments which can only make the position more involved. I expect that we can solve the matter if we remain neutral. The dispute is not aimed at the mine management, nor is it aimed at the Government. We are, therefore, in a judicial and neutral position. Let us retain that position, because on that basis we shall be able to solve the matter more easily. I would, therefore, suggest to the House that we await the result of the negotiations which are now in progress, and which will perhaps be completed in a day or in a few days, when we will know where we stand, what the dispute is about, what remedies are suggested on which we can act and it may be that an agreement is arrived at between the disputing parties as to the steps to be taken by us. If such advice is received, the Government can act on it immediately. We shall do our best. There is no doubt that the national interest is deeply concerned with amity in the mining industry, and if it is necessary to act drastically, that will have to be done. But if we can solve the problem in a more peaceful manner and with the co-operation of both parties in the Mine Workers’ Union, so much the better. When I receive more information, I shall inform the House, so that the House can be au fait with a matter affecting the whole country.

I am very glad that we can discuss a serious matter like this so calmly and coolly in this House this morning. I am also glad to see that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister regards the matter in a serious light and that he is already making plans in an attempt to find the solution. I was fortunate enough to be on the Witwatersrand over the week-end, and I got into touch with the various strikers, and know precisely what the position is. I was therefore not surprised when the Prime Minister informed us that the Mineworkers’ Union at a meeting held yesterday, decided to acquiesce in the status quo. That we had expected. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition stated here that we were fortunately in this position today that we could stop the strike. The Government can stop the strike if it wishes to. The hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) stated that the strike had taken place in the first place because one miner had resigned, but he added that that was not all, and I want to agree with him that this opportunity has been made use of by the miners to give voice to the grievances they have today. There are many grievances amongst the miners. We just want to recall to mind the agreement entered into between the Chamber of Mines and the Mineworkers’ Union after the outbreak of war. We know that there was trouble, and that an arbitration board was appointed. One of the members of the arbitration board resigned, and at the behest of the Government the chairman of the arbitration board immediately jumped into the breach. Instead of nominating someone else in the vacancy in order to let the work of the arbitration board be continued, it was brought to an end in such a manner that the ordinary member of the Mineworkers’ Union was dissatisfied and now we find that agreement was entered into between the Mineworkers’ Union and the Chamber of Mines, and I think the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will agree with me that that agreement caused many grievances in the Mineworkers’ Union, and at the present moment the miner is anxiously waiting to have his grievances righted. An emergency regulation determined in the first place that there would be no election of officials of the executive during the war, or for six months after the war. There is a second very important provision in that agreement which makes the miner still more dissatisfied, namely the provision prohibiting the miners from asking for higher wages during the war years. In the beginning of the session I asked the Minister whether the European miners ever received any increase in their basic salaries during the war years, and the reply was “No”. The native labourers in fact received an increase. But here the Mineworkers’ Union entered into that agreement with the Chamber of Mines, and they did so without consulting the general body of miners, with the result that the miner today has that grievance which must be righted, and I personally think that the trouble about the one member who refused to pay his subscription and who now caused the strike was seized upon by the miners in general as an opportunity of putting an end to all the grievances of the mineworkers. As was correctly stated by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition, as well as by the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, the great difficulty is today that these people want an election of their officials. They want a new executive. You will agree with me, if you look at the dimensions of the strike, that the miner today has no confidence in his executive. They have no confidence in their general secretary, and there is not the least confidence in the council. That difficulty has to be solved, and it can only be solved if the Government intervenes. I want to agree with the Prime Minister that strikes are certainly not in the interests of the country. I was on the Rand a few days ago and I can give the House the assurance that Already everything is becoming disorganised as the result of the strike. Already there is panic amongst the population which is not to the interests of the country. The great thing is that the miners want an election. The Prime Minister rightly said that we must keep within the limits of the law. We may argue this morning that the time is not yet ripe to interfere. We do not know when the Prime Minister thinks that such an election can take place, whether it is six months after the end of the war or six months after the peace treaty. But whatever the position may be, the majority of the miners who were in the army and did military service are back today and we have no legal reason, when we see what dimensions the strike has already attained, to sit still and to say that all these soldiers are not yet back and consequently there can be no election. I also want to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to the fact that where strikes take place on the Witwatersrand they are not confined to a section of those employed on a certain shaft; as the strike begins on a shaft all the miners on that shaft strike 100 per cent. It is not a question of propaganda. All sections participate. If there were confidence in the Mineworkers’ Union one would certainly not find that all sections of the population strike 100 per cent. This is a very serious matter. It is not a question this morning of a dispute between the Chamber of Mines against the miners. It is a question between the miners and their own union, and that is what makes the matter so dangerous, and the difficulty can only be solved by the Government. The Prime Minister has already stated that the union says that it stands by the existing position. But we cannot acquiesce in that position. We on this side appreciate it when the Prime Minister states that the Government cannot acquiesce in the position either. We do not want to use force, but the Prime Minister will have to intervene if he wants to prevent this strike from spreading further. The strike has already spread from the West Rand over to the East Rand. There is only one way of solving the difficulty, and that is for us to solve the difficulties by asking that the Government should please see to it that the election takes place as soon as possible. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) stated that ballot boxes have already been exhibited in this House, from which it clearly emerged that gross irregularities took place in connection with the election, and it must be avoided in future. I spoke to many miners during the week-end, miners of all parties. It is a domestic matter, and all of them say frankly that they have no confidence in the manner in which the election took place. Whether we want to know it or not, dissatisfaction exists, and therefore I welcome very much the suggestion that an election should take place under the supervision of the Department of Labour, otherwise we will have a repetition of what we had before, as surely as the sun is shining. On 25th January I asked the Minister whether he would see to it that the election of the general secretary would in future take place under the supervision of the Department. He said no. He did not feel that the Department should interfere. I think the Minister will today realise that it is desirable that this should be done, and therefore I associate myself with the hon. Leader of the Opposition in pleading that the grievances should be righted by an election of the executive, the Mineworkers’ Union, the paid officials and everything being held under the supervision of the Department. It can do no harm, and it will bring satisfaction to the miners themselves. In the last place I wish to stress that when this election takes place the Minister should seriously consider having the election taking place under the supervision of the Department of Labour. I would like to see the Government meanwhile simply taking possession of the office of the Mineworkers’ Union and of the documents. I think that the matter can be solved in a very reasonable manner. But there is no time to lose. I can tell the Minister that the miners are determined, and when they start striking on a shaft, they strike 100 per cent. One cannot say that a few remain over to continue the work. They strike 100 per cent. The whole Witwatersrand is practically being disorganised, and it will effect the whole Union of South Africa if the strike does not stop immediately. At present we are in the fortunate position that the Government can, if it wants to, find a solution to the matter. It is not a dispute between the mine workers and the Chamber of Mines. The Government can solve the difficulty. For that reason I once more want to express my pleasure because the matter was discussed in such a calm manner, and I just want to tell the Prime Minister that the matter is very serious, but that the miner can be satisfied by the holding of such an election. His grievances can be aired, but he feels that an injustice has been done to him by depriving him of the right to elect his own officials. He feels that an injustice has been done to him by depriving him right throughout the war years of the right to ask for an increase in wages. At the present moment over 6,000 miners are on strike, and I think it is in the national interest that the Prime Minister should interfere and see to it that this injustice is rectified as soon as possible, or else there will be serious repercussions in the country.

I welcome the intrusion of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister into this debate, and I also welcome the information he has given that the Government is causing enquiry to be made at once. As he says, he has sent Brigadier Buchanan and Mr. Walker in an effort, I understood from him, to compose the differences. I want to say to my right hon. friend that I fear the position will not be composed. I want to be quite frank because my experience goes back over several years, and particularly when I was in office I had the knowledge of the conditions and troubles of the Mine Workers’ Union. Whilst I do recognise, and am gravely concerned at the possibility of the Government’s stepping into the affairs of the Trade Union, a very grave thing to do, I am very much afraid this will have to be done.

Where will you draw the line?

I grant my hon. friend that, and it is with a tremendous amount of trepidation that I approach this from the angle that I am bringing to bear upon it. I am an old trade unionist. I still am, and will be all my life. One can therefore understand how difficult I find it to approach this problem from the point of view I am dealing with at the moment. We have to remember this, that we have a most unprecedented state of affairs in trade union history, namely a very large proportion—so far at least 33⅓ per cent.—of the membership of the Union striking against its officials.

Where do you get the percentage from?

I think there are 6,000 on strike. In this connection I should like to ask the Prime Minister to get authentic information, and may not rely on conjecture which may or may not be exactly true, which appears in the Press—not that they want to magnify the situation at all, but they gather their information wherever they can, and it may be that they are a few figures out in their estimate of the number on strike. I think we can reasonably take it that 33⅓ per cent. are on strike, not against their employers—they are very concerned in telling the world and telling us in Parliament that they are not striking against their employers; they are in effect apologetic to their employers for having struck—but they are striking against their officials. That calls for action I fear. I am not asking the Prime Minister, and neither is my hon. friend here asking him, to take that step of interference at once. When he gets his information he will size up that information at once, and having explored all the possibilities, all the ramifications of this trouble, will no doubt be in a position to decide whether he will take action or not. There are more peculiarities about the Mine Workers’ Union than I have ever known to exist in any trade union in the world, peculiarities of lack of confidence in the officials. These extend over a period of years, and this is where my hon. friend is justified in asking that the Government should first of all see to it that an election is held, because the time is long overdue when such an election should be held, and may I here just in passing slightly deal with the past history of this matter. I was in office at the time, and there unquestionably were the strongest grounds for not having an election during the war years, because thousands of the members of the Mine Workers’ Union, and incidentally other unions, were away at the front. The numbers affected are variously stated. We do know 7,000 members of the Mineworkers’ Union are engaged in war-like activities and consequently no election of officers would have been fair. It was a haphazard affair, but by some means or other the Mineworkers’ Union decided on the present set of officials plus one or two who came over from the Reformers later on. If that could be justified, or at any rate tolerated during the war years it cannot be done now. For that reason and with all or nearly all of the members who were at the Front now back and actively engaged in their former avocations, they are already mining, there can be no justification for retaining officials in this way, and the solution now lies in the direction of an election. The constitution as amended during the war years laid it down no such election should be held during the war years, or for a period of six months after the cessation of hostilities.

Was that registered by the Labour Department?

Yes, it was registered. It was a legitimate alteration of the constitution passed by the General Council and registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions at the time. But the constitution as amended under those circumstances laid it down that no election of officials could be held, and that includes the shop stewards—the aggregate of these being the General Council— during the war years or for six months after the cessation of hostilities. That last is an important phrase, it does not mean the official declaration of peace. It means the actual practical cessation of hostilities.

And the return of the miners to their work.

That is involved in it.

That is the reason.

That is the reason, in order that the men can get back to their work and the union will be at its full strength, and therefore able competently to hold elections. Who is likely to say hostilities have not ceased? It is true we have not had an official declaration of peace, but hostilities undoubtedly have ceased. We are not at war in the sense that we are actually fighting.

Do they dispute it?

I do not know, I am not concerned with that. I am concerned with the situation, and I want to see whether I cannot cope with the situation. Hostilities have ceased and these men are now back at work. While they were away no election could be held, as that would be unfair. I held that view myself, and I supported the mineworkers in that contention. But now the men are back and the contention no longer holds, and the men who were at the front and the men who carried on their job in the mines at our request have an equal right to say who shall control the affairs of the union. So the elections should be held at the earliest possible moment.

Men do not strike deliberately for the sake of striking, whether against the employers or anyone else. The iron must have entered their souls to cause them to strike against their officials. They may be entirely wrong, but under our democratic system, particularly in the trade union world where we are determined to have the democratic system, each individual member of a trade union has the right to an opportunity of recording his vote for or against this or that in the trade union. I am demanding they should be given that opportunity. I repeat what I said at the beginning. I fear very much that a compromise will not be arrived at, the division of opinion is too strong. I do not want to prejudice the position, but you cannot compromise between two such divergent points of view. I am not endeavouring to be historical on that matter.

Why do they not have an election?

That is what I am coming to. The union officials are resisting the election. That is very evident. It will be the business of the emissaries sent there by the Prime Minister to find out precisely what is the position, hot the facts, but how far this thing has spread, this objection to the officials of the trade union. There may be thousands who hold that view, but who will not go to the length of striking. We often have discontent among members who will not go to these drastic lengths. While a number are on strike demonstrating their objections, you may have another 4,000 or 5,000 men who feel equally strongly about it, but they will not go so far as to strike against their employers in order to demonstrate that.

Could they not get an order of court?

I hope we shall not pursue that. We are not dealing with people contesting a legal issue, we are dealing with human beings who are determined to oust certain personnel and another set of people who are equally determined to keep that personnel.

Something like the Indian Congress.

Do not suggest to the miners they should follow the example of the Indian Congress. You would be complicating the position seriously if you do.

What is the reason for not holding the election?

I do not know; I am not too sure. The Prime Minister will find out all that. But what stands out is that, within my own knowledge of the last six years, a large section of the miners are disgruntled. They do object to the personnel of those who control them. That has to be stopped. A majority vote has to be taken, and when that has been taken I feel perfectly certain that the disgruntled minority, whatever side they are on, will be satisfied with the result.

I now come to this other point. I know of no trade union who has ever asked for Government supervision of a ballot. As a matter of fact, trade unions of long standing who are proud of their position strongly resent any idea of outside intervention, Government or otherwise. But it is not so in the case of the miners. That section of the miners who object to the present personnel have not in the past been satisfied with the honesty of the ballot. They interviewed the present Minister of Labour, and they interviewed me, and they brought evidence to the effect that the ballot boxes had been tampered with. Unfortunately, the circumstances were such that we could not go deeply into the matter.

Why not? You did not want to go into the matter.

I am merely stating the facts.

So am I.

The motive underlying it does not matter, we were in a war.

So you can tamper with ballot boxes in a war—is that your attitude?

I am not going to accept that accusation, that I agree with tampering with ballot boxes because of a war. That is not true. Quite the contrary. But that is the fact, evidence was brought up which had not been legally attested that ballot boxes were tampered with. That being so it must have had an effect on the minds of members disgruntled in other directions, it must have had the effect that they did not trust the ballot if it was taken by the present executive. I do not say they are right and I do not say they are wrong, but that is the fact. Therefore they are demanding, and I am supporting them, that any ballot held for the officials of the Mineworkers’ Union shall be held under the auspices of the Department of Labour. Then everybody will be satisfied it has been carried out in a proper way. I must sound this note of warning: Be very careful how you interfere, without just cause, and complete justification, with the affairs of trade unions. There must be some justification for drastic action.

What has happened during the last two weeks is the result of a suppressed feeling which has existed for a long time in the Mineworkers’ Union. Complaints were lodged that they were dissatisfied with the management, and that dissatisfaction has existed for a very long time. We on this side brought it to the notice of the House, but the Government would not listen to us. If they had listened at the time to the complaints of the mineworkers and the manner in which the elections were held in the Mineworkers’ Union, then the strike would not have taken place. As the hon. member said who has just been seated, it is dangerous simply to allow these things to develop. Before I read the letters this afternoon which were written to the Prime Minister direct by the mineworkers, and to which no attention was paid, before I submit to the House this afternoon reports which come from Government quarters over the disturbances and lawlessness which took place there at the last election, I would just remind the Prime Minister that, although he is prepared to enquire into the matter now, the strike broke out eight days ago.

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

When the proceedings were adjourned I was saying that the Prime Minister was not so ignorant of the affair and it was also not the case that he had taken such timely action. The strike began eight days ago, and only this morning did the Prime Minister send two people to go and collect information. The Prime Minister said this morning: “Look, the Government has now a good opportunity of acting as arbitrator. The mineworkers are not dissatisfied with the mine owners, they are also not dissatisfied with the Government, so that the Government is now in a good position to act as arbitrator.” I want to say here that the Prime Minister did not put the position as it really is. It is a very old grievance of the mineworkers and it has already been brought to the attention of the Government on repeated occasions, to the Prime Minister directly, and also to the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) when he was Minister of Labour. But before I come to the point I would like to refute something, for I see that although the Prime Minister is now endeavouring to handle the case dexterously, his regular newspaper in Cape Town, “Die Suiderstem,” yesterday afternoon contained a sub-article warning the mineworkers against being misled by the Broederbond and the politics of the “Gesuiwerdes.” It is the Minister of Lands’ paper and the organ of the Government. To refute it, I will quote a few extracts this afternoon from the “Rand Daily Mail” of Saturday. It is stated therein that the strikers themselves came in a deputation, and this is what they said—

It is very clear. But I will read further from a second deputation—

I think that that is about the true state of affairs, and that is the side of the strikers, as it was also put by returned soldiers in the office of the “Rand Daily Mail”. I think I can leave it there. But I said that the Prime Minister intervened very late in the day. It is not a difficulty which originated this year. Last year the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister was informed by the mineworkers themselves that they were very dissatisfied with the actions of the executive council of the Mineworkers’ Union, particularly Mr. Broderick, the secretary. I will say nothing here this afternoon about the conclusions one arrives at, but I will again read a letter which the dissatisfied mineworkers wrote to the Prime Minister on 2nd February, 1945. It reads as follows—

This is not last year’s history, but this year’s. It is aimed at the management of the Mineworkers’ Union and particularly at Mr. Broderick. That is why I say that this strike did not descend upon us like a bolt from the blue.

Who signed the letter?

Unfortunately I have not got the name here, but I read the letter out in the House and the person came to see me himself at Brakpan; it was a deputation which came to see me personally. In any case the strike did not come like a bolt from the blue. The mineworkers made representations to the hon. member for Benoni when he was Minister of Labour and they went out of their way to come and consult with the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister himself. And now the Prime Minister comes along this morning and says that the mineworkers are not dissatisfied with the mine-owners and also not with the Government. What conclusions can the Prime Minister draw from this? The mineworkers consulted with the Government, and they ignored the mineworkers—they did not take the least notice of them. The Prime Minister would also not have taken action were it not for the fact that he knew that the Leader of the Opposition would introduce this motion this morning. The Prime Minister has experience of such a strike; he said at the time: “Let things develop”. If they had intervened last year when the returned soldiers who were dismissed from the Mineworkers’ Union turned to the Government, because as a result they could not obtain work on the mines, then these things would not have happened today. I say without fear of contradiction that these difficulties are due to negligence on the part of the Government. It does not help for the Prime Minister to wash his hands of guilt and to say that the Government can now act as arbitrator. Far from it. The Government is responsible, for representations were made to the Prime Minister and to the then Minister of Labour. It is not for the first time that the mineworkers are dissatisfied with the Mineworkers’ Union. It has been going on for years and years. It went so far that on the instructions of the previous Minister of Labour an enquiry was held into the alleged irregularities in the same Mineworkers’ Union. I will quote briefly out of the report of that commission.

Which report is it?

It is a report from the Department of Labour. It is a résumé of the findings and recommendations of the Mineworkers’ Union Commission (1941). It is the official report. It will do the hon. member good to read it. It is the same Mineworkers’ Union. But I want to make the reservation that where I am quoting extracts. I do not know how many of the old members are still on the management of the Mineworkers’ Union. The management has been changed, and I do not want these extracts which I will read to throw a reflection on the persons who are now serving on the management. I am reading them out to give the House an indication of what this commission thought of the management of the Mineworkers’ Union. First of all they deal with the executive committee, and the commission has this to say—

They go further and speak of the Finance Committee. Thereafter the commission states—

Do you know why? It was a case of the misuse of strong liquor. They were people who drank, and I mention it briefly to indicate what the position was in the Mineworkers’ Union. I could read you long extracts, but I am only quoting short ones. This commission stated further—

Just think of it, blank cheques! Then the commission goes on—

These are findings of a commission which was appointed by the Department of Labour, that the people who had to collect money did not pay in all the money. Remember too that blank cheques were signed. It was simply permitted, and can we think for one moment that the people can be satisfied with the management of such a Union. Furthermore, the commission commented upon the management of the Union’s affairs, and inter alia it said—

Is it not absolutely outrageous, and can we expect anything else but that those people have lost confidence for good and always in the management of the Union? The commission came to this conclusion—

I did not come here this afternoon to draw my own conclusions. Where the organ of the Government alleges that the Broederbond and “Gesuiwerde” politics are behind this strike, I have given the answer of returned soldiers that that is not the case. Where the allegation has been made that the the Government was perhaps unaware of the position, I have refuted it by quoting the letter and the report. I put before the Government its own commission’s report. The then Minister of Labour (Mr. Madeley) used a phrase today which one cannot pass by. He spoke of the election of a general secretary, and he said that he discussed the matter with the Minister of Justice, who is now Minister of Labour. I do not know whether it is so or not, but he used these words: “We knew that these boxes had been tampered with.” It is beyond one’s comprehension. If these words are correct, then it borders on corruption. No, it does not border on corruption; it is corruption. Wé showed those ballot boxes here in the House. The discussion today has been namby-pamby and unctuous. I do not agree with that. I lay the blame at the door of the Government that they were aware of these things, and that they did not move a finger. We cannot blame those people when thëy say that the greatest dictatorship reigns under Broderick. £500 million was spent on fighting an overseas dictator, but here in our own country small ones are hatching to oppress our working people. We must surely be logical. As the Prime Minister has now taken a hand in the matter, as he has eventually intervened, we hope that he will be successful. Although we on this side lay the blame at the door of the Government, we hope that the Government will now take action and that for once and always it will put an end to these small dictators and that the people will receive their democratic rights, that they will have the election which they were always promised would take place when the soldiers returned. If it is not done, then it is a baby’s dummy to say to the workers that you and your party fought for democracy. Then you are allowing small dictatorships to hatch under our noses which will lead to great disaster for the workers of South Africa.

The hon. member who has just sat down has, in my opinion, in the opinion not only of this side of the House, but I am sure of members on his own side of the House, done a great disservice to the cause of industrial peace on the Witwatersrand. Up to this stage every speaker on both sides of the House has endeavoured to deal with the motion objectively and with a view to trying to secure a peaceful settlement. The hon. member has brought the debate down to an ordinary political issue.

I have given the facts, and nothing else.

Those statements have been quoted on previous occasions. The hon. member sought to attack the Government and to suggest they are doing nothing. But before the hon. member for Piketberg (Dr. Malan) raised the issue in this House, the Prime Minister and the Government had already taken steps to investigate and to secure all the facts in the matter. The hon. member for Albert-Coles berg (Mr. Boltman) now comes at this late hour and attacks the Government in connection with this matter, and he goes back to an enquiry that was held in 1940. I believe. Already, on previous occasions, the hon. member has made use of that report, and he was then told, which was a fact, that that report had been fully accepted by the Mineworkers’ Union and that its recommendations had been carried into effect. A complete reorganisation took place, and since that date there has been no evidence, and indeed no suggestion, of any illegal action or any dishonest action. The activities of the union have been set out in reports, and their accounts have been subject to audit, and to come now and exploit a report that has already been given effect to can only be calculated to cause more trouble and retard a settlement. Under the arrangement then made, the constitution of the Mineworkers’ Union was amended along the lines indicated by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). The constitution was amended in such a way that an election was postponed until the cessation of hostilities and six months thereafter.

By whom?

By the Mineworkers’ Union.

Not by the members.

It was done by the union, and that amendment was registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions and became an official constitutional document. One of the reasons for the arrangement was, as the hon. member for Benoni told the House, that thousands of men were away at the front, and they were unable to vote in any election that took place. Secondly, and it is a matter the House should not forget, that amendment had the effect of preserving industrial peace on the Witwatersrand. We all know what a strike would have meant during the years of war; it would not only have been harmful to the war effort, but it would have created industrial strife throughout the country.

You said that the reorganisation took place after that report; what reorganisation took place after 1941?

The financial arrangements were placed on a proper basis, the accounts were to be submitted annually to audit. I do not want to follow the hon. member on this controversial issue. The point I am making is that a very serious principle is involved in this present strike, and we, as a House, have to be very careful to do the right thing. The serious principle involved is that here you have a registered trade union with a lawful constitution and people who are disaffected go out on strike. Technically that is an illegal strike, but the Government has not taken any action in the matter because the Government is anxious to see a peaceful settlement arrived at. The hon. member for Piketberg very rightly said—and I think everyone welcomed it— they are now in favour of trade unionism. The question I want to put to this House, and it is one the House has seriously to consider, is this. Once we are in favour of trade unionism, in favour of the principle of organised negotiation and co-operation between employers and employees, is it not a very serious suggestion to make that the moment any section of the workers in a particular industry are dissatisfied with a registered trade union they shall have not only the right to strike, they shall not only have the right to embark on a policy which might break up that union and weaken trade unionism, but that they will have the support in that policy of responsible people in this House? I want to say this, and I say it with all due respect to my friends on the Labour benches, I listened with some alarm to the statements made by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg), and the hon. member for Benoni, I think rightly, recognised the danger of the principles enunciated by the hon. member for Krugersdorp, but he did not repudiate them. I listened with alarm to the idea that because workers in a particular industry are dissatisfied with their trade union which is legal and constitutional they may immediately start a strike in connection with the matter and that the Government should take possession of the books and offices of the union pending a fresh election of office-bearers. I am not at the present moment going into the merits of the strike, I do not wish to say a word to prejudice a peaceful settlement, but I think the point the House should realise is this, the Mineworkers’ Union is affiliated to the South African Trades and Labour Council, to which practically all trade unions are affiliated, and I am sure the Trades and Labour Council, which is the responsible body of the trade union movement in South Africa, would resent very much a principle being laid down and accepted that the moment any section of the members is dissatisfied they can go on strike and fight against their official trade union. That is the issue, and if the Government were to interfere our friends opposite would be the first to say: Here is the Government interfering with trade unions. Our business today is to see that we get a satisfactory and peaceful settlement.

The hon. member who has just spoken made a political speech. But I submit we must avoid doing anything, or committing ourselves to a policy, which will result perhaps in forcing our attitude on the Mineworkers’ Union, a step which may result in a strike of the whole trade union movement, which may be far more serious than the struggle going on at the present time. I think the Prime Minister and the Government have acted wisely and correctly and should be commended instead of being attacked, as they have been, for taking the action they have taken …

What action?

… in sending their officials to investigate and ascertain the facts, and when they have an opportunity to obtain those facts and to sift them, to take further action.

I make one further point. The suggestion was made wholeheartedly by the Opposition and by my friends on the Labour benches— perhaps halfheartedly by some members— that now the time has arrived when an election should take place. I say, Sir, that perhaps one method of dealing with the matter would be to get the parties to agree to submit a stated case as to whether in terms of the constitution an election has to take place or not. [Interruptions.] Our friends either agree that an election is lawfully due or they do not. If they agree that an election is due, what fear need they have if an arrangement is made between the Strikers Committee and the Mineworkers’ Union to submit a stated case for the court to decide whether in terms of their constitution an election is now due; and if by any mischance the parties cannot agree at present to that course, I am sure when the Government has had the fullest information and sifted it, it could be dealt with by the Minister of Labour, who is popular on all sides and an able negotiator. [Laughter.] Well, perhaps not on that side of the House. But some arrangements can be arrived at. I do say that before that effort has been made to arrive at a mutually satisfactory arrangement on the dispute we should be careful to avoid doing anything which may be construed as a great interference with trade unionism.

The hon. member who has just been seated tried to make out that we raised this matter after the Prime Minister had already taken the matter in hand. Let me say, for the information of the hon. member, that the hon. Leader of the opposition got into touch with the Prime Minister yesterday afternoon and made arrangements with the Speaker to raise this matter today. Now we find that only this morning has the Prime Minister sent the deputation. Who then brought the matter up, the Leader of the Opposition or the Prime Minister? What has astonished me still more is that the hon. member who has just been seated said that we could not regard the matter from an unbiased point of view. His whole speech was made in defence of Broderick. He is the man whom he wants to protect for one or other reason, despite the fact that for the past few years the mineworkers have been complaining about that man and that they have every reason for so doing. He stood up and tried to defend Broderick instead of viewing the matter from an unbiased point of view. The whole matter amounts to this. Two demands have been made by the mineworkers. The first is the repeal of the so-called war clauses. Those war clauses have already been mentioned by members, but I would like the House to bear with me and permit me to read them out. These war clauses were later added to the constitution of the Mineworkers’ Union, and they are as follows—

How they are compiled does not count so much with me. The mineworkers who performed the work during the war years held, one can almost say, key positions. A number of the workers went to fight. The work performed by those who remained was just as praiseworthy. I can assure you that the mineworkers who remained behind to do the work under those circumstances acquitted themselves admirably. I agree to a certain extent with these clauses. Those who went to fight should have the opportunity to participate in an election. But it is practically nine months now since the war ended, and the soldiers are back; consequently, it cannot be expected that those clauses should still be enforced. It is generally known that there is a large measure of dissatisfaction with and distrust in the officials of the Mineworkers’ Union. If those officials, and among them Mr. Broderick, are so conscientious, and if they have performed their work so thoroughly, I cannot see why they should fear an election. If they have performed their work efficiently, let them give the mineworkers the opportunity of reelecting them. Because of their refusal to do so, it is obvious proof that they know that they do not enjoy the confidence of the workers. That is why they are afraid of an election. In 1923, after the Prime Minister had lost the election at Wakkerstroom, when he gained the impression that the nation no longer retained their confidence in his Government, he was man enough to go to the people and to give them a chance to vote again. It is their duty to follow the example of the Prime Minister and to give the members an opportunity of electing a new management. I repeat that the strikers put forward two principal demands. The first is the repeal of the war clauses, and the second is that the election must take place under the supervision of the Department of Labour. Both very reasonable. We have heard from different sides, and also from the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), who was then the responsible Minister, that deceit was practised at the last election when it took place under the supervision of these persons. Is it then unreasonable on the part of the mineworkers to demand that when an election is held, it must take place under the supervision of the Department of Labour? I repeat that the two demands are very reasonable. In the circumstances, I feel convinced that the Government is today in a position to find a satisfactory solution to the matter by way of mediation, and I can see no reason why the Government refuses to comply with the two demands of the mineworkers. We do not want to drag politics into the affair, but we have seen during the last few days how the strike has spread, and if a speedy solution is not found it will certainly also spread to all the other mines. We find ourselves in a state of emergency, and it demands abnormal action and measures.

I do not intend traversing the same ground as has already been covered today. It seems to me that the House is unanimously of opinion that a new election should be called. It may perhaps be of interest to the House if I read how an election takes place in the Mineworkers’ Union according to the amended Constitution of 1942. That constitution is registered by the Registrar of Trade Unions. It is laid down in the various clauses how the election must take place, and this Constitution was compiled for the very reason that in the past things happened at the ballot box which were not always right, and because at one stage the mineworkers elected a hopeless man as Secretary of the organisation, which later led to the appointment of a commission of enquiry by the Government, Clause 27 of the Constitution says—

Then we come to Clause 34, which says—

Now I want to point out that the shaft stewards, of whom mention is made in Clause 27, form the district committee, and Clause 34 stipulates how meetings must be convened in order to elect delegates to the General Council, which usually holds its meeting every year in April. Then Clause 39 says—

1. (a) Each branch shall elect one delegate to the General Council in respect of every 500 members or part thereof.
2. (b) When such election is necessary it shall take place at the annual general meeting as provided for in Clause 34 hereof.

Thus the General Council of the Mineworkers’ Union does not consist of shaft representatives from every shaft, for that would be an impossibility, because if every shaft in South Africa had to send a delegate to the General Council, the Council would then consist of approximately 250 members. Under the arrangement which is now in force, the General Council consists of approximately 83 members. Clause 40 says further—

Then Clause 50(2) defines inter alia the functions of the Executive Committee. The General Council of the Mineworkers’ Union elects the Executive Committee, and the duties of the Executive Committee are described as follows—

This means that the General Council not only elects the Executive Committee, but it also appoints officials, such as the Secretary and the various organisers and the clerical staff which are necessary in the organisation. In 1938 a man was elected as Secretary who did not carry out his duties as he should have done. Among other things he indulged in insobriety and as a result he made use of the funds, and to eliminate this this plan was devised and this Constitution was registered. Thus it makes the Prime Minister’s task very easy. All that the mineworkers’ are opposed to today are the war clauses which were read out by the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Wilkens). You can tell us that the legal advisers or others are of opinion that the cessation of hostilities is six months after the signing of the peace treaty, but you cannot tell it to 20,000 mineworkers. They believe the war ended when the last atomic bomb fell on Japan, and that was in July of last year. They sat and waited patiently for the six months to pass, so that they would have an opportunity of electing their shaft representatives who in turn would elect the Council and the Secretary. Usually 90 per cent. of the mineworkers do not know the man for whom they are voting personally, and they simply have to go on what they are told and what may perhaps be announced in the papers, and it is not always reliable. Now a solution can be found to the matter and it is that the Department of Labour, or another Department, should determine that hostilities ceased when the last bomb fell on Hiroshimo. That is what the mineworkers want, and if they receive that promise today —it is not yet 31st March and all these things can still take place according to the Constitution before 31st March—that the provisions will be repealed and the Constitution will come into force immediately, then they will resume work at once.

This morning the debate was maintained on a very high level by the Leader of the Opposition but unfortunately the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) attempted this afternoon to lower the standard of the debate, and I think that will be regretted by every member. If he wishes to deal with the matter on a political basis I think there are many on this side who would like to see that.

I read an article from “Die Suiderstem”.

The other hon. members tried to keep the debate on a high level, but the hon. member for Albért-Colesberg tried to cast blame on the Prime Minister. Even the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) maintained the debate on a high level but the way in which the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg accused the Prime Minister of negligence and other things was not in conformity with the spirit in which the debate was conducted this morning.

Did the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg state the facts wrongly?

Perhaps the facts were not wrong, but he gave a wrong impression. The fact that this morning the adjournment of the House was moved by the Leader of the Opposition will, I hope, not be interpreted as meaning that the Leader of the Opposition and the members of the Opposition are the only people in this House who take an interest in this matter. It must not be presumed that the Government side simply allowed the matter to slide. As responsible members of a responsible party which at this juncture constitutes the responsible Government, we realise that in such circumstances we must shoulder a responsibility and act responsibly. This matter is more serious than hon. members realise, but we have been in close touch with the Government. We as members of this party were in touch with the Government and it would have been the simplest ’thing—and I considered this very seriously—for me or for any member on this side to have risen this morning after questions were put and asked leave to put an oral question to the Prime Minister, and to ask him what the Government was doing to put an end to the strike in Johannesburg, knowing what the reply of the Prime Minister would be. Then all the possible arguments that were used by the Leader of the Opposition would have been completely upset. We could have done that, but we would not do it. We do not want to make personal profit out of it nor personal propaganda, we thoroughly realise our responsibility in this House. But I would again emphasise that the conclusion must not be drawn that the Government was responsible in this matter and simply let it slide. We are fully aware of the position. Blame has been cast on this side for not having acted earlier, for our not having acted immediately. In the same breath, however, members of the Opposition admitted that it is not an ordinary strike, but a strike amongst the members of the Mineworkers’ Union themselves, and if you take into consideration that at this juncture more than a third of the whole force of mineworkers are involved in the strike it is readily understood that no government will just lightly poke its nose into this. And let me say today to the Mineworkers’ Union—and I hope it will serve as a warning to every trade union in South Africa—that it is not in the best interests of trade unionism to run to the Government or to any political party over the smallest domestic trouble. Trade unionism is a very delicate organisation, and if any organisation must act prudently it is the trade union, and the day the trade union exposes itself to party influence, whether from the Government side or the Opposition side, that will be the end of the trade union. Consequently the Government must approach this matter carefully. I was one of those who spoke to the Prime Minister on this matter. I personally would perhaps have liked to have seen more drastic action taken. But I must admit that the step taken by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in first sending two emissaries to investigate the position and to endeavour to ascertain whether some settlement is not possible, is by far the best step. It is better than too hasty action and simply to say: “We ignore two-thirds of the Mineworkers’ Union and we will immediately have an election”, or “We ignore two-thirds and we listen to one-third and we immediately discharge the general secretary and the members of the General Council and we are putting in our own people”, or “We are going to act in accordance with the suggestion of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) and we will close the offices and take the matter into our hands”. In a democratic country such as South Africa a responsible government cannot do this. It is being strongly urged that an election must be held immediately. I was surprised myself to hear the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers) make the suggestion. I consider it would be undesirable, and I hope it will not be necessary to take such a step. Why not? It does not admit of doubt that feelings on both sides are today very warm. They are warm on the side of the strikers, and on the side of those who have not struck and who are possibly supporters of the present organisation. I speak as one who has to deal with these things, and in a trade union it is the easiest thing in the world for a couple of members to make terrific propaganda, but when you come to a general meeting which calls them to account and when they have to substantiate their allegations, you will see that perhaps only a handful out of a few thousands will make an appearance and venture to say anything. At the moment feelings on both sides are running high, and merely to order an election now will be irresponsible and dangerous. We are dealing with a trade union organisation which controls one of our most important industries, and to run off now and do something irresponsible inside the organisation is dangerous. I really and truly believe that the Minister of Labour and the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister did the best thing in the world by sending up two emissaries. They are two responsible and able men, and I say this House will be grateful to them if they succeed in the first place in coming to an arrangement and ending the strike, subsequent to which a reorganisation, or whatever it may be, can be effected. In other words, calm their feelings first and then order an election. I say this for other reasons as well. Complaints have been made, general wild complaints, against the general secretary and the management. I have spoken with people, but I will not make the complaints here. I shall not accuse any man before he has been found guilty, and if we investigate the complaints I am convinced that the mineworkers may be satisfied that the complaints are groundless. The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg made a dreadful fuss about the enquiry. He quoted from a letter that was sent last year to the Prime Minister, and he laid particular stress on the fact that there were returned soldiers amongst the deputation to the “Rand Daily Mail.” The fact that a man is a returned soldier is not to say that he is a complete paragon and will never be guilty of an infringement of the regulations of an organisation, and if any official transgresses the domestic regulations the organisation has the right to take action against him. The hon. member for Albert- Colesberg has stated that during the war years only five members of the Mineworkers’. Union were expelled under disciplinary regulations. Five out of 20,000 does not testify to terribly autocratic conduct. Where will you find in South Africa a trade union that is not compelled occasionally to adopt disciplinary action? But the fatal thing in South Africa is that as soon as a trade union lands in a domestic difficulty hon. members on the other side bring it up on; the floor of the House any try to make political propaganda out of it. We had the same thing a little while ago in connection with the Garment Workers’ Union. Recently we had more trouble with the Garment Workers’ Union. Fortunately hon. members did not know about it. We negotiated with the Minister of Labour and solved the trouble. Five members are not many over such a period. It does not justify the hon. member to talk about frightful confusion. Does he expect that the Government should take action every time there is internal trouble? I do not think that is the function of the Government. I feel that in the first place it must try to institute a proper investigation and to discover whether there is really something wrong. I am convinced that nothing wrong will be found. Then the strikers will be satisfied that there is nothing wrong and they will go back to their work and hold their election in a calm atmosphere. But as long as we pursue, the idea of calling an election and take notice of small political factors that occasion difficulty, a solution will be hampered and a dangerous position will be created. In spite of everything that is said I am convinced the matter has so far been handled tactfully, and the country will be grateful to the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister.

I think the House is entitled to know which version of the amendment inserted in this constitution is correct. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has stressed that an election shall not take place during the war or until six months after the cessation of hostilities. On the other hand my friend, the hon. member for Mayfair (Mr. H. J. Cilliers), reads from an extract to the effect that this election shall not take place during the war or until six months after the conclusion of the war. But in both instances the amendment seems to have been conditioned by the fact that ample time shall be given for all miners on active service to return to their work, and I am perfectly satisfied that no matter which version is correct, if this matter were submitted to an impartial tribunal with the condition that the men should be given time to return to their avocation, I am perfectly satisfied that that tribunal would order an election to be held forthwith. This is not a matter which should give a political advantage to one party or the other. It is a matter of tendering the correct advice to the men concerned, and I shall be glad to hear that the best advice obtainable is given to these people and that they act on it.

Apart from the Prime Minister two Government members have now taken part in the debate, namely the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy). Both these members thought fit to attack the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) for saying what he did, but they did not supply a single proof to show that what the hon. member said was not correct. And what did the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg say? He stood up here and read a report of a commission that was appointed by the Minister of Labour. Is this wrong?

I did not only speak about the quotation from the report.

The hon. member for Troyeville does not understand a word of Afrikaans and he must not interrupt me. Only when he has learnt Afrikaans will we allow him to interrupt a member in this House.

I understand Afrikaans very well.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (West) also rose and said: Yes, that information that the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg has given was wrong. All that the hon. member said was that of those 20,000 members only five were discharged over the course of five years. When an injustice is done to five people must we remain silent? But we have the admission of the hon. member for Benoni, the ex-Minister of Labour (Mr. Madeley), who said here: We know there was tampering with the ballot boxes in 1941. But what excuse has he now? The only excuse he advances is: Yes, but there was a war on. Thus in time of war you can practise fraud or anything else and because it is a time of war it is all right. We are not making any political capital out of this, but nevertheless it is a peculiar admission by the hon. member for Benoni. Is it surprising then that the mineworkers today are dissatisfied? But what is most peculiar is that we had a Minister of Labour and he has only now appeared on the scene. He is the responsible Minister, the Minister of Labour. He is responsible for the things that are happening in Johannesburg. We have been busy the whole morning. Now and again he has peeped into the House.

On a point of order, that is totally incorrect. I was here the whole morning and was only out for a few minutes. I am surprised that anyone of the standing of the hon. member should make such remarks.

The Minister has just been out again.

For two minutes.

I suggest those two minutes were rather spun out. I have been sitting here the whole afternoon and the Minister was only here for a short while.

On a point of order, that is quite incorrect.

That is not a point of Order.

But the most peculiar thing is that though the Minister of Labour is sitting here—he says he was here the whole time except for two minutes, and let us accept that argument—but why has he, the responsible Minister, not made an investigation while these things have been occurring under his nose, and made a statement to us? Why is he silent? Is he afraid about the things that are taking place? I say it is the duty of the Minister of Labour to take notice of this matter, because it is a serious business and he is the responsible person and ought to enlighten the House on the position. We know the position on the Rand, and that is why we are so serious about the strike that is occurring on the Rand. The thoughts of the old members in the House go back to 1922. Then there was also a strike on the Rand, and on that occasion through the medium of the late Gen. Hertzog a motion was introduced into the House to ask the Government to appoint a Select Committee of this House to make an enquiry so that an end could be put to that strike. I readily admit that the strike in those days was over something quite different. The strike arose over the removing of the status quo and the discharge of certain white workers, but the appointment of a Select Committee was proposed in this House, and that proposal was not accepted. Things had to be allowed to develop and we know of the serious bloodshed that occurred and the serious state of affairs that existed there. For that reason the Hon. Leader of the Opposition and we on this side of the House are doing nothing to aggravate the position, but we say it is the duty of the Government not to remain idle while these things are developing. But the hon. member for Troyeville says: Look what the Government has done. It has sent a few officials to the Rand to make an investigation and to consult the people concerned. Was it not the duty of the Minister of Labour to go to Johannesburg himself? He could have been in Johannesburg within five hours and he could have brought the various parties together to put an end to that position. The Minister knows there is starvation and all sorts of difficulties in the country, and every day longer that these people strike accentuates the difficulties and starvation in the country to a large extent, and consequently we on this side regret that those conditions prevail today. We hope that an end will be put to that state of affairs as soon as possible. The Prime Minister has stated this morning that he has sent two officials to the Witwatersrand to make an investigation, but, as the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg has said, this is nothing new. Four years ago the Government was warned that irregularities were occurring in the election, and that the mineworkers were dissatisfied, and last year this matter was mentioned in Parliament again, and the then Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Benoni, divested himself of all responsibility. Now the strike has occurred, and the best way to end the strike is for the Government to intervene immediately. It has been stated here that the constitution has been altered, and the hon. member wishes to make out that those conditions were altered by the miners themselves. That is not so. The committee altered that constitution, that no election could occur during the war—I am not making any objection to that—but that the election should take place six months after the war. For all practical purposes, the war has now been over for nine months. Or must we wait for six months after the declaration of the peace? If the Peace Conference is not convened for the next ten years, will these people have to wait ten years or longer until such time as there is a formal declaration of peace? Now I ask any reasonable person in the House: Is it fair to expect that the mineworkers should carry on under present conditions? I say that we cannot continue in this way. Dissatisfaction exists amongst the mineworkers, because they have no confidence in their executive. This matter was mentioned by this side of the House in order to direct the attention of the Government to it, and I want to say that those two officials who have been sent to the Witwatersrand will not be able to solve the difficulty. They are only going to make enquiries, and the Prime Minister says that if it is necessary we will take drastic action. We on this side of the House are bringing up the question simply because we do not want any drastic action. We have had enough in this country of drastic action. We have had bitter experience in this country as a result of that drastic action towards mineworkers, and consequently we want an end put to that strike as speedily as possible —today rather than tomorrow—and therefore I say it is the duty of the Minister of Labour rather to travel by air immediately to Johannesburg and to consult the leaders of the various groups, and if possible to bring the strike to an end. It has been suggested in Johannesburg how this could be done, and I do not see how in these circumstances the Government cannot intervene and put an end to the strike. And let me just tell the Minister of Labour that if the Government does not take steps it will have to take into account the feelings of the mineworkers. The strike commenced in the gold mines; when it has spread through the gold mines, it may extend to the coal mines. It may extend to departments of the Government. Last week we had the difficulty in connection with telegraphists. I say the Minister must be warned that the sooner steps are taken to put an end to that position, the better it will be. We must prevent a recurrence of the events that took place in Johannesburg in 1922. This motion has been proposed by the Leader of the Opposition in all reasonableness in the cause of peace and order and tranquillity in our own fatherland, because unrest of that nature is infectious, and once it spreads from the mines in other directions, you can realise what the position will be in South Africa.

I do not want to go further into the accusation that was made by the hon. member for Troyeville. I shall leave it where it is. I only hope we shall not again hear the reproach hurled at this side of the House, as is always the case when we bring up something in the interests of the country, that we are making political capital out of it. We do not want to make political capital out of this strike. We propose this motion in the interests of the country, and it is not in the interests of the country that this strike should continue a day longer than it has done, and consequently we say to the Government that they must take the necessary steps to put an end to the strike as speedily as possible. I should like again to express the hope that the Minister of Labour will take the necessary measures in that direction and will meet these people without there being any further difficulties. I am certain that if he meets them at a round table conference, the leaders of the Mineworkers’ Union and the representatives of the miners on strike will appreciate the urgent necessity of reaching a solution of the trouble. I am certain the leaders of the Mineworkers’ Union will realise the time is long overdue, if they are democrats, for an election to take place. There is no reason why it should be postponed. The one excuse in the past was that the soldiers had not returned. Now the soldiers are back. Why should the election still be put off, or are there perhaps emergency regulations which prevent the calling of an election? We should like to know whether there are such emergency regulations in existence. We trust that this debate will have the desired effect, and that the Government will take the requisite action to restore order on the Reef.

I rise to say a few words on this important matter. I want in the first instance to thank the Leader of the Opposition cordially for the way in which he has mentioned the matter and for his exposition of the subject. I want to assure him that this matter has for long received attention on both sides of the House. We are all interested in it and we all realise what a ticklish business it is. I regret, however, that one or two facts have been taken up here which are not quite correct. I would in the first place direct a few words to the hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Wilkens). I am certain that his intentions were quite honest in regard to what he stated. He said that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister only took steps for the first time when the Leader of the Opposition mentioned the matter. I would only tell him this, that even yesterday morning I knew of a conference which was held between the Prime Minister, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Mines with Mr. Walker and Mr. Buchanan, who were sent up to the Rand in order to discuss the matter, and we were in touch with them the whole day. I only mention this in order to make it clear to the House that the Government has given serious thought to this matter and that it has not waited until the Leader of the Opposition mentioned it; but we are still indebted to the Leader of the Opposition for the way in which he has presented the matter to the House. I want to assure him that we all appreciate it. In the first place I only want to mention this, that we must assume it is a domestic quarrel that has arisen amongst one section of the people. Should we now expect the Government to intervene in a most irresponsible way. We could just as well have expected the Government to intervene at the time the difficulty arose in the Broadcasting Corporation. We realise the seriousness of the matter and we do not want to drag this question into the political arena. I am certain there is not one of us who wants to make political capital out of it. But though I say that, I do regret that the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) thought fit to come here with political matters and to lay the cause of the trouble at the door of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and to blame the Government for what has occurred. Let me say at once for the benefit of members who perhaps may not have such an intimate knowledge of the case as we who represent those seats, that an agreement exists between the Mineworkers’ Union and the Chamber of Mines. After all the leaders of the Mineworkers’ Union were elected by the miners and an agreement was arrived at through the Mineworkers’ Union with the Chamber of Mines, that they would accept the closed shop principle. Since the start of this trouble I have never thought either the strikers or the leaders of the Mineworkers’ Union were wrong. I do not know who is wrong, because I am not sufficiently conversant with their internal business to be able to say which of those two sections is at fault. But that agreement was entered into and after it had been in force for years the Mineworkers’ Union came and said: Here is a person who refuses to pay his subscription and as he is not now regarded as a member of the Mineworkers’ Union he must be discharged. Immediately the Chamber of Mines, in order to carry out their part of the contract, discharged this individual and then one found that members of the Mineworkers’ Union went on strike in sympathy with the man who was discharged. Now the mineworkers say that they have not gone on strike merely on account of the person who was discharged but because they are opposed to the leaders of the Mineworkers’ Union. It is thus impossible for the Government, seeing it is a domestic matter, to jump in in an irresponsible way and to intervene. Here you have a private section of the citizens who have their own private organisation controlling their own affairs. But suspicions are aroused when you listen to a speech such as that delivered by the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg. He immediately intimated that this was another political question and we should now make as much political capital out of these poor people as it is possible to do. I say that is regrettable and to support my contention that a speech of that nature is suspicious and awakens suspicion, I would just refer to something that appeared a little while ago in one of the Nationalist Party’s official organs. I do not say that the Nationalist Party stands for this, but I say that certain individual members of the Nationalist Party are the cause of it, and the result is that one regards with suspicion a speech such as that made by the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg. I read here under the heading “Vocational representation in the Nationalist Party” as follows—

It is a pity this is the case, but here at once you have an instance where individual members of that party meddle with these private bodies in order to use them for political purposes, and in order that they can then elect people on their central executive who are supposed to represent the views of these people, and who have to talk on their behalf in the political world, though these are matters which should be kept out of politics. Here is another instance—

What are you reading from?

I am reading an extract from “Die Transvaler” of 8th September, 1942.

But “Die Transvaler” does not appear in English.

But there are, of course, translations.

We know how you people translate.

I give my hon. friend the date, and if he doubts it in any way I challenge the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) to deny it. This is the sort of thing that causes suspicion to be aroused when that type of address comes from the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg, and no one can blame us when we become suspicious.

It is a pity that this matter goes deeper than many of the speeches that have been delivered here. I would like hon. members on both sides of the House to realise what great losses are sustained when such a strike occurs on the Reef. Let me take the case of the strikers themselves. According to the newspaper reports there are today approximately 6,000 miners on strike. In the first place there are the women and children dependent on those miners. The Mineworkers’ Union says explicitly that this is an illegal strike. I do not say so, but the Mineworkers’ Union asserts it is an illegal strike with the result that those people have no call on the funds for the support of strikes and the result is that possibly these women and children will have to suffer financially as a result of the strike. That is the one loss I want to mention. In the second place we will assume that as a result of the ratio laid down between black and white workers underground there are 50,000 natives unemployed as a result of the strike of 6,000 mineworkers. This means that the Chamber of Mines receives no return in respect of the wages of those natives. This also signifies a big financial loss to the mines, and as a practical miner I know what this means to the mines. These are all things of a serious nature, and I should like us to take them into consideration. I know that it is impossible for the Government to intervene unless it knows precisely what the position is. The Government has done its best by sending two responsible persons to the Rand to discover what the position is and to endeavour to find a solution of the difficulty. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will not press his motion to a division today, because I want to suggest that when these two persons return, and the Government finds it is possible to take immediate action, steps will be taken forthwith. The Government can then devise the strikers to return to their work with a promise that the Government will make an immediate enquiry into the trouble, and if necessary call an election. I want to assure the House that the mineworkers are a difficult section to work with. They are people with divergent political views and divergent interests, and it is a difficult matter to look after the interests of all these people and to pacify them all. I feel that if we go so far as to promise that we shall investigate the matter properly, and if necessary thereafter call an election, both sections of the mineworkers will be satisfied.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat began with some very nice moralising. He paid a tribute to the Leader of the Opposition for the objective way in which he has presented the matter.

I am still doing that.

One expected that he would confine himsef to the point but he had scarcely started before he attempted to influence the mineworkers and the men involved in the strike so that they would think that the motion proposed here has only a political object, that it is proposed by this side of the House for the sake of making political capital. He can derive nothing from the speeches on this side of the House to prove that, except perhaps a reference in the speech of the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) without saying anything to contradict the hon. member, and then he had to resort to a misrepresentation of something that he read out of a red book, and he told us it was from “Die Transvaler”. I would ask the hon. member in future when he reads anything from “Die Transvaler” to read it out in Afrikaans. He can understand Afrikaans well and he does not need to get translations to read them out to the House. I would only say this, that what he read out there is the same sort of thing as was submitted the other day by the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie)—also something they were provided with which I and other people would say was an absolute misrepresentation of what was stated—then a person can attach no value to it, but I want to say this that certainly no frontbencher on the Government side should come to the House with this sort of thing. He really ought to know if he wishes to shoulder responsibility when he comes to the House and submits things as facts that he should come with the real facts. Let me now take the misrepresentation he made in regard to the composition of the Nationalist Party’s executive. He says that certain persons on the central executive are representative of the mineworkers and others represent the railwayworkers, and that is a reason for him to attack the party for interfering in an improper way with trade unions. Let me tell the hon. member that what we are doing in the Transvaal on our executive is exactly what everyone of the political parties in the House does. In every quarter of the House they have workers’ groups; they have a mining group and an agricultural group, and a group for this and a group for that. It is of course entirely in order. That is precisely what we are doing in our central executive in the Transvaal. We have certain central executive members who apply themselves to a study of the interests of mineworkers; others who apply themselves to a study of the interests of public servants, and others who devote themselves to a study of railwayworkers’ interests, and so forth. If the party on the opposite benches is not doing that yet I would give them the advice that they will be able to look after their affairs better if they follow on the same lines. As far as the allegation is concerned that we want to drag in politics I will only put one question to the hon. member: Did he read the “Rand Daily Mail” a few days ago; did he read “Die Suiderstem” to which my hon. friend here referred, how those newspapers who support the Government immediately seized on this matter and at once brought the miners on strike under suspicion by imputing that suddenly they are Broederbonders and Reformers. The mineworkers must now be brought under suspicion with the general public, and they are deprived of any sympathy by suggesting that they are Broederbonders and Reformers. I would just say this to my hon. friend: He will derive no advantage from that. Has he seen what the reaction of the mineworkers themselves was at No. 15 shaft of the Crown Mines, where the overwhelming majority of the mineworkers are returned soldiers? A protest meeting was held to register a protest against that side’s newspaper which presented the matter in this light, to register a protest against the “Rand Daily Mail” that made this accusation that the difficulty arose through the bungling of Broederbonders and Reformers, and I say those miners held a protest meeting, re a protest against the improper statements of the “Rand Daily Mail”. Let us turn now to the Robinson Deep Mine. The miners on the Robinson Deep struck and practically all of them struck — English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking, Saps and Labourites and Nationalists. From a SAPA report, which certainly is not coloured by Nationalist Party sympathies, we read the following—

Consequently I maintain that all these efforts to throw suspicion on these people by linking them up with the Nationalist Party or Broederbonders or Reformers will not help. There is only one thing that will help, and that is that the Government— and I want to mention specially the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister—should realise their duty and carry out their duty. This is a very serious thing. A strike amongst the mineworkers cannot be regarded in a superficial manner. I would repeat here* what someone else stated, that we saw in 1921 what a miners’ strike can develop into. I would only say this, that I think everyone who really has the interests of South Africa at heart will pray that what happened in 1921 will not happen again today, and this will be prevented if the Prime Minister does not again follow the policy of 1921 of merely allowing things to develop. It is his duty to intervene as rapidly as possible and to intervene drastically to prevent this disaster which threatens us today. The demand the miners are making today is not an unreasonable one, it is not unreasonable when they claim that they should be freed of a dictatorship, but because it does not admit of the slightest doubt that the Mine workers’ Union and that small group of paid officials, from the secretary down, are nothing else than a tyranny and a dictatorship.

I have never denied it.

I would like the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) to hear that the hon. member for North East Rand (Mr. Heyns) says he does not deny it. I say they have become nothing else than a dictatorship and a tyranny.

I did not accuse anyone.

The hon. member did not accuse anyone, but his whole speech was delivered in the spirit that he was acting as defender of the mineworkers.

I deny that.

And also the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge). Both of them emphasised that the Government should not intervene in regard to trade unionists. They say it is a domestic matter. If they take up that standpoint they are immediately acting as representatives of a body which is no longer a trade union, because a trade union is a body that is chosen by the members themselves, and the Mineworkers’ Executive has long since ceased to be entitled to sit where they are sitting. You know what the position is. If a vacancy arose during the war the members had no right to elect a member. The Mineworkers’ Executive appointed who they wanted to. This is the position that prevailed there, and accordingly I say it is an absolute dictatorship. To tell us under these circumstances, where a small group of men get the power into their hands and misuse it to exploit the mineworkers and to impose their will on thousands of miners, I maintain that to say under these circumstances the Government has no right to intervene, is crazy. The hon. member for Troyeville takes the standpoint that the Government has no right to intervene, that this tyranny must continue. Supposing there was justification for no election being held during the war— I do not endorse it, but assume that was so— then I say that at this juncture there can be no justification, and yet the hon. member for Troyeville says that the Government in these circumstances has no right to intervene.

He said it was not advisable.

His standpoint was that the Government should not concern itself in that. The Prime Minister took up an intelligent standpoint.

You did not understand English well.

The hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) should not make a fool of himself. When he makes such a remark it may apply to one of his backbenchers, but it does not apply to this side of the House.

We backbenchers know nothing.

I will not quarrel with the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) when he says he knows nothing. The position is serious. The Government must intervene. The position is critical, and the Prime Minister has stated that if a settlement is not arrived at he will intervene. I only hope that he will intervene in such a way that right will be done to the mineworkers who have now been unjustly dealt with. Various things are mentioned as the claims of the miners, and perhaps we should mention what the miners themselves say about their claims. At a gathering of mineworkers on the C.M.R., which was attended by more than 1,000 people, they took this resolution, and I mention this as an example of what the miners on the whole demand. The first is that an election must be held before 31st March. The second is that whether a miner is a member of the union or not he must be allowed to vote. The third is that the election must be held under the supervision of the Government. It is the last point that I would specially bring to the notice of the Prime Minister. If the election must be held it must be held under the strict supervision of the Government. This has been said over and over again, and I cannot emphasise it enough that the mineworkers have not the slightest confidence in the straightforwardness of the secretary and the officials as far as the holding of an election is concerned. Especially after the sensational admission we had this afternoon from the late Minister of Labour that they really had been tampering with the ballot boxes in the past, the position is of such a serious nature that the Government must take notice of it. If an election is held, it must be held under the surveillance of the Government, so that the real voice of the workers can be heard, and not a false voice. The fourth point is that in the interim all the assets of the Mineworkers’ Union should be seized; that the Government should in the interim take possession of the office with all the books, otherwise we can well understand what may happen between now and the day of such an election. The hon. member for North East Rand read out in English from “Die Transvaler” what Dr. Ross is supposed to have said about the trade unions being an evil, and that it came down to this, that the Nationalist Party was going to get rid of them. There is not a word of truth in that.

I challenge you to deny it.

I deny it now.

I shall prove it.

The Nationalist Party has its programme of action. It is all very clear if the hon. member wants to know what the party stands for. He must not come here and read an English translation out of a red book. Let him read out of our programme itself, and then he will see what the policy of this party is in respect of trade unions. I only ask him to be fair and honest, and not to give an erroneous representation by stating things here that are untrue.

I do not think it is necessary for me to say more than a few words in closing this debate. I think that, quite apart from this side of the House, there is general satisfaction over the fact that this matter has been brought to the notice of the House. The Prime Minister himself was good enough to admit that it is an important matter, that a serious position has arisen on the Witwatersrand, that it is developing further, and that it is absolutely necessary that the serious attention of the authorities should be given to this matter, and also that the necessary steps should be taken. In reference to the debate in general, in addition to a realisation of the seriousness of the matter, I am glad there have been certain signs which afford me, at any rate, considerable satisfaction, more particularly in connection with the attitude of the members of the Labour Party. This party, perhaps more than any other, is implicated in the situation that exists on the Witwatersrand. And the attitude they take up in general regarding this matter corresponds very largely with the position taken up by us on this side. I am glad to see that though we on this side brought to the notice of the House the bad state of affairs that existed in the Mineworkers’ Union a few years ago—I do not know whether it still exists—and though we were strongly attacked, and though there was resentment of our action, the members of the Labour Party now come and acknowledge that we had every reason and good ground for that, and that there was full justification for bringing to light that mismanagement and those wrong conditions and for mentioning them in this House. Viewed from this angle, I think the debate has been satisfactory. What I do regret, and I will only make one remark about it, is that though it is true on the Government side the Prime Minister took up the matter and explained the attitude and the standpoint of the Government, and the steps the Government proposed to take, the responsible Minister is after all the Minister of Labour, and I will just say this, without going into it, that it is something absolutely extraordinary that the responsible Minister should say not a single word when a matter of such importance is mentioned in this House. What lies behind that I do not know. Everyone can draw his own conclusions, but it is quite an extraordinary feature. The view has been expressed here that we should not carry this motion to a division. Before the suggestion was made by the hon. member on the other side the idea occurred to me that in view of the fact that there is such a general measure of agreement on the seriousness of the position, and on the fact that it was right to bring the matter before the House, and also on the necessity for steps being taken, I should take the course that the Speaker will put the motion in the ordinary way but that no division will be called. I hope the wish that I am expressing here will be complied with. Now I would just say this. In order to solve this difficulty on the Witwatersrand various things are required. They have already been mentioned in the House this afternoon, and I would only explain a few of the requisites. The first is perfectly clear. You will ease the position very considerably and you may put an end to the strike at once, if it can be so arranged and possibly agreed that the Government takes action in connection with the matter and that an arrangement be made for an election to be held, the sooner the better, for the executive of the Mineworkers’ Union. That is what is demanded, and that demand is certainly not unreasonable, quite apart from when the period of six months after the war will expire, whether it will be six months after the termination of hostilities, which occurred in May last, or whether it will be six months after the signing of the final peace treaty, and that, as we all know, may still take years. It is not unreasonable that we should arrive at an arrangement for a speedy election. The Prime Minister was not too definite about that. He gave no assurance that he would work in that direction, although we can be assured that it will go far towards a solution. But quite apart from that there are other matters which are very necessary, and one is to restore the confidence of members of the Mineworkers’ Union in their union. It does not help matters to remove the difficulty that has arisen in reference to the discharge of a certain miner, and then to allow a continuance of the distrust which has existed for a shorter or longer period. Tomorrow or the next day you will get a recurrence of these difficulties. Consequently I maintain that quite apart from the termination of this strike there is the question of restoring confidence in the Mineworkers’ Union to all its members. That confidence will indeed be partially restored by the speedy holding of an election so that the miners can themselves place in control those they desire, people they trust, but the greater difficulty also lies in this, that there is no confidence in the way an election is held, and therefore we have this supplementary demand, but it is a very important demand, that when an election is held it must be held under the proper supervision of the Government, so that there can be no malpractices and fraud in connection with it. That this occurred previously has not only been alleged but the person who was then the responsible Minister admitted it occurred. It is so—“tampered with the boxes.” Can we resent it, then, if the mineworkers ask in those circumstances if there is another election there should be proper guarantees that these malpractices should not recur in the future? Then just this last point. This is the point that was also mentioned by the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) and other members, and also partially by the Prime Minister himself when he answered it. It is a question of action on the part of the Government being construed as meddling with the affairs of the trade union. This is supposed to be against the law; it would be unjustified; even if there was good reason the Government must in no circumstances interfere with the affairs of the trade union. These are matters of a domestic nature, and the Government must keep out of them? Now I think to put the matter in that light is going too far. Let me say this. Can we give general application to other organisations to that rule that the Government must not interfere with an organisation where no money is received from the Government or where they actually have nothing to do with the Government? If the Government may not interfere with the trade union can it interfere with a trust? A trust is a trade combination; it is a private affair as between those who have invested money in it. But we can assume that they can carry on unchecked in the country and that because it is a private concern the Government cannot intervene? Certainly it has the right to do so. The Government must look to the interests of the individual and those of the people as a whole. There are welfare organisations. There are also private organisations, but the Government deems it its duty to make these welfare organisations register, and should malpractices occur in them then for the protection of the public and of the organisation itself the Government concerns itself with that, or has the right to do so. It is not so wrong in principle. The co-operative associations of the farming community are also private concerns and not Government concerns in the first instance, but if malpractices occur the Government certainly has the right to institute an enquiry and to protect in a proper way the principle of co-operative associations as well as the public. My contention when I moved the motion was that the trade union system is a cogwheel in the machinery of our economic life. I went further and said that it is a cogwheel in the machinery of government. Not only have they tremendous power in the economic sphere, not only has the public an interest in the activities of the trade unions, not only can the Government for that reason interest itself in its affairs, but the Government has placed certain powers in the hands of the trade unions. There are the apprenticeship committees which guard the door through which must pass those who wish to become tradesmen. The trade unions appoint persons on those committees under the powers derived from the State. There are the boards of technical institutes, to which the trade unions also appoint members. Admittedly it is a cogwheel in the machinery of the State, and therefore I say that the Government really can intervene in the affairs of a trade union where there are malpractices. It steps in decisively with organisations such as co-operative societies or welfare organisations and similar bodies if there are malpractices; or it starts an enquiry to bring the facts to light. The Government has the fullest right to do this, and then to take measures to remove those malpractices. I am glad that the Prime Minister did not take a completely arbitrary standpoint in reference to this matter, because he said if circumstances justified it he would institute an enquiry and take action in connection with the affairs of the Mineworkers’ Union, and if it was justified he would take drastic action. This implies that he will indeed intervene in this matter. I repeat I am on the whole satisfied with the debate that has been conducted here, and also with the standard of it and the spirit in which this discussion has occurred in the House.

I understand that the hon. member wishes to withdraw the motion.

I do not withdraw it, but I shall not call for a division.

Motion put and negatived.

It being twenty-three minutes past four o’clock p.m., the House proceeded to the consideration of Government business.

When this vote was last under discussion, the Minister of Agriculture was not present and we could not get sufficient information in connection with the amount that was applied by way of subsidy to imported barley and oats. I hope that the Minister will be able to give it to us. The question has been put at what prices the barley and oats were imported. The Minister of Finance told us what the price of oats was, but not the price of barley. Furthermore, we should very much like to know how much oats was imported or will be imported, and also the quantities of barley. In connection with barley, I should like further to learn whether only fodderbarley will be imported or also malt-barley. If we import malt-barley, then I should like to know whether the subsidy on it will be paid to the breweries. In connection with the subsidy on oats, I should like to repeat for the edification of the Minister, who was not present, that I trust now it has appeared to be necessary to import oats, the Minister will take notice of this and keep in mind that this importation has been largely caused by the payment of too low a price for oats last year. I wish to assert that if the price was higher, it would not have been necessary to import so much oats as apparently seems to be necessary now. It is the practice of the grain farmer to apply crop rotation between oats and wheat. The land is sown with wheat for a year or two, and after that with oats for a year or two. As a result of the low prices last year, the farmers did not sow oats, they sowed wheat. But, unfortunately, they sowed that wheat on what the farmers call “flou” soil, land on which oats should really be sown. As a result of the low price of oats, the farmers risked sowing wheat on that soil, and because the land was already exhausted and because they had not sufficient fertiliser, and also on account of drought, the crop was a total failure. They reaped neither wheat nor oats. I hope the Minister will prevent this sort of thing happening again, and when representations are made through the Control Board in regard to determining the price of oats, I hope he will agree to an appreciable increase. I have before me the price schedule for the previous year—not last year—and it varies from 16s. to 14s. Last year it varied from 13s. to 11s., and the average price paid for oats last year was about 12s. At that price the farmers cannot sow oats. In these circumstances you cannot produce oats at 12s. a bag, and I hope the Minister will take this into consideration as soon as prices have to be fixed, so that they can be laid down on a higher level. Then production will be increased.

I regret I was not present yesterday to answer the various points the hon. member brought up. I cannot agree in any way that the reason for the importation of oats is that the prices that were fixed were too low. The reason is that we had a drought and not a proper harvest, and also because the mealie crop was very short. The hon. member expressed the hope that when the Wheat Control Board makes representations I shall fix prices accordingly. This is precisely what I did. The price was fixed as recommended, I believe unanimously, by the Wheat Control Board, on which the producers are in the majority.

I hope they will come to their sense and make better recommendations.

It is not a question of coming to their senses. The hon. member will see that I did not act in opposition to their recommendation. The price was fixed at that time in the light of the circumstances that prevailed, but the shortage was not caused by the price. I can inform the House that requests for seed oats certainly did not indicate that the farmers were scared by the price that was fixed, and that they thought it was no encouragement to sow oats. The opposite was the case. Applications were made for a colossal quantity of seed oats.

Mostly by farmers in the north, who wanted fodder for their cattle.

Whatever may be the reason, in these parts most of them had seed themselves to sow. The fact remains that the price was fixed according to the Control Board. As far as the other point is concerned, the position is that we only imported oats, not barley. I believe the Minister of Finance gave the prices yesterday. The oats we imported from Australia cost us 30s. per bag of 150 lb., and the oats from the United States 36s. a bag of 150 lb. The position is that we have not yet received barley, but the breweries will have to pay the full import price. We shall pay no subsidy as far as they are concerned.

I would just say this, that I believe the general policy was to fix the price of oats so low and the price of wheat so high to encourage the people to sow wheat, and when the hon. Minister says that the people did not sow too little oats. I want to say that that is not the case. The Minister knows Calvinia, where the farmers sow oats every year. In November I could not get a bag of oats. This is in consequence of the fact that the prices were fixed so low, and now we have to spend a large amount to import oats. I agree with the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) that it is ridiculous to fix the price of oats at 13s. and to import oats at 30s. I hope the Minister will abandon that policy. But I want to ask something else. I did not quite follow how much oats had been imported, but there is a great shortage of fodder, and you may have pure bred stock whether they are horses or cattle or rams, and I should like to know how the Minister is allotting the fodder. Is preference given or not?

In connection with the additional amount of £18,000, subsidy on butter, I should like to know whether we will get more butter. Here in Cape Town butter is unobtainable. Will the butter now be cheaper and more plentiful seeing we are "voting this additional amount? Has the shopkeeper the right to hang on to butter and to sell it only to permanent customers? Then the Minister intimated that the breweries will have to pay the full price for imported oats.

The breweries do not use oats, only barley.

Then take race horses. Will the full price have to be paid for oats for them?

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) bas said that the price was fixed too low for oats, and the result was that there was no inducement to produce. That is not correct in practice to the extent the hon. member wishes to emphasise. Two years ago when the price of wheat was 36s. a bag and the price of oats not very much higher, practically the same, there were a million bags of surplus oats carried over from one season to the other, which actually saved the situation from the feeding point of view. In those days the same conditions applied and production did not go down, actually production had increased because of seasonal conditions. But there is one thing that will break down production, and that is the weather, and that is what has happened in the case of oats and barley this year, and the emphasis cannot be laid on the price. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn has referred to the price of barley as being discouraging to production. I question the fact. I think in his own district there has been almost a record crop of barley this year. They could have grown wheat. They had 37s. 6d. for wheat, but they grew barley, and it depends on several conditions, soil conditions, climatic conditions and other conditions, and the emphasis is not on the price to that extent. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) has referred to the allocation of this food that is obtained through favoured channels. Actually allocation is made on sworn affidavits. It is done under a rationing system which is an endeavour to ensure that it does not go into favoured channels, and that the available supplies are given to the country as a whole and to priorities, like seed, etc. It is not just dished out to sectional interests or trade interests. Therefore I say that the information that the hon. gentleman has is not correct and does not really bear out the facts of the case.

I should like to put a question to the Minister in connection with dairy products, for which an amount is voted here. Can the Minister tell us whether prices have already been fixed by his Department for mixtures that are used by the farmers in connection with the production of milk? A committee was appointed and they were occupied for a long time. Unfortunately the price of these mixtures went up as quickly as the Minister fixed the prices, and there appears to be no control over the people who sold them. Have prices been fixed so that the farmers may know what the position is; and further, are the ingredients fixed so that the farmers know what the mixtures are composed of? You get “Meadow Brand” and all sorts of mixtures, but the farmer wants to know what the constituents are, what the nutritional value is, how much bone meal there is in it and peanuts and oil cake and other constituents.

What item is the hon. member discussing?

D. — “Dairy Products”, £18,000. My contention is that control must be exercised over these mixtures as far as the prices and the ingredients are concerned. Then I should like to say something in connection with the subsidy in respect of Railway tariffs. The additional amount of £133,600 is being asked, a big sum. We approve it, but we should like to know from the Minister whether he cannot meet us especially as regard the northern districts. Hon. members know why cattle must be sent from the drought-afflicted areas to areas where there is still grazing. Now a subsidy is only given by the Department of Agriculture in respect of stock that is returned from the place they came from. In the Northern Transvaal many cattle have been conveyed to other parts where lumpy disease has now broken out, and the farmers are unable to bring the cattle back. It is not their fault, but now they cannot derive the benefit from the subsidy in connection with Railway tariffs. They have sent their cattle perhaps to Middelburg or to Rustenburg and now they have to send these cattle to the market or sell them in the districts, because they may not bring these cattle back. Will the Minister in such cases not see to it that the farmers receive the benefit of the subsidy under the special circumstances?

The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) has referred to the position in regard to butter. I think he ought to be able to obtain butter now. We have increased the ration from 33⅓ per cent. to 75 per cent. If he still has difficulty in obtaining butter I would suggest that he goes to the Food Controller. Then he will certainly get his rightful portion. In regard to the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) I have already explained the position. The price of oats was fixed at that time in the light of circumstances then prevailing and I accepted the price recommended by the Wheat Control Board. They arrived at the price in conjunction with the price of mealies on the basis of the nutritional value of the two. I accepted the price. The great cause of the shortage of oats was not the prices fixed but the fact that the two northern provinces which also produce a considerable amount of oats had a complete failure with the crop. Otherwise it probably would not have been necessary to import oats. At present oats are being rationed, as the hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) indicated. The Wheat Control Board rations and the oats are issued on sworn declarations that must be made by the persons making application, and it is issued more or less on the basis of the needs of the people. In the main it is allotted for breakfast purposes, and after that for use in the production of protective human food.

What price must one pay for the imported oats?

The fixed price for consumers.

For seed oats as well?

For all oats. That is to say with the exception of oats for race horses. For that purpose the imported price must be paid, but for the rest the fixed price is paid. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) spoke about mixtures. We froze mixtures some time ago so that the price has now been fixed. There is no danger of it going higher. The ingredients are also fixed. This happened a considerable time ago and any mixture that is sold must be registered with the Department and the ingredients are then stipulated. Then the hon. member spoke about the rebate on the Railways in connection with the conveyance of cattle from drought-afflicted districts, stock that is not brought back. It would naturally mean a big alteration in our present policy if we allowed that. I am prepared in the exceptional circumstances to go into the matter but the hon. member will realise that it would involve discussions with the Treasury. I can make no promises, but I shall go into it.

In regard to the areas where lumpy disease has broken out it happens that farmers cannot bring their cattle back. They may have to send their stock to the quarantine market.

This is precisely the same point as the hon. member for Pietersburg made and I said I would go into it.

Vote put and agreed to.

Expenditure from Loan Fund.

On Loan Vote A. — “Railways and Harbours”, £750,000,

I should like to ask the Minister to explain why this amount is necessary. There is also great expansion in my constituency and I should like to know why this capital expenditure has been voted.

This money is transferred from the Consolidated Revenue Fund to the Railway Fund and it will be dealt with under the Railway estimates. It actually has been dealt with. It is quite impossible to say how it was spent, because it has been spent on various matters.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote B.—“Public Works”, £131,550, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote C.—“Telegraphs and Telephones”, £437,300, put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote D.—“Lands and Settlements”, £29,300,

On item No. 8 I should like to know from the Minister of Lands what the £20,000 mentioned here is for in connection with general development on the Vaal-Hartz irrigation settlement. In 1945 certain persons at Vaal-Hartz working on the Irrigation settlement were discharged and the reason given was that the work was almost completed and that their services were no longer required. I should like to know what sort of development is going to occur. Will these people again be taken into service?

Of the amount of £20,000 the sum of £11,780 is intended for buildings we took over from the Department of Defence. There was a camp there during the war and we took over the building. The balance of the amount is for development in clearing the holdings, building houses and so forth in connection with settlers who are arriving. No people were dismissed, as the hon. member stated. We explained at the time. A few people taken on temporarily during the war were discharged because men who came back from military service resumed their posts. Only a few people were affected. Of course, we cannot appoint them again. They were only appointed temporarily.

I would like to have a little information in regard to item No. 7, Pongola irrigation settlement. There is believed to be a considerable number of plots ready for occupation. The houses were built years ago and the land has now been cleared. They are engaged in planting sugar there. When does the Minister intend to grant the land? The land is lying idle there now while it could be made productive. In regard to the Vaal-Hartz scheme the Minister told me 75 people were already on their way there.

Seventy-five are there already.

For how many is there still room at Vaal-Hartz apart from the 75 already there? In connection with Loskop I believe a large number of plots have already been prepared. When will applications be invited and when will the land be allotted? It is not in the interests of the country to leave the land undeveloped. We are faced with starvation, and the sooner the land is cultivated the better.

The hon. member will understand that a large number of settlers can still be placed on Vaal-Hartz as well as Loskop, but we are short of staff and it is a tremendous undertaking to settle a large number of people simultaneously. Every three months we advertise a certain number of holdings at the various settlements, and then we advertise again as soon as provision has been made for three or four hundred. Within a short time we will again advertise, and so we go on. We cannot place everyone at the same time. That applies to Vaal-Hartz and Loskop. The hon. member enquired how many could still be settled at Vaal-Hartz. It is difficult to say, but I think we can place 1,000 at Vaal-Hartz. In regard to Pongola, the hon. member knows we are making provision for sugar production, but that a mill has still to be constructed. We cannot place settlers there while the sugar cane cannot be milled.

Sugar will only be produced on a part of the settlement, but what about the rest of it that is lying idle?

We shall lose no time.

In regard to item 4, I should like to ask whether holdings along the Orange River up to Louisvale fall under this item?

The amount is for the preparation of holdings, and these are holdings along the whole of the Orange River irrigation settlement. There are holdings that have reverted to the Government, as the hon. member knows, while other holdings have not yet been allotted.

Then I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister that when I recently visited these parts my attention was directed to the fact that the holdings situated on the islands, near the south bank, were practically cut off whenever the river is full. A number of the men there, who have returned from the war, have come to see me, and have told me that they cannot bring their products to market in an economical manner because when the river is full it is dangerous to cross it. So they have to make use of suspension bridges and so forth.

These are temporary people.

Oh, no; some have been there two or three years. Most of them are lads who have come from the training school and who were probationary lessees at Olyvenhoutsdrif. Some of them have been displaced, and some of the holdings have reverted to the Government. I should like to ask the Minister to enquire into the whole position in connection with admission to the holdings. Cannot we send someone to see these people? They say that at certain periods of the year they cannot market their lucerne, that they cannot come through the river, and they have a scheme they would like to submit to the Minister which will make provision at little cost to connect the southern bank with Louisvale station. This will be of great significance to them, and they will be in a position to market their products more cheaply.

The Minister of Lands gave an answer to the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) in connection with development at Vaal-Hartz. He asked the Minister whether people had been discharged. The Minister then stated that no one had been discharged but later he said a few had been discharged. He added that they were temporary workers. When these men received notice from the Minister’s department …

I regret, but I cannot allow the hon. member to enlarge on that matter. He can only put a question to the Minister.

Then I ask the Minister whether he will deny that his department stated in the discharge notices given to these people that the work was nearing completion. That is the first question. The second is whether the Minister will deny that his department in Johannesburg sent a telegram in which they stated that the funds had run out. The third question I wish to put is, when the Minister of Lands says these were only temporary men and that the soldiers returned to take their places, can he say how many soldiers are now working as labourers at Vaal-Hartz for the Irrigation Department?

I want to ask the Minister whether he realises the poor condition of the roads at Vaal-Hartz.

This vote has nothing to do with that.

Does that mean that we cannot use this money for roads? The position is very serious.

The hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) asked several fair questions. I do not know what the position is there, but his questions were very clear and I think the Minister should be good enough to furnish him with the information. If the information is not correct then I shall leave the subject. We do not want to delay the vote, but there are certain points on which we want information, and I think the hon. member put pertinent questions.

My ruling is that those questions have no relation to this vote. May I point out to the hon. member that the only matter that can be discussed here is the reasons for the increase, and I have ruled that the question the hon. member put has nothing to do with the increase under the vote.

You told the hon. member that he was entitled to ask questions, and he did put them.

The hon. member can ask questions in connection with reasons for the increase.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote E.—“Irrigation”, £32,500, put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote N.—“Commerce and Industries”, £250,

I should like to have an explanation of this amount from the Minister. It is only a token sum, and a larger amount will be provided for on the main estimates. Especially in the Northern Transvaal and in other areas afflicted with malaria the people are cherishing great expectations from D.D.T., and I hope that the public will not be disappointed. But just because there is such general interest it would be a good thing if the Minister made a statement regarding the provision of D.D.T. Will the department supply it to the public direct; will they be able to get it at the magistracy or at other offices; or will it be distributed through the trade at fixed prices? We should like to know from the Minister whether he will not only fix the prices, but whether provision will be made for the merchant to notify the constituents of the mixtures sold under the various names, so that people will know what quantity of D.D.T. there really is in the mixture they buy. Then I should like to know whether anything has been done to lay down that D.D.T. can be used by the farmer in place of dips. Many people are under the impression that this can be done. Has this been tested, and is its use in this way recommended by the department? A very important point, regarding which there has already been correspondence in the Press, is whether D.D.T. is dangerous if it is not used in the right way. It is poisonous to insects and we should like to know if it is also poisonous to human beings, and whether anyone can use it in his home without running any risk. We should like to have a statement from the Minister as to how the matter is being dealt with.

I should like to add a few questions in connection with D.D.T. It is one of the most important discoveries made during the war. Does the Government intend to proceed with the production of D.D.T., and if the Government continues will other bodies or persons also be allowed to produce it? We should like to know whether the Government only is going to produce D.D.T. or whether private enterprise will also be permitted to do so. Another question is this. On the market D.D.T. appears in various grades from 1½ to 5 per cent., and I assume also in higher percentages. Has the Government the matter of controlling this in hand? Will the Minister be so good as to say whether the D.D.T. on the market is manufactured by the Government and whether they also allow private persons to put D.D.T. on the market. We should like to know whether the Government is going to make a monopoly of it, or whether the Government considers it is a matter which must be taken up by the State on behalf of the public, or that it should be left to private initiative. It seems to me an undesirable state of affairs for the Government to be manufacturing some of it and private enterprise, on the other hand, also to be manufacturing some.

There are a few points I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister in connection with D.D.T. The first is that D.D.T. is in great demand, and for that reason inferior D.D.T. has been placed on the market by private enterprise. The process they adopted in making it was such that the grade of purity was not adequate, and in consequence the solution was not strong enough. As it is such a popular article there ought to be supervision on the part of the Government so that any private person will be prevented from selling D.D.T. if it is below a certain grade of purity, in other words if it is not up to a certain strength. The usual strength is 4½ per cent. and 5 per cent. The 4½ per cent. solution is not so pure, but it has also been provided as low as 2 per cent. and 2½ per cent. The persons who used this had disappointing results. I say it is an extremely popular article. Everyone is very anxious to get it, and because it is so easy to sell, D.D.T. of a low grade has been sold, but has proved ineffective. I have also seen advertisements of sprays for flies on which is inscribed “mixed with D.D.T.”. There was precious little D.D.T. in, it was the ordinary spray for flies. People who do not know better bought it because of the wording “mixed with D.D.T.”, although there was a minimum quantity of D.D.T. in it. It is a case of one horse one hare, and not even one horse one hare, but one horse one mouse. I think that the contents must be laid down. The second point is in connection with the price. The Government can make D.D.T. in its factory and sell it at 7s. a lb. in powder form. For a 5 per cent. solution that is enough to make two gallons. This means 3s. 6d. a gallon plus the 1s. 6d. for paraffin, that is to say 5s. This is the price at which the Government can sell it at the factory, but the price on the market is 18s. per gallon, and more for smaller quantities. I think that the price of 18s. a gallon for a 4½ per cent. solution is out of all proportion to the production costs. I do not know whether other factories are making D.D.T. on a more costly basis, but I have it on good authority that the Government factory can manufacture it at 7s. a lb., which is the equivalent of 5s. a gallon for a 5 per cent. solution, and a price of 18s. in the trade is too high. If the public are buying small quantities it would not be important, but enormous quantities will be sold, and we must see to it that the companies that sell it do not make exorbitant profits. I hope the Minister will devote his attention to these two matters for the protection of the public.

It is perfectly true that a big interest is being taken in D.D.T. People in my constituency are very interested in it. The question has been asked how it will affect codlin moth and the fruit-fly. We know that it affects cold-blooded animals, so how will it affect fish? In Caledon it was stated that the Government issued D.D.T. to thousands and that not a single fly was killed. One would like to know what the position is. It is very important that the Government should publish a pamphlet to give the public an idea of it.

Mr. Chairman, various members have asked questions about D.D.T., all more or less the same, and perhaps if I answer one or two it will dispose of the rest. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) asked how D.D.T. was being sold. It is being sold in this way. In the first place the factory makes the concentrated element D.D.T., then that concentrate is either sold to an industrialist …

Is that under Government monopoly?

No there is no monopoly, but it is the only factory in the country making this D.D.T. concentrate, which is a highly concentrated powder.

Some are making less concentrated stuff.

No, nobody is making D.D.T. concentrate; they have been obtaining it from the Klipfontein factory. The concentrate is compounded at the factory in one strength or another, either as a powder or a liquid. Primarily it was used entirely for Government orders, for military purposes and for public health, and it is still being supplied to the Public Health Department, the Agricultural Department and the Native Affairs Department for Government purposes in various directions. Then the industrialists in the country, the manufacturers of insecticides, have wanted to buy quantities of this concentrated powder for combining with their insecticide, and it is presumably this that the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has referred to. Undoubtedly there have been cases in the early stages when people have bought the D.D.T. concentrate and they have compounded it wrongly, and in some cases have either made it too strong or too weak, while in other cases I believe the article sold purporting to contain D.D.T. did not contain any. To combat that the Board applied to the Standards Council for a standard specification. The Standards Council said they are not fully functioning yet and they will not be able to deal with the matter for some months. So the procedure now adopted is that before any concentrate is sold to the industrialist he has to submit his formula to the Klipfontein people and guarantee that his product will conform to that formula, and it is a condition of sale that he shall do so. So we may now take samples of any of these products, and if on analysis they are found not to conform with the formula we can refuse to supply.

What is the percentage?

Five per cent. and up to ten per cent. solution for powder.

And the price?

I cannot give details of the price. I should like to say first of all that at present the plant we have making D.D.T. is on the small side, and therefore it is more expensive than it ought to be. This token sum on the estimates will be followed by a considerably larger sum on the main loan estimates, which will provide for the enlarging of that plant to meet the demand for D.D.T., and the increased output will, we anticipate, at least halve the cost of production. We hope to get that plant by the end of the year or early next year, and then the cost will come down. I now have the prices here. The prices were fixed by the Price Controller and the D.D.T. is sold at fixed prices. Apart from supplying the industrialist we had a certain quantity available for the public, and in accordance with our general undertaking we arranged for its distribution through the ordinary commercial channels, through the wholesaler and retailer, but we do take the line that the genuine insecticide manufacturer, who has for years supplied the needs of the country, provided he conforms with the conditions and maintains the standard, should be supplied with his needs of D.D.T. to keep him going.

But the retail price is not fixed.

Yes.

It is 18s. a gallon for a 4½ per cent. solution.

For a four gallon tin the the retail price is 35s. 6d. The price to the consumer of a one gallon tin is 9s. 6d. and so on right down to the one pint tin, which is sold to the consumer at 1s. 6d.

That is a 2½ per cent. solution.

No, I think it is a 5 per cent. solution. Those were the prices fixed by the Price Controller, and those are the prices at which the factory sells to the trade; it is part of the contract that sales should be done at these prices. I am now referring to the Grenade brand made by the factory. What the insecticide people are doing I do not know. If they are making a pure solution they are bound to these prices, but if they start putting anything else in it may be higher.

That is where the vemeukery comes in, they put a little of something else in and up goes the price.

The effect of D.D.T. is rather slow. It takes six or eight hours to kill an insect.

No, I have had a lot of experience.

So have I, though perhaps the flies in my house are tougher than those on the hon. member’s farm. But it keeps them away for months afterwards. Some of the manufacturers put a knockdown agent into the mixture, which knocks the insect silly at once, and they seem to think it is a better selling point to have a quick killer than a slow one. As we get the standard established and the brand known it will be up to the public, because they will know they can buy this stuff with a standard specification at a reasonable price. If they buy more expensive and inferior stuff it is their business. But if we can make it available at a proper standard and a reasonable price the public will be protected. The hon. member for Pietersburg asked me whether it is poisonous. No, it is not. If you work for a considerable period with a highly concentrated form of D.D.T. I believe you get a severe headache and your nerves become affected, because it acts on the nervous system.

The ordinary preparation is not dangerous?

No, it is not poisonous. We have carried out experiments with people eating it, and to see the effect on the flea biting the man. The man remained poisonous to the flea for thirty-six hours afterwards. The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Brink) asked about its uses. Its uses have not been fully established, but the Agricultural Department and Onderstepoort are continually experimenting, and there is ground for believing it is effective against blow-fly and the fruit-fly also. But you have to be careful of the strength; if the solution is too strong you burn the fruit. I have used a 1½ per cent. solution on my own fruit trees, and it has killed the fly.

Does it affect fish?

It should not affect fish at all. It is not poisonous except through the pores of the skin, and as the fish is a coldblooded creature and has no pores, it is immune.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote O.—“Public Health”, £90,000, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported that the Committee had agreed to the Second Estimates of Additional Expenditure from Revenue and Loan Funds without amendment.

Report considered and the Second Estimates of Additional Expenditure adopted.

Mr. SPEAKER appointed the Minister of Finance and the Chairman of Committees a Committee to bring up the necessary Bill in accordance with the Second Estimates of Additional Expenditure as adopted by the House.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE brought up the Report of the Committee, submitting a Bill.

Last year when we came to this vote in the House we had a long discussion in regard to the Assembly staff, and I think that on the whole it bore fruit. A decision was made later by the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, and I think the rule now is that when matters affecting the House are discussed the Chairman reports the discussion here and brings it to the notice of the Speaker, and the Speaker in turn brings it to the notice of the various committees. I do not know whether the officials have yet received an increase of salary, but I should like to leave it there. I think in any case we are now moving in the right direction. We are now on the eve of changes in the staff of the House. On 1st April there will be various changes in the staff, as the result of the fact that someone in the Other Place is being transferred, and we trust that the changes the Committee will make will be the best for the House. There will also be a change in consequence of the fact that the Serjeant-at-Arms is leaving us, and we shall possibly no longer see his good, kindly face here. He has reached the age limit, and we regret that we shall no longer see his friendly face. But I should like to turn to one point. It is as well that we made progress last year in this connection and that we have now found a means to enable us to bring up the subject, but I wish to say here, with reserve, that it is a well-known fact that our staff are not extremely happy in their work, and I wish to approach the question very carefully, and only say this in passing: It is well that there should be discipline when there is such a big staff. I am one who is a champion of discipline.

Can the hon. member tell me what item he is now discussing?

There is a whole group of items, because it affects the salaries of the various members of the Assembly staff. I can mention them if you want me to. I am referring here to the Serjeant-at-Arms, who is leaving, and the whole list after that. It is on page 6, Vote No. 3. I only want to say this in passing. It is good that there should be discipline, but I wish to express the hope —and I want to bring this to the notice of the Committee—that the discipline over the staff should be such that it will not discourage the staff to work, but encourage them. I do not want to enlarge on that further, but I think every member in the House will agree with me that we all work better when we are satisfied in our minds. I hope the discipline exercised on the staff will be so human in character that it will make for a satisfied staff, and that they will be encouraged to work and not discouraged.

I am now talking of this Vote, “Chairman of Committees, £500”. I will tell you why I speak about it. It is in connection with the ruling given last year, namely that if there are questions concerning their House of Parliament falling under the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, then we did discuss it and you inform the Speaker as to the opinions of members in connection with it, and in his turn the Speaker informs the relevant committee. The question I want to raise today once again is in the first place in regard to the accommodation made available for members in the House of Assembly. The position is becoming very difficult in the House. It is very unsatisfactory. It is difficult for members to do their work properly. The number of rooms where members can go and work are so limited that I think I am correct in saying that the majority of members of the House of Assembly have no room where they can work. Other members who do have rooms have not a room to themselves. Three or four or even six members share a room, which really is large enough only for one member and the time has really arrived when we should make better provision for the convenience of members. Take the case of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley). He was a Cabinet Minister for a long time. He has now resigned as a member of the Cabinet, and there is no room available for him.

I do not think the hon. member should discuss the matter now. It does not fall under any item now before the Committee.

I do not want us to have another long struggle such as we had last year, but if I cannot discuss the matter here, it cannot be discussed anywhere. We experienced the same difficulty last year, and then went to the Speaker and came to an understanding that we could discuss matters concerning the Houses of Parliament here under this vote. We then addressed the Chairman as the person who would transfer our opinions about the matter to the Speaker, and the Speaker in turn will inform the relevant committee. If that is not the position, it will be impossible to discuss this matter. We vote funds here, but cannot discuss internal arrangements anywhere. Take for example the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard). For a long time he was a Cabinet Minister and then he resigned. He is the leader of his Party. He has no room to himself. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has no room to himself either.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) now has a room to himself.

I am glad to hear that, but the hon. member for Benoni still has no room to himself. I think that it is a shame. He is the oldest member of this House. He came to this House 35 years ago. For years he was a Cabinet Minister and yet he has no room or writing desk where he can sit and work. People come to interview him, and that is also true of the ordinary member, in which case one must sit in the passage on a bench and discuss matters with them, or sit in the tea room where one is constantly being interrupted. If one wants to write a letter, one must go to the public writing room where one is also interrupted, or else one has to do so in a room shared by four or five other members. The position is particularly difficult. In the second place I wish to raise the question of a library. Our library is a scandal. We have a library which is certainly one of the most antiquated libraries in the whole of South Africa. That is not due to the officials who work there. They do their work well. But it is impossible to arrange the books properly, and not only that, but the whole thing is made of wood; there are no modem safeguards against fire. One of these days we shall have a fire there, and the Houses of Parliament will burn down, and all those valuable books will also burn. I prophesy that now. A modern library is fireproof, and the books are arranged in such a manner that one can sit in any spot and see the books. The position is particularly difficult for aged members of this House and also in Another Place. One receives cold shivers when one watches some of these aged members climbing up a ladder to look at books. I again want to suggest the solution which is suggested every year. The grounds of the House are far too small. Take for example the space made available for the parking of motor cars. What is going to happen in normal times when people can again buy motor cars? The cars have to be parked in Parliament Street. The fire engines race down there, and they have already complained that they cannot pass. Next door, where the old residence of the Governor-General is, we have a beautiful piece of ground. We have two dwellings for the Governor-General in Cape Town. I cannot see why we need two residences for the Governor-General. Surely one is enough; if one is not large enough, let us then enlarge it, but here we have a piece of ground next door which is really part of the grounds of the House, and if we utilise that ground, we shall have enough space for the expansion of the House and for the building of the library, and there is no reason why we should not take all or portion of it for that purpose. It will not be the first time. Already in 1910 we took part of that ground. In 1910 the floor of this House was portion of the old Government House, and we took part of the ground because we needed it. Now we again need a piece of ground, and we shall be obliged in any case to take part of that ground, and I think that the person who lives in that House, and who knows what the conditions of the Capital House are, and the requirements, will be one of the first to agree to giving us portion of that ground. I really think that something should be done in that direction. The position is very unsatisfactory as regards the library, as regards rooms for members, and as regards parking space. The grounds of the House are very small, and the only direction in which expansion is possible is in the direction of Government House, and the persons who have the greatest interest in that ground are people who know what the requirements of the Capital House are, and I am sure that they will agree to giving us portion of that ground. We must remember that we are going to have more members, but apart from that the House is now obliged to do more work than we did in the olden days. The activities of Parliament have now expanded to such a degree that it becomes absolutely essential that we should have enough space to enable members of Parliament to do their work properly. In an ordinary business, the chief of the business makes a room available to the typist, but here the leader of a party has not even a room in which to work. I say that is a shame. Of course we are all equally responsible for that scandal. It is our own fault, but I say that the time has arrived when something should be done in that direction.

In regard to the matters that have been brought up under this particular vote, I cannot help feeling, whatever the ruling may be, that these matters would be taken much further if raised in the appropriate committees. It seems to me that much that the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has said could be raised in the appropriate committee, namely, the Internal Arrangements or the Joint Library Committee.

I have raised it under the Internal Arrangements Committee for years.

It is a fact that the Joint Library Committee is considering the question of the library and all the dangers that he has referred to with regard to fire. He knows that that is under consideration. A sub-committee exists and it has to meet and receive a report from the architect who was sent overseas to examine the various libraries in London, in Canada, and I believe in Washington, America. I understand that the report is about to be received and the whole question considered. With regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) my opinion is that if raised in the standing committee it would take the matter much further than a discussion in this House. It seems to me that on these questions which appertain to the House itself you get into endless discussions. It may have the effect of bringing the matter to the notice of the committee concerned, but on the other hand you have this committee upon which there are members of all parties, and the point of view of any respective party may be put to that committee and discussed quite dispassionately and objectively. In regard to offices, I agree with much of what the hon. member for Humansdorp said, but there again I think it is unfortunate to cite the case of the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley), the Leader of the Labour Party. But I think that is a matter for discussion between the Whips to see whether an office cannot be found somewhere for the hon. member.

That is just my point. There should not be so much difficulty.

Several of these questions that have been raised are being dealt with. I agree with much of what has been said, but I do not think that these matters’ should be brought up in the House where it leads to endless discussion where they can be dealt with much better by means of consultations such as we have had.

We have complained for years and nothing has been done.

A great deal has been done. In regard to the library, the report is being considered. There was a report before this House which was not discussed, because there were objections. But for that it would have been adopted, so it is the fault of the House, not the fault of the particular committee. There is another matter on which I would like to ask for information. It will be remembered that last session the question of Parliamentary allowances was dealt with by way of voting a special sessional allowance to members. It was then understood at that time that this was a temporary measure, to meet the situation as it then existed, with the intention of dealing with it on a more permanent basis at a later stage. Talks have taken place and I think the various parties have put their points of view to the Government, and I would ask if perhaps the Prime Minister is in a position to state whether the Government has considered this matter and whether it has come to a decision.

This matter of Parliamentary salaries or allowances has been considered by the Government and it is quite true what the hon. member has just said, that the method of dealing with this matter by way of special allowances which was adopted last session, is not in the opinion of the Government, the proper way of dealing with this matter. There is no doubt that times have changed, circumstances have changed; we have gone far away from the time of the South Africa Act, when members had to be satisfied with an allowance of £400. We have gone up to £700. Last session we had to add a special allowance of £150 because of the rise in the cost of living and because of other circumstances. The Government has taken this matter into consideration and has come to the conclusion that the time has come to deal with this matter on a more permanent basis and to do so this session by way of legislation. Of course, it will have to be done by legislation in terms of the South Africa Act, and what the Government proposes in this legislation which will be introduced into the House later is this, that the salaries of members will be raised from £700 to £1,000, and that the allowance of £150 will then fall away. The salaries will be permanently raised to a level of £1,000. That will be as from 1st April, i.e. the latter half of the session, and provision still has to be made for the earlier half of the session in respect of which an allowance will still be continued, that is to say half the allowance which is £75. For the period up to 1st April they will still continue to be paid an allowance of £75 but as from 1st April the Parliamentary salary of members will go up to £1,000. So much for the salaries of members. The Government has thought it proper also that we should at the same time deal with the salaries of Ministers. Hon. members will remember that the salaries of Ministers were originally fixed at £3,000 and at £4,000 for the Prime Minister, but some years ago owing to special circumstances those amounts were diminished and at the present moment a Minister draws £2,500 and the Prime Minister £3,500. An amount of £500 was taken off their pay, and the intention is that the Ministers’ salaries will also go up to the old figure which existed years ago.

And that of the Prime Minister.

Yes, the Prime Minister will naturally share in these benefits too. There is another departure that we think necessary too, and that is that an allowance should be made for the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition—and I speak from my own experience, is in a very difficult position. His job is a full-time job. Probably the Leader of the Opposition works as hard as any Minister in the Government. Sometimes he may work even harder, it depends on the way his colleagues support him. It is a full-time job. He has no time to earn a living in any other way and from the financial and economic point of view his position is an intolerable one. What the Government proposes to do is this—to follow the example which has been set by Canada, and in addition to his pay of £1,000 as a member of the House he will get another £1,000 as Leader of the Opposition, so that his pay will go up to £2,000. These changes in regard to the pay of members and in regard to the pay of the Leader of the Opposition will have to be made by way of legislation, and the Government proposes to bring that forward in a Bill this session.

I just want to say a few words on the point raised by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) about the enlargement of the Parliamentary buildings and the enlargement of our quarters here, and the taking over of more ground from the Governor-General’s residence. I must voice my strongest objection with regard to the last point. If there is one building apart from the old Castle in Cape Town which we should respect then I think it is Government House. There is only one Government House. The idea that there are two Governor’s residences is not correct. In the summer months Westbrooke is used, but it is totally unsuitable as a Governor’s residence. It was not destined for that use and is not fitted out for it. The only suitable Governor-General’s residence in Cape Town is this old building which I think has been standing here for approximately 150 years already. It is practically an old monument. It is in fact a national monument in many respects, and it will remain the residence of the Governor-General in future years. I am not able to make this change, and I think it will not be good to make a change of this nature as proposed by the hon. member for Humansdorp. I agree that changes should probably be made. I also agree that the library should be removed and in that manner we should obtain additional space for the convenience of members.

Would it not be inconvenient to members if the library were to be shifted?

It need not go too far, but it is possible that in that way we can have enlarged space here. But I do not think it will be only undesirable, but also it will be a terrible shock to the public if we were to extend our own premises at the cost of the grounds of Government House. I do not think we should do that. We should find another solution to the matter.

I should like to remind the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister of a promise he made last year in reply to a question by me in connection with living accommodation in Cape Town. I pointed out that it was terribly difficult to live in Cape Town for people like us who come from the North, especially those who come from the platteland. We are not used to the kind of food we receive in hotels. We can bear it for a month of two, but in the long run it is very inconvenient and unpleasant. It seems to me that there is no place in Cape Town where one can go with confidence. The Prime Minister told us last year that he hopes that the position next year, i.e. this year, will improve, and that an accommodation officer would be appointed. Well, the accommodation officer was appointed, and I want to inform you that I must have been to him five or six times, but at the moment I still have no convenient accommodation. I am still obliged to live in a room, and there are quite a number of members in the same position. Nowhere can we obtain a decent flat or house. All these places now fall under the Central Housing Control Office and 25 per cent. of the space is given to civilians and the other 75 per cent. to returned soldiers. Therefore we can find accommodation nowhere. I want to ask the Prime Minister whether it is not desirable to have flats built somewhere to be specially reserved for members of Parliament.

I cannot allow the hon. member to deal with that matter further. There is no item under the vote under which the matter can be discussed.

I put a question to the Prime Minister last year in this regard.

I have allowed the hon. member to put a question, but I cannot allow him to continue with the matter.

Then I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether we can expect something in that direction in future.

I just want to say that it is a matter deserving attention and it will receive attention, but I have no solution to put before the House at the moment.

I again wish to make the point today which I made in previous years and seeing that the Government is now in such a good mood that it recognises the difficulties of the Leader of th? Opposition and those of hon. members and Cabinet Ministers, I again wish to press the plea as I did in previous years, namely in connection with Hansard. It will be noted that Hansard costs us £21,500 per annum. I do not know whether you have ever asked yourself the question why and for whom we do this. We have our speeches on record; that is all. A small number of copies of Hansard are given to the various Parties and they are then distributed. I want to move as I did in previous years— I want to suggest—that seeing that we spend £21,500 per annum on the publication of Hansard, if we spend a few hundred additional pounds, we shall be able to make it available to the whole of the public of South Africa at 2d. per copy, as the position is in Australia. The public outside does not know what is being said here in Parliament. We know that it is impossible for any newspaper in the country to give a complete report, a reasonable report of what happens in the House by way of debate. Perhaps a member may be lucky to receive an opportunity to speak in the beginning of a debate, in which case there is a little space in the Press for his speech, but it is not always that the most important points are raised by the first speakers. The result is that sometimes when a matter is discussed the most important points are made by subsequent speakers, and no mention is made of that. All I ask is that the public should be enabled to buy Hansard at 2d. per week as is done in Australia. Then our newspapers will be able to give a more complete review of the activities instead of trying to do justice to one member and perhaps doing an injustice to ten or twelve or twenty other members. The Press cannot do otherwise. But if we have an arrangement such as I have suggested, the newspapers will be able to give a general review and it will not be necessary for them to try to give a verbatim report of one member, thereby excluding all the others. With such an arrangement, the public throughout South Africa who take an interest in the debates of the House, would be able to obtain Hansard at a reasonable price. But, if the price of Hansard is £1 10s. per annum, as is the case at present, it is much too high, and while we are spending £21,500 on it, we can by providing a little more paper— supposing we have 100,000 copies printed— sell Hansard at 2d. a copy without very much expenditure. Then I can appreciate the value of Hansard, but now it is just a report used by Parliament, and only a few individuals in South Africa ever read it. I want to press this upon the Government seriously this time. At least no harm can be done by making Hansard available to the whole of the public. As far as the public is concerned, they hear about Hansard, and very often do not know what it is, and when a speaker rises on the platform they ask “Is that Hansard?” The public thinks that it is a sort of closed book reserved for members. Why not spend a little more money and make it available to the public of South Africa? Again I wish to direct an earnest appeal to the Minister, and I hope that the Government will give it more consideration than it did before. I also hope that we will receive a reply this year to the debate we had last year.

Last year we were told that we could not discuss the wages of the personnel of the House here, that there was nobody who could reply to the debate, and that there was nobody who could rise to deal with these points. The assurance was then given to us that the matter would be thoroughly investigated, and that if this year we again wanted to discuss the wages of messengers in the House—and of the whole staff, especially the cleaners—a reply would be given. I now raise the matter again in all good faith. I want to start with the lower-paid members of our staff, the cleaners. They receive 11s. 6d. to 12s 6d. per day. That is what they are paid. The reason why I start with the lower-paid people is because I think they do the hardest work. When we are involved in a hard struggle and sometimes sit day and night, it is difficult to keep this place properly clean. These men must work hard, and there are some of these faces which I have known ever since I entered this House. It will be twelve years this month that I am in the House, and on the first day I saw some of the faces of people who are today still doing the same work. After a man has done the hardest work in this House for twelve years, work which requires the utmost exertion, I think you will agree that a wage of 11s. 6d. and 12s. 6d. a day in these times, when everything is expensive, is particularly low. It is especially for these people that I wish to plead. They must also receive a worthy wage. Then we come to the messengers, and the scale laid down for them is one providing for very slow annual increases. Sometimes when we work hard and sit long hours, they have a very difficult time. They are not able to go home to make arrangements for the long hours, and often have to incur expenses because they cannot go home. I also want to plead for them. I know that many hon. members last year pleaded hard, and I am convinced that they are still of the same frame of mind, and I hope that once again they will press for an improvement, and that we will not get the same reply again which we received last year, while nothing is done.

According to the ruling given by the Speaker last year, the points raised by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. van den Berg) will be brought to the attention of the Speaker, and then transmitted to the relevant committee, which can then consider the matter. I, however, think it proper for me just to say something by way of supplementing what the hon. member stated. He spoke about the scales of salary of cleaners. That is indicated here as being 11s. 6d. to 12s. 6d. a day. I think I ought to state for the information of the House that these figures do not take into account the allowances which are paid additionally. In addition to that, cost of living allowances and special allowances are paid. Therefore, where for example such a person is on the maximum of his scale, namely, 12s. 6d. per day, he would as a result receive £16 5s. per month, but by way of allowances he receives an additional £8 14s., so that his full wage is therefore not 12s. 6d. a day, but if he is a married man it is something just under £25 a month. I just mention that by way of supplementing what the hon. member stated.

I very much regret the statement that has been made by the Prime Minister with regard to the increase of Parliamentary allowances, and I think it is as well to state my objection at once. It seems to me that this is a most inappropriate moment for this House to vote for an increase in the emoluments of its members. There is very considerable poverty prevailing in this country. During the war this was particularly accentuated with regard to the lower paid classes of the community, whether salaried or not. I think particularly of the old age pensioners and similar persons. The war conditions which still economically prevail at present have accentuated very markedly indeed the difficulties under which they live ordinarily. To grant further emoluments to the better paid classes accentuates the difficulty of their position. At a time when there is a restricted supply of consumers’ goods the grant of further monetary sums to enable the better off classes to get a larger share of these commodities which are in short supply very definitely aggravates the position of the lower paid classes. Now in these circumstances the Prime Minister proposes to ask this House to grant an increase in the Parliamentary allowances of our members. We have on the stocks certain Bills which are intended to promote social betterment, a class of measures which are grouped together as contributions towards what is commonly called social security. These are hanging fire, and even the measures which have been tabled are merely consolidating measures which do not propose at present to better the conditions and to improve the financial position of these lower paid classes to which I have referred, the pensioners, whether they are war widows or ordinary civilians drawing the old age pension. When their position is being left in status quo it is surely, to say the least of it, highly indecorous for members of this House to vote this substantial increase in the parliamentary allowances they now have In time of war, in time of restricted supply of goods, surely our aim should be not to pay the better off classes more so that they do not feel the pinch, but it should be our effort to share the disabilities we all suffer. I am quite aware of the difficulties which many hon. members may feel in regard to the increased cost to which they are put in coming down to attend Parliament. I accept that, but surely difficulties should be shared by the whole population and to attempt to do away with the disability by a further inroad on the general taxation of the whole people, does not seem to be justified. When this measure comes before the House we may go into the matter further, but I thought it right to state here and at once what my attitude is to this proposal and my deep regret that the Government and the Prime Minister propose to bring forward such measures at the present time. I do not think it would be to the credit of Parliament to take this action at a time when there is this delay in connection with improving the position of the lower paid classes to which I referred.

That all sounds very well, but I am very sorry indeed that the hon. gentleman who has just sat down (Col. Stallard) has seen fit to speak as he has. My recollection does not seem to stir in my consciousness any great effort made by the hon. gentleman towards uplifting the standard of this mass of lower paid people. In fact I have no such recollection at all, nor has any other member in this House any recollection of the hon. member metaphorically breaking his neck to assist these unfortunate people. On the contrary, he was busily engaged when he was in office, in pinning down a very low standard of living for the miners phthisis sufferer. But that is by the way. I do not intend to expand on that at all. But if the hon. member wishes to be consistent then I will ask him to surrender some of the rather comfortable circumstances in which he finds himself quite apart from any salary or allowances that he gets from Parliament, and to put that into the common pool for the common good. It is all very well to get up here and talk about the poor unfortunate people on the one hand, and members of Parliament on the other hand, drawing the remarkably high salary of £700 per annum, which is now raised to £1,000, when he knows that he and many others are very comfortably off, without it. The point is this that we have no right to expect individuals who have no other sources of income at all to come here and serve their country at a miserable pittance—and I use that expression advisedly—of £700 a year. No man can do his legislative duties properly if he is worried by his financial position, and that what is happening in the case of a large number of our members today. By this means you shut off a great number of competent people from Parliament, people more competent perhaps than those who sit today in the House, simply because they are unable to do it at the salary that is paid. We have to face the prospect of members of Parliament being adequately paid for their job and not having to look outside that job for an additional source of revenue. It should be a job, a long job, for hon. members. Let me put another aspect of the question. Membership of this House, in the vast majority of of instances, is very precarious. It depends on the will and the whim of the public, which very often changes very rapidly indeed, as to whether a man shall continue to be a member of this House. I personally have been singularly fortunate, or unfortunate, in this respect, but it is a fact, that in the vast majority of cases a member may be out of the House tomorrow. Surely that is worth consideration. My experience is this, that where a member has to exist on his salary and his salary alone he has had no opportunity of making provision for the future. At the moment there is no pension. I propose to deal with that aspect of the matter in a moment. It has been raised in the past, and I have refrained from raising it recently because of the war, but some pension has to be granted to hon. members which will be valued, perhaps, in accordance with the length of service. In nearly every other walk of life, and certainly jn the Public Service and elsewhere, pensions are provided, but members are not provided with pensions in this House. I do urge upon the hon. member that we have a right to do our duty and work in reasonably comfortable circumstances, and that is recognised all over the world. We, according to the purchasing power of money, are worse off than members of Parliament in any other Parliament in the world. In America the salary is £1,000 a year, each member has a room to himself—that is apropos of what was said by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer)—a stenographer each and various allowances. In other places it is £2,500 a year.

Who keeps the stenographer?

My hon. friend is singularly adapted to looking after stenographers. But in every other country members of Parliament are paid on an infinitely higher scale than here. Great Britain recently decided on the same lines as the announcement made by the Prime Minister. It has recommended the same salary as indicated here by the Prime Minister, £500 of which is free from income tax. I do not like that method much, but that is neither here nor there. And they have done it during the war, or in the aftermath of the war. Why? Because they realise as our Prime Minister has realised here, that it is not fair to ask members of Parliament to sacrifice themselves practically forever at a rate of pay which does not enable them to live decently. During the war years we did not complain. We are not really complaining now, but the conditions under which members of Parliament from up North have to live in Cape Town, is by no means pleasant.

Hear, hear.

That is putting it mildly.

I am putting it mildly. The outside public expect members of Parliament to be well dressed, to be dignified, to be able to pay their way, and to be able to meet on equal terms other people in a social way. They have to contribute to all sorts of funds, and taking it by and large, the salary of £1,000 projected by the Prime Minister is in itself insufficient. He knows —and I say it without any qualms of conscience and without blushing—that it should have been £1,200, and I say to my friend who made a sneering remark here in an interjection that some of those who are opposing this increase in salary ostensibly are in reality only too pleased to have it. I welcome the statement made by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister. It will enable us in part, but certainly not wholly, to uphold our dignity as members of Parliament.

Vote put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 20th March.