No one in this House needs any justification for entering into a discussion about this very important Bill before the House. I think it is common cause that we are dealing with the country’s major industrial disease and that we are in fact dealing with an industry and the interests of an industry which is certainly one of the two most important industries in South Africa. It is quite clear that particularly in an area such as the Witwatersrand and certainly in a city like Johannesburg, there is a great deal of public interest—apart from the technical interest of the professional persons, the medical men, mine managers and so on, the mining companies concerned in this measure and so on, as also members of this House—there is a great deal of public sympathy and interest in regard to the problem which faces those who have contracted or may contract pneumoconiosis. So I speak as one of those who also wishes to record appreciation to the hon. Minister for having come with this, one might say, monumental Bill to this House in order to regulate certain matters which clearly require such regulation.

I personally, representing a constituency in which there are such institutions as the Miners Phthisis Bureau (the Mines Medical Bureau) in which there is the Miners’ Chest Clinic, a part of the Johannesburg General Hospital, and in which there live quite a number of persons who have been employed, and in some cases are still employed on the mines, make no apology for saying that all those persons and all those who are responsible for the management of those institutions, want me, as their particular Member of Parliament, to represent to the hon. the Minister their appreciation of this Bill.

There are also others who should not be forgotten in regard to this appreciation which has been expressed by others before me, and I think particularly of parliamentarians, one of whom is still with us, the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) who has consistently shown his interest in and his knowledge of this particular subject through the years; and I think also of one who is no longer in this House, the late Mr. Sarel Tighy, who, while he was a member of this House, as the representative of the Johannesburg (West) constituency, was known in the City of Johannesburg for the very real interest he showed in the needs of the miners. Those persons, too, at this time—in my humble opinion—should be remembered among those to whom thanks are due.

It goes without saying that I am particularly pleased that in the case of those two Members of Parliament, they have both through the years been Members of Parliament on this side of the House, because that shows the interest of the United Party in the interests of the working man, and particularly of the mine workers.

Order! That point has been made repeatedly. I want to ask the hon. member to raise some new point.

Sir, though the hon. the Minister gave a reasonably broad history of this particular problem, I think that the history he gave can be somewhat augmented, and that it is fair that that history should be augmented. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has had the opportunity of perusing the records of the proceedings of the Pneumoconiosis Conference which was held in Johannesburg in 1959. The papers which were delivered at that particular conference were subsequently edited by Major-General A. J. Orenstein, and I have one here which I think is of particular interest, and the subject of which, of course, is inherent in this particular Bill which I am now trying to discuss. Under the heading of “Dust sampling and control”, which is a review of the South African practice in the handling of this particular problem, a Mr. F. G. Hill had this to say—

I think that should be stressed—that the seriousness of that hazard was only realized late in the day insofar as the age of the mining industry is concerned. It does not reflect on anybody, but it is important to remember that it took a considerable number of years before it was realized what hazards in fact faced the miner. It was only when they started dying from about 1895 onwards, that the nature of the hazard was first appreciated. Then he continues—

Mr. Hill goes on to say that he has the first instrument devised by this South African engineer to measure dust, and I think this is a tribute to our know-how in regard to the mining industry in South Africa, even in those very early days. I am not going to read all this because I don’t know whether it is germane, but I am going to read the relevant portions …

Is that now necessary? We can read that ourselves?

I read—

Then he gives some particulars about the konimeter which are of a technical nature, and therefore, in my opinion, not relevant. Then he continues—

You should plead for research.

I am in fact pleading for that, but instead of merely stating that as a matter of opinion my opinion, I am advancing the opinions of recognized authorities who say that there is this need in this particular field for more research, and they indicate the line which that research should take. He continues—

I leave it to the imagination of the hon. the Minister and members of this House to realize what could be achieved in regard to the control of this problem, and in regard to the lessening of the economic burden which this problem has placed and will continue to place on this country, if this could be achieved on the lines indicated—

So much for the opinions of that one particular authority.

Before I come to the plea I want to make to the hon. the Minister this afternoon, I should like to touch very briefly on some of the contents of the Bill before the House. First of all, I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that where correct English usage can be employed in regard, for example, to definitions, it would be desirable to do so, rather than to follow the practice which appears has been followed in this particular Bill of translating directly from the Afrikaans into the English. I want to illustrate what I mean by that. For example, on page eight under the definitions we find XXXII (a)—

That in the English wording becomes—

I submit, Sir, that that is not correct—“winning a mineral”. I may win a lottery, may win a race, but you do not win a mineral.

You don’t know English.

I want to say again, and I am quite prepared to argue that matter, which is not really relevant, as between me and the hon. member outside of the House as to whether I know English or don’t know English. I submit that if you were to draft this particular clause in English, you would not talk about “winning a mineral”. The same occurs higher up in XXXII itself. I would like to suggest that this should be altered to improve the text.

I suggest that the hon. member raise those points in Committee.

Very well, Sir. There are further examples, but I will not pursue the matter now.

Clause 8 deals with the Miners’ Certification Committee, and in regard to sub-section (3) I should like to support the plea of the hon. member for Springs that there should be an appointment made to this particular committee of someone who can be regarded by the workers concerned as a “watchdog”, in other words, that the committee, apart from the chairman himself, should not consist exclusively of medical men. Leaving out the very good reason which the hon. the Minister undoubtedly has for bringing the particular clause forward in this form, I think that he would find a great deal more support among the rank and file of the people affected by this Bill if he would accede to the request made by the hon. member for Springs, which I want to support. But then if he does that, it goes without saying that certain other alterations would have to follow. For example where he is now providing in sub-section (3) that “a member of the committee may with the approval of the chairman of the committee and with the consent of a person whose case has come before the committee for consideration, examine such person medically and submit a report …” that would have to be altered, because surely if a layman were to be appointed then even with the approval of the chairman of the committee, that particular member could not medically examine a particular person.

Another point which I personally have found somewhat puzzling, and which the Minister, I hope, will be able to clear up, arises out of Clause 12, particularly sub-section (b), which says—

That post-mortem, as we all know, is something to which some individuals object, and, therefore, it is provided later on (I think in Clause 32) that—I am merely paraphrasing this clause—that where it can be obtained without very great difficulty and within a resonable time, that postmortem must be subject to the consent of a widow or an adult near relative. I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the sort of case where, other things being equal, a postmortem in fact would have been considered indispensable in order to establish certain facts. Therefore, I want to suggest that there are circumstances under which that postmortem could not possibly take place on the same day. The fact is that a man may go on leave, he may go somewhere where he is completely unknown, he may die there as a result of a heart attack, or whatever it may be. He is the sort of person who, in his normal environment, would have been the subject of a postmortem. Therefore, there can be circumstances in which this particular proviso may create a difficulty for the authorities, a difficulty for those who are entitled to the benefits with which this particular individual was concerned. I cannot suggest, in view of the importance of this matter, how such a case is to be provided for, except to say that in certain circumstances it should be possible to postpone that postmortem so that it will not, in terms of this Clause 12 (b), be held on the day in question; that is, the day on which the person concerned dies. I leave that for the consideration of the hon. the Minister.

Now I want to deal with Clause 29.

Why not leave that for the Committee Stage?

Sir, I am dealing with the very principle of the Bill, as the hon. member will soon discover, because the Bill is called the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Bill. I am talking about the principle, and compensation is the core, the heart of this Bill. Therefore, I have assumed that all hon. members are at one in that adequate compensation should be granted to those entitled to it at any time that they so become entitled, and that, subject to the economic burden that is being placed on the mining industry, and on the Government (that is on the country), that compensation must be as adequate as possible. Therefore, I am a little distressed by the proviso to Clause 29, which reads—

In other words, Sir, that person can please himself as to whether or not he wants a medical examination, and he can then apply. This very clause can affect the adequacy of compensation, and I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to it. Even when a man stops working in a dusty atmosphere the fibrosis of the lungs caused by pneumoconiosis is a progressive disease. And I use the word “progressive” in the sense that it is something which continues—it has nothing to do with politics. In fact, it is not quite the right shade of meaning, because the man who suffers does not regard that continuation of suffering as progress. But they use the phrase in the medical world “that it is a progressive disease”, meaning that it gets worse and worse. It can lead to the weakening of the lungs, which, in turn, can lead to tuberculosis or other diseases. Therefore, Sir, when that man leaves the work which he has been doing in a dusty atmosphere in stage two, I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that an annual medical examination should be made in order to establish whether or not that person is entitled to compensation at some time subsequent to his emergence from this particular work in a dusty atmosphere. He may be a very ignorant person; he may be a very lethargic person, who is not very concerned about the interests of his family—he is entitled to be indifferent to his own, but he should be concerned about those of his family—and he does nothing at all about his apparent right to apply for a medical examination. That, Sir, is something which I think can be cured, if it is made obligatory on such a person to undergo an annual medical examination. Because in this way medical examination could determine the so-called progress of the disease which he contracted while working in a dusty atmosphere, at a time when the foundation of his illness was laid, from which he is now suffering, two or three or four years later, and which has not manifested itself until a considerable period of time had elapsed. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that, in order to ensure that no innocent person who would be entitled to the benefits of compensation suffers as a result of the negligence or lack of interest on the part of a person who has left employment in a dusty atmosphere in the second stage, and who can please himself whether or not he brings this particular illness to the attention of a medical man two or three years later, no such person should be allowed to please himself; but that, having passed through the second stage, he should be the subject of a compulsory annual examination. In other words, if nothing further is wrong with him, well and good; but if, in the course of years, his disease has progressed into something worse, and if the stage has become more advanced, his family at least should receive that greater compensation which, I think, is really something that this Bill is intended to bring about. I leave it at that.

The final point I wish to make, Sir, is in connection with the psychological effect on people of this Bill, and, at the same time, to discuss very briefly the type of people with whom this Bill is concerned. It is perfectly clear that man was not made for laws, but laws were made for man. I take it, Sir, that the hon. the Minister has considered the type of person who will benefit from this legislation; the type of person he is trying to help. That is an approach which was brought to the notice of the conference on pneumoconiosis in 1959. One of the matters with which that conference was concerned was the psychology of the silicotic miner. We have heard before to-day, on other subjects, how important psychology is, firstly, in estimating the ramifications or the magnitude of the problem for the individual, and then when a remedy, partial or otherwise, is found for the solution. Here. Sir, the psychology of the silicotic miner becomes very important. Let me say at once, Sir, that I have not served on any bodies concerned with silicosis or pneumoconiosis. I have had related experience by virtue of a long association with the S.A. National Tuberculosis Association (SANTA), and as chairman of the Johannesburg branch of SANTA. This field is very closely allied to silicosis and pneumoconiosis in regard to both the disease and the consequences which flow from it. I can, therefore, with some authority emphasize the importance of the psychology of the individual in regard to helping himself, and in regard to ensuring that he becomes no more of a burden on the public purse than he need be. A gentleman by the name of Dr. G. K. Sluis-Cremer, who, I think, will be known to the hon. the Minister and certainly to some of the hon. members, and who is regarded as a great authority on this subject, delivered a paper from which I wish to read some extracts. It is entitled “Psychology of the Silicotic Miner”, and he read this paper to the pneumoconiosis conference in 1959 at Johannesburg. He said this—

And this is one of the difficulties which this Bill seeks to clarify, if not remove—

This was the subject of a very wide discussion at that conference—

These four gentlemen together with Dr. Sluis-Cremer made contributions at that conference to this subject—

I may say that that sub-culture, as it is called in the paper, of our community is the one which the Minister is trying to help in this Bill—

This condition has continued. What the speaker was trying to say in this particular paragraph was that the average of the working miner was increasing and not decreasing—

Some of us here, Sir, unlike the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) represent just such communities. They live within easy sight of the mine which gives them their livelihood—

Anybody who has worked in the miners’ phthisis bureau, any medical man who has examined a phthisis sufferer or pneumoconiosis sufferer will confirm how true this is: that constant social intercourse among people with common problems results in the development of certain common attitudes and fears—

Think of those figures, Sir. Out of 352 people who come to that clinic we find 72 in any given period who between them have 95 relations—in other words, an additional 95 persons—who are alive and suffering from silicosis. The significance of this is that there are more people suffering from silicosis than the number of people who come to the clinic at any given time. That creates a certain state of mind which the Minister is trying to cure with this Bill—

Again, Sir, this is a fact which hon. members must bear in mind: namely, that 140 people say to the doctors who examine them that they have 237 relations among them whose death has been ascribed to silicosis. What a tremendous mental hazard this immediately becomes to the person who is up for examination!—

I want to read another excerpt from this particular discussion. It goes on to say—

I would like the hon. member who is at least taking an interest in what I am saying, unlike some hon. members over there, to mark this—

There is no machinery for that aspect of the problem—

Those who work on mines, Sir, will know exactly what this man was talking about although his language is inclined to be rather medical—

That, Sir, is then elaborated in more or less medical terms. Dr. Sluis-Cremer then went on to say—

There you have in a nutshell the sort of thinking that is engendered by the present procedure among the younger miners who are affected by this Bill. It is assumed from what they are told by the older miners that the younger miner can inevitably only finish up with a serious disability long before he becomes disabled through age or, an early death. One of those two things must overtake him. This is a very serious matter for the country as a whole, and for the mining industry. Then he says this—

And if this is wrong, then I hope some hon. member on that side of the House will refute this with chapter and verse, especially some of those hon. members who have been interjecting. If this is right, I am sure the hon. the Minister will give me an answer to this allegation—

We had exactly the same trouble in the case of TB. There is a model as to how this could be dealt with. This is the statement—

I should like the hon. the Minister to mark this—

As I said earlier, man was not made for laws but laws were made for man. I subscribe fully to the above statement—

I wish to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister of Mines, to the advisers who assisted him, as well as to the officials of the Department for bringing this pneumoconiosis compensation legislation before the House. We all realize that as long as we wish to extract gold from our gold mines, and as long as there is ore under the surface, the pneumoconiosis danger will always exist for those who mine the gold under such conditions. I am, therefore, particularly thankful to the hon. the Minister for reserving himself the right in Clause 102 to make funds available for research and for the further improvement of the conditions under which these people work, and also to improve through further research the health of people affected by pneumoconiosis.

Mr. Speaker, as long as people are liable to contract pneumoconiosis by working underground, we should try to compensate them on a reasonable basis for the loss of their health. I think the hon. the Minister has succeeded through this legislation in obtaining improved compensation not only for the miners but also for their dependants and relatives. We have heard considerable criticism from hon. members on both sides of the House concerning this legislation, but I think the hon. the Minister should not pay too much attention to this criticism because hon. members did not have much time to read this Bill. We only received this Bill a few days prior to its second reading and I do not think they understand it fully. Included in this Bill is also the new norm whereby pneumoconiosis will be classified or certified. This is something strange and I think hon. member are afraid that the miners may lose something because they do not know what the effects will be. I wish to reassure hon. members, if they are prepared to accept such a guarantee from me, that all the changes that have been effected are improvements. I should say that only in a few cases are they not improvements but there are valid reasons for these changes. I am referring in particular to the changes in connection with tuberculosis. I shall return to this later and shall draw attention to what is provided and to what I think about the matter.

We have heard from hon. members that the pension scheme of the Railways and the pneumoconiosis pensions do not compare favourably and that the lump sum which was paid in the first stage should be re-introduced. This will be of greater benefit to the mine worker because it will enable him to acquire a house or plot. I am not an estate agent and I do not wish to sell plots and houses to mine workers. I do not think hon. members should consider any possible gain to themselves when considering the interests of the miner. I shall also deal with this aspect later. It has also been mentioned that widows of deceased miners will suffer losses when the post-mortem examination reveals that the damage to the lung function is less than 20 per cent. I do not know how one can test the lung function after the miner has already died. The hon. member also did not realize that once a person is a beneficiary under the Act his pension can never be taken away.

I should like to deal with another objection which was raised and I shall start by working through the Bill systematically, commenting on the different clauses. We have heard a plea that, in establishing a certification committee for the miners, a layman should also be appointed. Mr. Speaker, if I could not understand English I would not be able to decide in the dispute between the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) and the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel), whether he can speak English or not. I, therefore, consider that exactly the same situation will arise when a layman is appointed on a medical board. He would have to decide with the medical practitioners whether a person is entitled to pneumoconiosis compensation or not. I therefore, think that this argument carries no weight. I myself have been working with miners for 26 years and I know how much faith they have in medical practitioners. I am satisfied with the Minister’s provision that one doctor who will serve on the certification committee, will be appointed from the persons nominated by the mineworkers’ organizations. The miners will, therefore, have a representative on the Committee.

I am a little doubtful about Clauses 7 (7) on page 15 of the Bill, which states that—

1. (a) make such rules as he deems necessary for the proper functioning of the Committee … and
2. (c) determine the standards which shall be applied for the certification of pneumoconiosis and of tuberculosis.

I have no objection to this. I accept it. This is how I think it should be. A certain norm must be laid down by the Minister in consultation with his advisers. But on page 19 I find the following provision in Clause 9—

It seems to me that in the one clause the Minister has reserved himself the right to determine a standard, in consultation with his advisers, which he wishes to be used when miners are certified. Then we find that Clause 9 which provides that it is to be left to the discretion of the certification committee, lays down how they are to certify such miners. This seems to me to be contradictory. I wish the hon. the Minister to correct me if I am wrong.

We now get to the actual certification, but I should rather proceed to discuss the reviewing authority. We know that miners have felt the need for a reviewing authority for many years and we are thankful that provision has now been made for such an authority. The hon. the Minister did, however, say that it would be difficult for him to decide what powers he should grant the reviewing authority, so that they cannot easily overrule the decisions taken by the certification committee. The hon. the Minister has therefore laid down that the reviewing authority can confirm a decision, or it can order the chairman of the committee to submit the case to a joint meeting of the committee and the reviewing authority for reconsideration. This means that if the reviewing authority is not satisfied with a decision it together with the committee will form the appeal board. We now find that the reviewing authority will consist of three or four members, whereas the certification committee will consist of a director and four or six members. The reviewing authority will therefore consist of four members, at the most, whereas the certification committee will consist of seven members. If the two have a joint meeting the result cannot differ greatly from that of the certification committee’s first decision. The one will have seven members and the other four and the tendency of a committee is, once it has come to a decision, to stand by that decision when the decision is considered by a larger committee. If they therefore agree the reviewing authority has very little power to change the decision of the certification committee. I would be glad if the hon. the Minister would give his attention to this aspect and if I am wrong in this respect I would be grateful to the Minister if he will correct me. I now come to Clause 22 which states that every person who works in a dusty atmosphere at a controlled mine must be medically examined at intervals which will be prescribed after consultation with the director and medical adviser. This is quite correct. I should like to have seen this clause stating that every miner must be medically examined every 12 months and more frequently if the Medical Board so requests.

Clause 22 (2) (d) states that the Medical Board must prescribe the period of service in a dusty atmosphere at a controlled mine which the holder of an initial certificate of fitness must have completed to entitle him to a certificate of fitness. To me this does not sound quite correct. When a person is examined and found fit to work in a dusty atmosphere, or a dusty industry, why should he first work for a period of six months or longer in a dusty atmosphere before a certificate of fitness is issued to him? In the first place the certificate states that he is healthy, but now he must first work in a dusty atmosphere and then after six months or longer he must return to be examined for the issuing of a certificate of fitness. It sounds very close to a paradox and I should like some information on the matter.

In Clause 23 we find a completely new principle and I wish to express my appreciation towards the Minister for inserting this clause because I know, through experience, that there is the miner who because he is unskilled does not very easily find a job above the surface. He therefore continues working underground although he may be a very sick man. We find some of them who, after having a coronary thrombosis, still want to work underground and one cannot stop the miner because he has no other means of making a living and this shortens his life. The right to withdraw his certificate when his health is of such a nature that he should no longer work underground, is now given to the Bureau. Perhaps the miner will be dissatisfied but it is in his own interests and he will see it in this light.

We now come to the new method of certification. In the old days and up till now it was decided, on the basis of the Rontgen X-ray examination, his occupational history and clinical examination, whether a miner suffered from pneumoconiosis. Now physiological lung tests are added. This brings scientific tests into the picture as well and it makes it very much easier for the certification committee to declare such a person as a pneumoconiosis sufferer. We have found that in practice a person has not yet shown marked signs of silicosis at the Rontgen examination but at the clinical examination they may find signs, and this man is not even placed in the first stage. As a result of the introduction of the new test such cases can fall under the new provisions and will be entitled to compensation. I am therefore particularly thankful that these new tests will now be applied to decide the certification of a person. We have heard that hon. members opposite have complained about the change in the lump sum payable under a pension scheme. They have said that the miner will suffer a loss but this is not the case. We know that they are now entitled to R980. With a wife and two children and the pension the miner now receives that R980 over a period of two years whereas he would otherwise have received it as a lump sum. We know through experience that it takes from nine to ten years for the miner to move from the first to the second stage. This means that he receives a pension over a period of eight years and that he receives four times more than before.

You are wrong.

No, I am quite correct. The hon. member for Springs did not do his homework.

Order! The hon. member must ignore the interjections.

No, but they want to give the wrong information to the world and I want to show them that they are wrong.

Clause 73 states that when the Committee finds for the first time that a miner is suffering from pneumoconiosis to the extent of between 20 per cent and 50 per cent he will be entitled to a monthly pension according to the scale laid down in Clause 71, i.e., R24 in respect of himself, R6 in respect of his wife and R3 in respect of every dependant child. If he has two children this will amount to R39 per month. If one works this out one will see what he receives over a period of eight years. It is about four times more than he receives in a lump sum.

But he also received a pension before.

No, he did not receive a pension. He only received a lump sum.

He receives R33 plus a lump sum.

He only received a pension in the second stage. I say that in that period of eight years he will receive three or four times as much as he would have received in the form of a lump sum in the first stage. [Interjection.] In the next stage, in terms of Clause 72 (2), he receives R46 in respect of himself, R12 in respect of his wife and R6 in respect of every dependant child. He thus receives R4 per month more than before. [Interjections.] The hon. member only thinks of the “lump sum”. He only thinks of the house he can sell the person but we are not all estate agents.

Are you satisfied with the new pension scales in this Bill?

Yes, it represents an increase and many people can now go from the first to the second stage because the lung function tests will place them in the second stage. Many of those who are not yet certified will, when they reach the second stage, be placed in the third stage as a result of the new tests. I, therefore, feel that the miner can only gain by this legislation. Those who are in the third stage will now receive their attendants’ allowances in the form of a pension. This will be an advantage because receiving it is no longer a privilege but a right and it improves their position considerably. We also find that in the new third stage the husband and wife will, if they have no dependants, receive R63 per month. I think this is reasonable and I am thankful for it.

I now come to tuberculosis. We now find that under the new definition it is stipulated that every 15 minutes a miner stays underground longer than his normal shift will count as an additional shift. It means that where we find mines to-day and there were mines in the past who kept a miner underground for up to four hours longer than his eight hour shift and it still counted as one shift, it now means that every 15 minutes he stays underground longer than his normal shift will count as an additional shift. This is to the advantage of the miner because it will help him in respect of the provident fund which is based on shifts. But we find that while a miner previously had to work 150 or 160 shifts to receive compensation for tuberculosis, it has now been increased to 200. This will be compensated for by the new definition of a shift but I think the miner loses something although very few of them contract tuberculosis underground within a period of six months. I therefore do not think it is a matter for concern. We now come to the part where the miner had previously been entitled to a pension if he contracted tuberculosis. The Minister has said that this pension will now be taken away because tuberculosis can be cured nowadays. On medical grounds I cannot differ from the Minister. I must admit that the treatment which is available to-day can cure tuberculosis and the miner can lead a normal life. But what worries me-is what is said in Clause 74 (4)—

a certain amount. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to amend this provision. I feel that if a man as a result of tuberculosis is in such a state that he can do no work a pension should be granted until he has recovered and can perform remunerative work.

I shall be glad if this could be inserted, but I do not think that one can leave it to a committee to say that it will grant him a pension on compassionate grounds. I feel that a man who is permanently unfit as a result of tuberculosis should be helped and a pension should be granted to him. I should like to ask the Minister to reconsider this part of the Bill, if possible, to see if he cannot make such a concession. We are thankful that the amounts which will be paid to tuberculosis sufferers who have worked a minimum of 200 and a maximum of 3,000 shifts will be increased to an amount of R1,500, and if they have worked more than 3,000 to a single amount of R2,000. We know that the people who have to remain in hospital for six months or longer to receive treatment will not progress if they are worried about their domestic position and if they think that the wife and children are suffering from hunger. Here we give the opportunity to these people to receive their treatment with their minds at ease.

Then there are the widows and orphans. All widows and orphans will receive this pension on the miner’s death no matter at what stage he was. The widows and orphans of deceased miners are therefore better off than before. There need be no fear that the widow will suffer after the death of the husband if it is found that his lung function was below 20 per cent. All widows and orphans will draw the same pension when the bread-winner dies.

There is another matter in respect of which I should like to ask the Minister’s assistance. It relates to Clause 102 (2) (b), which states that the Minister may make provision for the medical treatment of persons who suffer from pneumoconiosis and other diseases. These people have to pay out of their pension of R43 for the disease they contracted underground. The money on which the person has to live has to be paid to doctors and for medicines. If the Minister exercises this right he has reserved himself I shall be very thankful. I do not think I am going too far because personally I think it is a shame that the Chamber of Mines unlike other industries does not contribute to the sick fund of their employees, but leave it to the workers to form their own sick fund. I consider it deplorable that the Chamber of Mines did not decide long ago to contribute to the medical expenses of their employees, especially as these people have to work under such unhealthy conditions. I feel that I would be failing my duty if I did not ask that the Chamber of Mines be obliged to assist in the paying of those medical expenses. I hope that the Minister will see his way clear to grant this concession.

I want to say a few words about the establishment of the General Council for Pneumoconiosis Compensation. This council is being established and will consist of a commissioner, who will ex officio be chairman of the council, and at least eight and not more than 12 members who will be appointed by the Minister. At least four of these people must be sufficiently representative of the owners of controlled mines and the same number of members must be sufficiently representative of the workers, in the Minister’s opinion. I wish to point out to the Minister that those representatives of the workers should be representatives of trade unions who are in fact representatives of the workers and that miners’ trade unions whose members are not employed in a dusty atmosphere should not be represented on the council. I hope the Minister will take this into consideration.

There is another matter about which I am concerned and to which I wish to draw the Minister’s attention. Under the new Bill we find that no person whose lung function is 50 per cent or less will no longer be allowed to work underground. His card will be withdrawn. The presumption is that the mining authorities will provide him with work above the surface but experience has shown me that it is extremely difficult to transfer a person from underground even though he has had coronary thrombosis. Now I am afraid that should more applications for work above the surface be received the applicants will be unsuccessful. If a proper pension scheme existed in addition to the pneumoconiosis compensation to provide the people with a reasonable income, I would not have been concerned. I therefore feel that we should appeal to the Minister to introduce a pension fund as soon as possible so that miners can draw a pension even though they are not suffereing from pneumoconiosis. This will give the miners an opportunity to contribute to a pension fund which will provide them with a reasonable pension when they retire. But I also feel that seeing that these people are unable to find employment underground we should try to find them employment on the surface. Just as the miner loses his health when working underground, so the mine loses its wealth through being worked and it also becomes exhausted. If the mine is exhausted the miner will be forced to find work at another mine or some other place. The miner may have a house in the town where he has been working for the last 25 years and may wish to remain there. The entire community suffers when a mine is closed down and I think it is the duty of everyone, including the Government, to help in establishing industries, when a mine is on the verge of closing down, in order by so doing to provide work for the workers who are discharged and to help keep the community going. I wish to express my thanks once again for this legislation. There are a few points which I think could be improved and if the Minister cannot deal with them now we shall wait until the next session to give him the opportunity to investigate these points. If he agrees he can introduce amending legislation. But we should like to see this legislation passed now and we thank the Minister for it, and I am sure the miners will all welcome this legislation.

I know that this is said to be an agreed measure, but the agreement was not with this House, and I feel that it is the duty certainly of those of us on this side of the House, to look very carefully into a Bill which affects so large a number of working people in this country, people on whom almost the whole economy of the country rests. Now, I am not at all satisfied that the miners have been well looked after in this Bill. Has anyone asked himself whether the miners are satisfied? Has anyone asked himself why, year after year, the Pneumoconiosis Act comes back to be amended? Why are the miners sour? It is not the Chamber of Mines which comes here, or the Department of Mines; it is because the hands of the Government are forced by the miners. I feel it is our duty to look into this Bill and to see whether we cannot find some way of satisfying the miners and letting them feel that this country, as represented in this House, does look after their interest and is interested in more than the few pence which they received. It is time that the policy was changed from that of gradually increasing the size of the carrot. All that happens now with all these modifications and changes is that the Chamber of Mines and the Minister of Mines increase the size of the carrot that they hold in front of the nose of the miner, and then when he feels that he has stood as much as he can, they come back with another Bill. That is what is happening and I feel that basically the reason for this is that the miner does not get a square deal; he does not get a square deal because the whole set-up is wrong. This is a question of health and a question of finance. The hon. the Minister is trying to mix oil and water; he is trying to mix finance and health and he is trying to find a way to pay the miner for what he does to his health, and he is trying to do it with a financial institute, not with a medical institute. I think there will never be peace in the mining industry until such time as the medical aspect is completely taken away from the financial aspect, and until such time as the doctors handle the medical aspect. When they have finished and have decided to what extent the man is suffering from illness, then they can pass him over to the financial people who will arrange the carrot or the pudding which they are going to give to him. Sir, the hon. the Minister is one for whom I feel very sorry. He has held the portfolio for a short time and his predecessor held the portfolio an equally short time. He has attempted to change to some extent the formation of the bureau. At this stage I am talking about the medical bureau. Before I come to that point I want to say that what I say here does not detract from the work which has been done by the scientists of this country in regard to pneumoconiosis. I am going to be quoted large reams, I am sure, by the hon. the Minister of the great prestige of the pneumoconiosis work of this country. No one appreciates more than I do that we are held in high esteem in other parts of the world, but I want him to understand that that esteem flows from the medical work; it flows from the research of the Chamber of Mines into dust problems. It does not flow from the amount of compensation and the after-care which the miner receives. Those are not the aspects; the aspects are the research by the doctors and the research into dust, and into various mining methods by the Chamber of Mines—not the handling of the miner or the handling of the bureau. This hon. Minister has now come forward with a new arrangement of his bureau. I want to say to him that his bureau is an inverted pyramid. It reminds me of an army in which you have one private, the remainder consisting of officers. The unfortunate examining doctor of the bureau is at the bottom; he does the work and then various committees handle the matter. Why must these committees exist? This is a common-place medical problem. Anybody who works in a hospital handling serious illnesses will know that we as doctors must decide questions of life and death on the decision of one man. If he needs help he can get it by consultation. But to decide whether a miner has pneumoconiosis in the first, second, third or fourth stage, to decide whether he will get 5s. or 10s. or 15s., requires an army of generals. That is no concern of the doctors. We are accustomed to making decisions, and that bureau with its long list of distinguished names is quite unnecessary. It was a misfortune for this country that pneumoconiosis was recognized before the Health Department of the country came into being. The result has been that it came under the Chamber of Mines and did not go to a Department of Health. The whole thread runs through the health legislation of this country.

Let us see what happens to the man. This army is waiting for him; he goes in and he has an initial examination, just as he would consult his own doctor. It is to some extent a specialized examination. He is passed as fit and that is the end from his point of view until he comes back for a periodic examination. Now he comes back later and he sees the doctor again—a single doctor. This doctor decides that he is certifiable or that he is doubtful, but he has not got the power to decide the certifiability or otherwise. He does, however, make a report. Now, what happens to this report? It goes to what is known as a Certification Committee. This committee, if I were the unfortunate patient, would not give me a great deal of confidence. In a similar instance in a hospital, if a man requires the removal of his lung or the removal of his stomach or the removal of a leg, which are much more serious problems, the matter would not go through a committee and it certainly would not go through this committee; it would go to one man, and if he had a little doubt he would call a colleague in to consultation. Between them they would give a decision to the man. The man would know that the doctors have his interests at heart and not the interests of the Compensation Fund. He would accept that decision or not, but he would at least appreciate the fact (which the miner does not) that the men who are handling him have his interests at heart. Now, Sir, let us look at the Certification Committee. It consists of extremely distinguished doctors, men in the highest ranks of the profession in this country, I but it does not consist of men who are used to handling patients. I can conceive of no committee less well selected than this one. The first four names are those of experts in pathology, men who do not handle the living. I would much rather have seen doctors from the mines like some of the speakers in this House than those gentlemen on this committee. There are four pathologists and the chairman is a pathologist. Then there are two radiologists. If they want an opinion on an X-ray, they do not need a committee; the radiologist will give a written report on it and he is there for consultation, just as he would be if I were going to operate on a patient. He would not tell me to operate or not to operate but he would give me his advice as to the conditions existing. As we go down the list we have the good luck to come across the names of those nominated by the mine-owners and those nominated by the controlled mines and those nominated by the employees. Sir, those are doctors used to handling sick living men. I will grant to the hon. the Minister that there are numerous cases, as is shown in the report of the Pneumoconiosis Bureau, in which post-mortems are done, perhaps many years after the miners have left the mines—and that is desirable—but four pathologists on the Certification Committee are not necessary for that. One pathologist could tell you that if you send the specimen to his laboratory. These four men are experts, every one of them. They are experts as far as the dead miner is concerned, and they would be accepted anywhere in the world as experts. But all we need is a report from one of them. What we need in the case of the certifying doctors is a couple of doctors who are doctors. That, Sir, is my opinion of the Certification Committee. I regard the Certification Committee as unnecessary. If those miners could receive their certificates after having seen a consultant who would explain their position to them, who would explain to them as a doctor what is wrong with them, who would tell them how they are getting on, who would give them advice, it would be a different matter. But it is possible for those gentlemen sitting on the Certification Committee not even to see the sick man, and it takes some seven or eight of them to do so, when all except one or perhaps two are necessary. Even if they want an extra report they get it from someone else. No, the sooner the bureau assumes a hospital or health character, the sooner the miner will be pleased and satisfied. To-day he is dissatisfied. He will not be satisfied with blowing into a bellows and giving us his respiratory efficiency. I do not believe that you will ever have satisfied miners until this Department, from a health point of view, becomes a part of the Department of Health.

Now I pass to another aspect, one which worries me considerably, and that is not only that the Department is overweighed with committees, but now for the first time the director becomes a layman. In principle I have no great objection to this change, but I would like to know why this is happening, and when it does happen he should certainly not be given the functions of a doctor. That is what has gone wrong. If the hon. the Minister feels that the Bureau would perhaps be better administered by a lay administrator I am not prepared to argue; I do not know enough about it. But when that director acts as a doctor and sits as the chairman of a medical committee, then I begin to wonder and to ask myself what interests are being served. Furthermore, when this layman is able to order doctors about, I begin to wonder and to say to myself “How is this going to work?” because doctors will not be pushed around in their professional capacity. The director may order doctors to answer questions; he may order doctors to do post-mortems; he may order them to disclose information which they regard as confidential, and he may interfere between the doctor and his patients. All this is provided for in the Act; I am not going to classify them at the moment because we will deal with these matters in the Committee Stage. But this Act, from the point of view of having to work with doctors, cannot succeed if the director is given those powers and if he is not a medical man. Even if he is a medical man it may fail in that respect, but at least then it will have some chance. I object to this Certification Committee because I think it will drift back into the old position which existed before 1954. I know that the hon. the Minister will throw in my teeth the fact that I was a member of the 1954 Commission on Pneumoconiosis and Tuberculosis. I told his predecessor that I felt that this was going the wrong way, and I was out-voted on that Commission on the question of the whole Department being put under the Department of Health. This new Act will be back in this House within a couple of years and it will not be back because of the odd 50 per cent or the 75 per cent; it will be back because the miners are discontented and because the miners will not be satisfied with it because they are not being treated as human beings. The Department does not exist to look after the miners; it exists to try and strike a balance somewhere between the production of gold and the damage that is done to the health of the man who produces it. That is what it exists for and it should exist as a Department of Health to look after the health of the miners. Its whole outlook should be changed. What does this Department do? It takes young healthy men out of the community, fit men, men who are examined medically before they are allowed to enter the mine and they extract gold from the earth. At what cost? They hand back to the community men who as far as we know, and as we have been told here by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg), will not live out their normal span. They hand back those men to the community, with a few crumbs of money, hoping that they will be able to eke out their existence with that money, gasping, panting, coughing and spitting. That is what these men are, and, Sir, there has been no research. If what I say can be refuted then it is very easy for the hon. the Minister to refute it. There is a record of the death of every miner. It is probably the only section of the community in respect of whom we could have decent, accurate statistics. We who work in hospitals and deal with the sick would give anything to have accurate statistics as to what happens to our patients after they leave the hospitals. We do our best; we have a follow-up system; we try to find out what happens to the patient so that we can say, “This operation is generally a success” or “This form of treatment is a success”. The only Department that can have really accurate statistics is this Minister’s Department, because they know on what date the beneficiaries drawing benefits from the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund died. I beg the Minister, if he disagrees with me, to appoint a medical statistician to find out and tell us what is the average life-span of a miner. We know his average working life, but how long does he enjoy the benefit which this Act is going to give him? I would suggest to the Minister that the early years should be ignored because since that time dust control and ventilation and various other improvements have changed the picture. But there has been no great change in the last ten years, I should say. It would be easy for the Minister to find that out. He must ignore the last three or four years because the people are probably still alive. Let him go into the figures from, say, 1959 back to 1949 or perhaps a little further back. Let him then put before this House and publish to the world what the results are and how adequately these unfortunate men are compensated, even at this rate, and what mine is worse than another. Does asbestos shorten the life-span of the miner? The report itself says that the average working life in the mines has increased to 20 years but it may be only eight years in asbestos mines with the added risk that cancer will supervene, as mentioned by my hon. colleague.

Now I want to touch on one other aspect and that is the question of tuberculosis. Those of us who have looked into this matter find that the incidence of tuberculosis amongst exminers is, I believe, higher than it is amongst the general public, and as far as we can judge, when it hits a miner it hits him harder than it hits most people. I do not agree with my hon. colleague, the member for Geduld (Dr. Jurgens) when he talks about curing miners once they have developed tuberculosis. Tuberculosis amongst the Europeans in this country is well under control but it is not under control in the ex-miners. In the definition of “tuberculosis” on page 11, line 65, we find that it does not include inactive calcified foci. In any one but a miner I would accept that because the incidence of tuberculosis amongst the ordinary public under those circumstances is low. But in the report of the Pneumoconiosis Bureau for the period 1 April 1960 to 31 March 1961, we find this at page 11—

But then it proceeds—

Had been overlooked—

Which is not very long—

That, Sir, is the added risk that the miner runs, and I believe, although as a professional man I am open to correction, that there is great need for research not into what happens to the miner who develops tuberculosis, because that we know, but why he develops tuberculosis and modern tests as to susceptibility to tuberculosis, tests which are simple and cheap, costing a few pence perhaps and taking a little time, should be carried out on the average miner, the Bantu miner particularly, because he suffers the worst. Why could that not be done to all the Bantu miners? It is not done, Sir, because these people do not pass through a Department of Health. In the tubercular hospital where I am a surgeon we do not employ in that hospital a Bantu nurse if we find her susceptible particularly to tuberculosis, or if we do employ her we X-ray her every month for some time, and we test her regularly. Sir, the whole fault with this Department is that it is an economic Department; it is a financial Department trying to look after health and it cannot do it.

The discussion so far has been mainly in the interests of the workers in the gold mines. One can understand it because the gold-mining industry is easily the largest and the most important industry in the mining industry in general. It was conspicuous that the Minister was congratulated with this Bill from both sides of the House. We are all in agreement that the hon. the Minister does all in his power to make the lot of the mine workers as bearable as possible. Like the hon. member for Durban Central (Dr. Radford) not one of us feels happy about the position of people who have contracted pneumoconiosis. It is either a challenge to the doctors in our country, to the medical profession, to find ways and means of curing pneumoconiosis if they can, or if they cannot cure it, then it is a challenge to our engineers and to our scientists to prevent pneumoconiosis being contracted by the mine worker. Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise another matter in this House this afternoon. I should like to refer to another sector of our mining industry, namely to the asbestos mines in the north-west Cape and in the northern Cape. These mines were brought under control in 1954 only, and certain steps have already been taken to improve working conditions there, inter alia, air purification is being applied in the mines in quite a number at least, and regular radiographic and clinical examinations are being conducted as regards the miners, and thirdly the conditions of employment are being improved gradually. However, there are data that indicate that the incidence of asbestosis is still disturbingly high among the workers and that stricter control probably is urgently necessary. In addition, housing and sanitation in general are of such a nature that it is promoting the incidence of tuberculosis on a destructive scale.

There are two aspects in particular I should like to put briefly this afternoon, and they are (a) the disturbing phenomenon that asbestosis occurs to a large extent among people outside the industry, among people living in the vicinity of the mines, but who seldom if ever come into direct contact with the industry, and (to) that it has been established beyond doubt that the particular kind of lung cancer now known as mesotelium is closely connected with the incidence of asbestosis.

It is impossible to establish exactly how many victims have been claimed by this dreaded form of lung cancer in the past already, because it is only about three or four years since mesotelium has been microscopically identified. Many of the deaths that were formerly certified by doctors as pleurisy, possibly were cases of mesotelium. It is also suspected that mesotelium originates in the peritoneum and that many deaths that formerly were attributed to water in the stomach, could be attributable to the pollution of our water sources. A District Surgeon in the northern Cape who has studied the matter closely, writes to me—

He says further—

Dr. Allen, formerly chief medical officer, as long ago as 1947 drew attention to the high incidence of lung cancer in those parts of our country, and he wrote, in a report to the Town Council of Prieska, as follows, inter alia—

The following figures in respect of Prieska will give you some idea of the incidence of cancer of the lungs in those parts. In the 12 years from 1947 to 1958, there were a total of 50 deaths from cancer of the lung. It is unknown how many of these were mesotelium. It has not yet been determined microscopically at that time. But in 1959 there were two deaths from cancer of the lung, both mesotelium; in 1960 there were three deaths, all mesotelium; in 1961 there were six deaths from cancer of the lungs of which three were established as mesotelium. Of the 13 deaths from lung cancer during the past five years of which I am personally aware, only three were ever in direct contact with the industry. What I wish to emphasize here is that thus far no steps have been taken to protect people in the vicinity of asbestos mines from contamination. On the contrary, the steps that have been taken to protect the miners have in fact made it more dangerous for the people in the vicinity. Dust from the mines is simply blown into the atmosphere in many cases, which may cause further pollution of the air and possibly of the water. Then there are other sources of pollution of the atmosphere. There are the asbestos dumps that you find everywhere at pulverizers and mills. They are exposed to the elements and the dust is borne into the atmosphere in this way. There is asbestos fall-out that has been used by unsuspecting people in the past on roads, around their homes, on tennis courts, for tees on the golf courses, and in this manner the atmosphere is polluted still further. Then I should also like to point out that the greater part of the town of Prieska lies to the east of the railway where there is such an asbestos mill and a dump, i.e. below the prevailing northwest winds. Asbestos fibres have been found a mile and further from the asbestos dumps.

I am aware that the C.S.I.R. a year or two ago sent a team of experts there and that certain surveys were conducted in Prieska, Koegas and Kuruman, but sufficient attention has not yet been given to the people outside the industry. The measures that are eventually applied will have to cover a more extensive field than only the mines. It will have to cover the whole population in the vicinity of these mines. Research in regard to the incidence of asbestosis among people outside the industry, and particularly in regard to the connection existing between asbestos and mesotelium has become an urgent necessity. Among the steps that could possibly be taken, I should like to mention the following: Radiological examination of all inhabitants of Prieska, Koegas and other centres and regular periodical examinations thereafter. With that end in view I should like to suggest the establishment of a sub-bureau of the Pheumoconiosi’s Bureau at one of the places for the necessary examination. One should like to see further that there should be established a central place for the treatment of cases of mesotelium that may be discovered. It is necessary further that steps be taken to prevent air and water pollution. The removal or the covering for instance of dump material and the placing of asbestos mills and pulverizers so far distant from towns and densely populated centres that air and water pollution can be prevented, are some of the steps that ought to be taken. It is in the interests of the industry itself also that the sense of insecurity that has arisen among the public at those centres, should be removed by these means and other means that the hon. the Minister may deem fit.

It is gratifying to see that there is so much agreement in the House when the interests of the miners are being discussed. What is peculiar is that we have been telling each other for two days how unanimous we are. We are unanimous because we wish to promote the interests of the miners, and the miner is a person who really deserves the interest of this House, because he works in the industry that forms one of the bases of the economic stability of our country. It is the industry too that claims the most victims in terms of human lives. But what is most important to me is that mining in our country is no child’s play, but it is the work of a man, and it requires that we should give the miner the treatment that is due to a man. Mining has become a highly specialized job where efficiency, knowledge and proficiency are prerequisites. All these can only be had when the goodwill and the affection of the miner has been won. That again may be won if the miner is enabled to earn enough so that he can live comfortably and look after his family, not only in days of prosperity, not only on sunny days, but also on dark days when pneumoconiosis has come upon him. When care is taken of that, the miner will accept the challenge to extract from the bosom of the earth the wealth of our country for us, in spite of the dangers that pneumoconiosis may entail for him, in spite of the dangers of rock-falls. That is what we are seeking in this Bill, and I should like to bring something to the hon. the Minister’s attention against this background.

This Bill is an agreed measure between the interested parties and we have to accept it as such in spite of the criticism that has been expressed here and there. We know that the measure is well intended and that only the best is aimed at for the miner. But what particularly struck me in this debate, is that very little has been said in respect of the financial aspects of this legislation, perhaps because it is so involved. I personally will therefore not risk traversing that field. I will merely refer to it in passing. But before I come to that, I should like to give my wholehearted support to the medical aspect included in this legislation. I think we should welcome it that at long last a method of certifying has been adopted which, it seems to me, will determine the various stages of pneumoconiosis beyond all doubt. That I believe must benefit the miner and will remove much of the suspicion that usually existed at the examinations of the Bureau. Regarding the financial aspects of the Bill, I am sorry the attitude has been adopted not to grant a general increase of benefits. We should remember that previously in this House a pension scheme was advocated, which was accepted by the former Minister of Mines, and about which he said, at the Congress of the National Party, that he would not rest before and until a statutory pension scheme had been established for all the miners. That promise was made to the miners. Now we know that any pension scheme is a long term scheme, that the investments made only begin to bear fruit after many years, and a pension scheme that gives an immediate benefit is a pension scheme that will have to start with a sum of money as a nucleus. The only manner in which a pension scheme with immediate benefits could be established for the miners, we saw as a linking up with the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund which already existed. In the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund we saw a nucleus that could possibly be used as a springboard to establish a pension scheme with immediate benefits for the miners. Under this Bill a revaluation is made of the Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund. I am not going to elaborate upon that. I find no fault with that, and I can find no fault with dividing the fund for administrative purposes into three heads, namely the A, the B and the C fund. But what I should like to point out is that under the 1956 Act the mines have accepted a total indebtedness of R38,800,000. They were so keen to accept that indebtedness that they have already placed an amount of R18,519,658 to the credit of a trust account. That amount is being kept available for the Pneuconiosis Fund if they were to require it. The State has accepted an indebtedness of R21,800,000 under the Act of 1956. Now under the new Bill the State as well as the mines will be released from a large portion of the indebtedness. However, we had believed in fact that from this indebtedness under the 1956 Act we would derive the nucleus from which a pension scheme for miners could be built up. Now it may be asked what claim the miners have to that Fund, seeing that that indebtedness was put too high actuarially. Now my reply to that is that the miner has indeed got a moral claim to that indebtedness because, in the first place, in 1956 it was also an agreed measure, and I think the terms of the agreed measure may only be amended if both sides would benefit from it. But that is not the most important thing to me. To me the most important thing—and here I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Springs where he put it very strikingly yesterday, in my opinion. Referring to the colossal amounts paid over the years as pneu-coniosis compensation to the miners, he said that however large and fantastic that amount may seem, it actually can never make good the human lives, the sacrifices, the suffering and the grief that has gone with it. That is why I should like to appeal to the Minister to honour the promise made by the former Minister, namely to give the mine workers a pension scheme also to supplement the pneumoconiosis compensation, and not to lose sight of it. We know the Miners’ Trade Union has undertaken to negotiate with the Chamber of Mines in regard to this matter, but I believe that they will require the moral and active support of the Government to establish a scheme that will really be to the benefit of the miners.

I think both sides of the House are very pleased and gratified with this legislation. But what we are particularly pleased about is that this is the first time for a very long time that we have a Minister of Mines who also represents a constituency that consists almost exclusively of mines, and we are convinced that where the Government has always given its attention to the interests of the miners, we shall have still greater interests from the present Minister in the future. I think it is very unfair of certain members of the Opposition, such as the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) and the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) to have lauded certain members of the Opposition for their share in the improvement of the lot of the miners. We do not wish to belittle their share, but I think there are people on the Government side who have done very much more in this regard, and here I should like particularly to refer to the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) who has worked in the interests of the miners not only during recent years, but since 1936 and long before that time. The members of the National Party and the Ministers of the National Party have always looked after the interests of the miners.

We find that this legislation will lessen the administrative problems there were in the past, and eliminate them. We find that certification will now be on a scientific basis, and we also find that the establishment of a Reviewing Committee, which has been advocated for many years, has now been done. We may truthfully say that we have a splendid piece of legislation here.

However, there are two matters I should like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention this afternoon. One thing I wish to urge U Don him very strongly this afternoon is this: All of us admit that the miner to-day is the most important link in the national economy. Had it not been for the miners, we could not have developed mining on the scale on which we are doing so to-day. Even if we had all the capital and even if we had all the modern methods and all the technicians, and the miners, the most important link, were missing, our mining development would break down. I should like to plead this afternoon for the group of miners that are in the fourth stage, as it is called now. The figure was mentioned here by the hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer) when he said that at the present time there are 1,004 miners in the fourth stage. We find that in the third stage there are 1,189. We have been told that of the miners in the fourth stage, about 50 per cent are receiving the attendant’s allowance. Now I submit to the Minister that the persons who are in the fourth stage. They are indeed going to have their attendant’s allowance of R15 added to their pensions, but I should like to appeal to the Minister to meet that type of miner still further. He is the miner that has had to endure the greatest trials, and who has had the least benefits of all the modern methods during his period. It is he who has not benefited under the housing schemes. On the contrary, he was the pioneer of mining development in the past, and to-day we come along with this fine legislation, but all we are doing for that type of person is that we are saying to him: What you might have received, as a privilege now becomes a right; you now receive only the additional R15, that attendant’s allowance, in addition to your pension. I should like to plead with the Minister whether it is not possible, even at this late stage, to give that miner something extra. As the legislation stands here to-day, all the miners are going to be benefited. They will benefit in respect of certification, and they will benefit by receiving a higher pension. But the fourth stage miner and the third stage miner (as we shall know him under the new legislation) is not being given any other benefit except that he now receives the allowances that he could have received in any case if the doctor was willing to certify that. But no further provision is made for him in this legislation, and I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible at this late stage, to contribute something further for him.

Then I come to the great change we find in the legislation in respect of tuberculotics. Certain concessions are being made to those people here. We have listened to the hon. member for Durban Central (Dr. Radford) where he said: These persons are not completely cured. I as a layman am unwilling to accept that, for I am told that they are in fact cured. Now I should like to urge that where the miner formerly also received free treatment in the hospital, where he received a pension that he is being deprived of now, and where he now receives a total lump sum, and where he can receive free treatment in the hospital, I should like to make this appeal to the Minister: That person now has to go to hospital for a year or more for treatment. He receives the best treatment there. But while he is waiting to be cured in hospital, there definitely is the worry: “Where am I going to find employment?” We all know that when a person has been taken away from his employment for more than a year, especially when the person has reached the age of 48 or 50 years or more, it is very difficult for him to find any kind of job. That is why I wish to appeal to the Minister to make provision also for the man who has contracted tuberculosis. When he has contracted tuberculosis, it is the duty of the mining industry and of the state to see to it that he recovers the health he enjoyed before he worked in the mine, and I should like to ask whether it is not possible to do something in that regard. I know the Board may subsequently, if he cannot find employment, grant him a pension, but in view of the worry of the man lying there in the hospital, I should like to ask that something should be done to lessen that worry. If the man is worried about his future employment, it does not contribute to his cure, but on the contrary it operates against his recovery. I am convinced there are not many such cases, and I should like to urge that a fixed pension be allocated to them.

I should like once again to thank the hon. the Minister, especially now that the Bantu miners are also to be examined periodically for they have been the greatest bearers of tuberculosis. Now the Minister has come along and eliminated that danger. We say thank you very much to him and his department and all who co-operated in this regard. This is a splendid Bill that will be welcomed by all.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members of this House surely will not expect me at this late hour to reply fully to all the points that have been raised during this debate. I do not think they would like to listen to me for so long, especially as they had to listen to me for more than an hour and a half yesterday. However, I should like to deal with a number of the cardinal principles that have been raised in the course of this debate, and I shall try to give a brief reply to those. In the first place, I should like to express my sincere appreciation to hon. members on both sides of the House for the manner in which they have welcomed the Bill and for the posi tive contributions each tried to make. I should like to assure the first speaker on the opposite side, the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) and the first speaker on this side, the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Grey ling) who first took the floor—of my apprecia tion for the high level on which they placed this debate, and I should like to thank all the hon. members for the contributions they made. Here, Mr. Speaker, it has once again appeared plainly that there are certain things in regard to which we as members of both sides of the House can face one another and can agree with one another, and that the mining industry is one of the subjects on which there is a very great degree of agreement on both sides of the House, in the sense that we appreciate the importance to our country of the mining industry, and that we attach value to the work of our mine owners and our miners.

As regards the mine owners, we in South Africa have every reason to be proud, because our mine owners have really succeeded in making our mining industry, and particularly our gold mining industry in South Africa, a model industry. As regards our miners, we on our side pay tribute and appreciation to the immense sacrifices they have made in the interests of the country and of the industry, particularly in the earlier years when they sacrificed their lives a1nd health. Not one of us wishes to deny their share. I am one who has frequently said and I want to repeat it here: In addition to all the monuments we are erecting, many of which are really appreciated and deserved, I think that if someday another monument has to be erected in South Africa on the Witwatersrand, a momument ought to be erected to the unknown miner.

And now, Mr. Speaker, because all of us feel that way about the miner, it is very easy of course to become lyrical. It is very easy to advocate all kinds of things, and to ask all kinds of things for the miners. I should like to say that I also would like to give the miner greater and still greater benefits. There is not one of us who would not really like to do so, the State least of all. We should like to comply with the demands and the requests of some hon. members here, and give our miners greater and ever greater benefits. All of us would keenly like to do so. I want to do so. if only I had the money. If only I had another R30,000,000 or R60,000,000 or R100,000,000 I could have done much more under this Bill. But I do not have it. And I cannot get it without causing prejudice elsewhere, prejudice in particular to the marginal mines. It was one of our objects under this Bill to help the marginal mines also, in the sense that they will now pay less of the yearly levies and debts, and thereby may have a longer life. In the Other Place, about a month or two ago, I announced that at the round table conference that took place under my previous predecessor, it was found that the pneumoconiosis levy constitutes about 11 cents per ton of ore that has been pulverized. And if there could be a saving, it will be very good. That is the biggest item that round table conference found on which there could be savings. Here is perhaps a possibility of giving a smaller saving to the marginal mines that may have great significance for them.

I am very sorry that this Bill, which is very important and involved, has had to be rushed through the House in this manner. It is due to the fact that I have to leave the country in about eight or nine days. But it has been introduced here at such a late stage, and it has been introduced so late, because my Department has been engaged for months on consultations with the parties concerned in an attempt to make this measure an agreed measure. Hours, days and weeks have been devoted to consulting with the Chamber of Mines, the Committee of Gold Producers and the Trade Unions and other interested parties on this measure. It took time, and that is why this Bill could not come before the House sooner. I should like to announce here also, and mention what has already been mentioned here by a few hon. members, who said that the benefits here and there are not sufficient and that they should be higher—I should like to reaffirm that the object of this Bill is not to grant a general increase of benefits. The object is in the first place, to place certification on a more scientific basis. In the second place, the object is to put the financing on a more rational basis. Those are the two main objects. The third object was to give relief where assistance is most needed at the present time, namely the present fourth stage sufferers and the widows and dependants of deceased miners. That relief has been given, and I think we have to the best of our ability given considerable relief which will cost the State R8,000,000. Now I should like to make a further announcement here. The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) and other hon. members too, referred to a certain class of the present sufferers in the fourth stage, under the proposals made here, and that they are the people who are not benefited at all under the new order. They are the present fourth stage sufferers who already receive an attendant’s allowance. The fourth stage sufferers who are not receiving the attendant’s allowance, benefit again in that they receive R15 per month which is consolidated with their pension. Now it has been felt that we should perhaps do something to meet that existing group of old people in the fourth stage and who already are receiving the attendant’s allowance, and I should like to announce here that it has been decided to give that group of people an extra allowance of R10 per month. There are 440 of them out of a total of 1,003 who are still in receipt of the fourth stage pension. It is a disappearing number, and that R10 per month will now be granted to that number. But now my difficulty is this. I cannot propose it as an amendment to the existing Bill, for practical reasons. It would involve making changes at a few places in the Bill, and any amendment will involve a reprint of the Bill, which will entail extra costs and extra time. It will also mean a Report stage, which will again take a day of our time. It gives me practical difficulties which I hope hon. members will appreciate, if I wish to take this Bill to the Senate next week. That is why I want to propose that we do not incorporate it in the Bill now. but that with the consent of the Minister of Finance, provision be made for it in the Finance Bill.

Apart from the benefits that are being given to sufferers in the fourth stage and to the dependants, if hon. members will read the Bill again, they will come to numerous various points—some small some big—where benefits are granted to all existing miners, and if they are weighed against one another, hon. members will see that by and large tremendously great benefits in general are being granted to all miners in this Bill. But that is not the end. I agree with what the hon. members have said—the hon. member for Germiston (District), the hon. member for Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer), the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) and a number of other members—that this is not the end. We have come to a certain stage. We have already made a start. Fifty years ago already we made the start, and during the 50 years we have grown and developed until we have reached the stage where we are to-day with our pneumoconiosis legislation and with our treatment, and the fact, Mr. Speaker, that at the present time a smaller and smaller percentage of our people are being certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis, indicates the improvements that are taking place in our medical treatment of our people. We have grown up to the present day. This Bill is a milestone. I am sure that it will be regarded as a milestone in the history of our treatment of pneumoconiotics, but this is not the end. I think there is still a great task ahead of us, and the great task is, in the first place, increased and improved intensive research. We shall have to learn more and more about the actual beginnings of the disease, of the types we are dealing with, and the real methods of prevention of the diseases—we shall have to have more and more research in that regard. That is our task. But our task goes still further. Our task in the future will also be to give more and more after-care, after-care of those who have contracted the disease. Although I do not wish to agree with all that the hon. member for Durban (Central) has said—as a non-medical man who does not wish to argue with him—there are the points he and others made that we shall regard the pneumoconiotic who has gone out of our hands more as a human being. He who is in our hands and he who is out. who is no longer in the mine, that we should regard them all as human beings who socially are full beings, and that our task—I shall not say that it should be rehabilitation—will be the task of after-care, to give those people, while they are still alive, a full life. I have already previously said that this Bill is not the end, and that there may possibly also be defects and shortcomings in this Bill. But we shall always be prepared, if there are shortcomings and defects, to rectify them. I have also already told the Chamber of Mines, when they informed me that they are not quite in agreement with the definition in the medical aspect, but that they are prepared to accept the Bill, that I should give them my promise, which I did, that we shall give the Act time to operate, and if it does not work, I shall be the first to have its operation investigated, with their cooperation and the co-operation of the miners. Now, Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal briefly with some of the other remarks that have been made here. The hon. member for Germiston (District) referred to the Bantu, but he is not here now, and I shall not reply in regard to the Bantu miners now because I have already given an answer in my introductory speech. The hon. member also referred to marginal mines, and I mention it because other hon. members also referred to them. Of course, my attitude is that we cannot discuss the whole question of marginal mines in this debate. Within this Bill the most we can do is make a contribution for the benefit of the marginal mines, by making an attempt to reduce their contribution to the Pneumoconiosis Fund.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp has referred to adequate facilities for the bureau. I agree with him that we should have facilities to give effect to this legislation. Steps have already been taken to purchase the apparatus we require for the lung function tests. It has already been purchased and what is still required will have to be purchased. Land has already been purchased for the extension of the bureau, and we are already giving attention to the possibility of a building.

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) mentioned the fact of research. He said that research should not only be done by the C.S.I.R. but that other institutions, for instance universities, should also be asked to do this research. Nothing prevents other institutions like universities from conducting research. At the present moment the research is concentrated in the Pneumoconiosis unit at Johannesburg. I believe Johannesburg is the best place because of its location. And I think this P.N.U. should really be the institution to conduct applied research; perhaps the more basic and fundamental research could be conducted by other institutions. Nothing prevents this research unit in Johannesburg from farming out various projects to universities and other institutions and nothing prevents the C.S.I.R. from also farming out projects to various institutions. As a matter of fact certain projects are being investigated by other institutions at the present moment and the C.S.I.R. is granting bursaries to students for this particular type of research.

The hon. member was also worried that we may appoint a director to the Bureau who is not a medical doctor. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) expressed a similar fear. Although the Act does not state that the Director of the Bureau must be a medical man I think that the whole spirit of the Act is that he should be a medical man. I cannot foresee that he should not be a medical man and I do not contemplate appointing anybody to that particular position who is not a medical man. I do not think hon. members need harbour any fears in that regard. The hon. member also said that it seemed to him that we were mainly dependent on the outside world for research. In reply to that I can only say that in many directions, in the directions for instance, of pathology, radiology, clinical research and certain pulmonary function testing, we believe we are doing research work in South Africa which is of the best in the whole world. This research is being done by the Pneumoconiosis Research Unit and not by the Bureau. The Bureau is not a research institute.

*Then I come to a point raised by a number of hon. members. A few hon. members have urged that we should reduce the percentage according to which a person now goes from the one stage to the other. It has been proposed that we should now make the new third stage such that the minimum will not be 75 per cent as proposed, but 65 per cent. It has also been proposed that we should come down further and that the new second stage should be reduced from 50 per cent to 40 per cent. Now I should like to tell you that it sounds very nice, and that we are apparently doing the miner a favour thereby, by permitting him to go over into the other stage sooner. But I wish to say that under the present proposals in the Bill, he already comes to the next stage sooner. One cannot really compare the two methods of treatment, namely the earlier system of judging the impairment of capacity for work, and the present system of impairment of his respiratory capacity. The two are incomparable. But if we do want to compare them, then the old fourth stage was equivalent to 85 per cent. Now it will be about 75 per cent under this Bill. The old third stage really went from 65 per cent to 85 per cent. Now the 65 per cent is being reduced to 50 per cent, and the old second stage of about 33 per cent, is now reduced to 20 per cent. You see that provision is already being made under the Bill so that a miner suffering from pneumoconiosis can go more rapidly to the next stage where he receives a higher pension. That is one of the great benefits this legislation gives the miners. If now we wish to reduce the 85 per cent that has already been reduced to 75 per cent still further to 65 per cent, we do not know what we are letting ourselves in for as regards the financial implications. The other thing is that the miner will have to leave his employment still sooner. I do not believe we are rendering the miner a service by pushing him out of his job sooner. The object of the mining trade unions at the present time is that we should do everything in our power to keep the miner in his job—not that he should receive a pension and get out—again for psychological considerations. I do not think we can afford it with a clear conscience at the present stage, to push him out of his job sooner. I now come to my hon. friend the member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg), but I see he is not here now and when he returns I shall talk to him for a while.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) spoke about the abolition of the R960 and he said that it would take the miner eight years to recoup this R960 which he had lost. The reply has already been given by the hon. member for Geduld (Dr. Jurgens). It is not true, because as I have already said there will be a faster progression from the old first stage to the new stage, a much faster progression. I have already told the hon. gentleman that under the existing system the first stage was about 1 per cent to 33 per cent. Now it will be 1 per cent to 20 per cent. That means that there will be a much faster progression and a mine worker will come into the first pensionable stage much sooner. We reckon that in two years’ time this whole sum of R960 will have been recovered. Apart from that there is the fact that the dependants of such a mine worker become entitled immediately to pensions.

*The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee) has referred to people working on mine dumps. I want to tell him that this legislation makes provision so that not only people who are working in dusty divisions of mines are covered, but all who are working on controlled mines, are being examined, and that all people working on such mines can receive pensions, whether they are working in dusty divisions or not. Provision has been made for that in this legislation. The hon. member also says that the 10 per cent free silica that is used now as a criterion to declare a mine a controlled mine, is too low. I should like to tell the hon. member that it is the international standard throughout the world. But apart from that, the hon. member will see in Clause 44 of the Bill that the Minister has still further powers to enable him to declare further mines controlled mines, if he has reason to believe that they may cause pneumoconiosis. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) mentioned a few things, and I do not believe I have to go into all those things he referred to. But I should like to deal with one or two of them. I do not know whether the hon. member was a teacher formerly, but he spoke to us in the first place about the language of the Bill, and then he told us that we should stop translating bills from Afrikaans to English.

I was referring to this one only.

Unfortunately for the allegation of the hon. member, in this case the very opposite happened. This Bill was drafted in English and translated into Afrikaans afterwards. Now the hon. member objects to the principle of “the winning of a mineral” and he says that it probably is an Afrikaanism. Has he never seen the expression “the winning of a metal” used? I may just tell him that this is an expression that is being used throughout the world. It is an expression that is generally known in Britain, and which is used particularly in the British gold-mining regulations where we continually hear of “the winning of gold”. It is quite customary in English. The hon. member also mentioned another thing which he says is very puzzling to him, namely Clause 12 (b). He read it thus:

He may be on holiday, at a place where nobody knows him. In normal circumstances, if he were to die at home, his wife would know the circumstances.

But the whole intention of this clause of course is not that the man should undergo a post mortem examination on the day he dies. The intention is only that when a post mortem examination is conducted and it is found that the man had suffered from pneumoconiosis, even if it is two months or two years after his death, then the finding applies on the date of his death.

The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Taurog) mentioned some matters here that I do not have to go into. The one is the question of tuberculosis, which we have frequently discussed here, in the sense that we believe that tuberculosis is not an industrial disease, but that the miner should receive his R2,000 if he has worked more than 3,000 shifts, in order to enable him to be cured. And once he has been cured, as we can cure the majority, he can once again resume his normal work. And if he is not cured, and if he is permanently disabled, he can go to the board and receive from the board a pension that will bring him up to his previous pension. Therefore he does not lose then. We know of cases where a man has received a pension for tuberculosis for 30 years. He has never had tuberculosis. The hon. member has referred to the placing of people on the surface at the mines and if we withdraw people from the dusty parts of mines, where we place them on the surface. That of course is one of the problems why we cannot certify people too soon. But I should like to say that in the Bill provision is also made to this extent, that there is no automatic control on all kinds of mines simultaneously, but that we can declare one part or another of specific mines as being dusty. In this way we can keep places open in mines where we can place people, places in certain mines that are not dusty and where we can place new workers.

I do not think I need argue too long with the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford). He dealt purely with medical matters and I do not think he expects me as a layman to reply to them. These things will be considered, and I shall in any case not reply to them before I have had a thorough investigation into these matters, made by other medical men. We have had many investigations made by commissions and committees, and the matters the hon. member raises are of such vital concern that I think he will realize that I cannot reply to them now. I think I also said that I do not intend employing a layman, a non-medical man, as Director of the Bureau.

*The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) referred to asbestosis. I can tell the hon. member we feel somewhat concerned about the incidence of that. Asbestosis has been discovered very recently in fact, as a disease not only among asbestos mine workers but among the public living near an asbestos mine, among the people who transport asbestos and work with it. It is a disease which in many respects is more serious than the ordinary pneumoconiosis which is caused by inhaling dusty air, and in its worst form it is a very dangerous disease. I may just say that a good deal has been done to apply dust prevention measures in the mines concerned in the North-East Cape, and that the percentage of asbestosis sufferers has decreased considerably in recent years. But there still are the people outside, the people who are using asbestos gravel for their paths, servants who carry bags across in which there is asbestos dust, people who work in asbestos mills. There is a danger in fact and we are giving attention to preventive measures. In this respect I should like to refer to a clause in the Bill, in which the Minister is authorized to impose a levy on a mining company for the purposes of research. It is proposed that the asbestos mines should also be asked to make a contribution for the special investigation of asbestos.

May I ask whether the mines have been consulted and whether the relevant committee gave their approval?

The asbestos people have been with me and with my Department only a month or two ago, when they fully discussed the Bill and this whole matter of asbestosis, and it is at their request that we are now taking these steps provided for in the Bill, which will provide us with funds to carry out research in asbestosis.

And are they quite happy about the other provisions in the Bill?

I could not tell you that.

Have they made recommendations?

Yes, they have made recommendations and they have been in touch with my Department, and they have put their standpoint, particularly in regard to asbestosis, to my Department.

*The hon. member for Welkom (Dr. Jurgens) raised the matter of a pension scheme. It falls somewhat outside the scope of this Bill, and the fact that the funds are now classified in a different way and that there is a different method of financing the pneumoconiosis benefits, do not impede the possibility of arriving at a pension scheme for mine workers: it makes it still easier. The trade unions are dealing with that, and I can give the hon. member the assurance that we as a Department are also giving our attention to the matter and that we should like to assist in the establishment of a pension scheme for miners.

I see the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) is here now, and I think I should in conclusion refer to his questions and the misgivings he has expressed. I regret that my hon. friend said some of the things he has said. I know he means well, for there are few people who have fought so hard for the interests of the miners as he has. But he has said a few things to which I have to revert, for it is on record and if I do not refute it, the unenlightened may think it is correct. In the first place the hon. member created the impression—I may be wrong—that he would rather not see the Bill passed. I do not think he would thereby be rendering a service to the miners, for I know they are anxious for it to go through. That is why I say I give him the benefit of the doubt. He surely did not mean it that way. But what he did say—and I think the country should be informed, merely as information—is that the best of our people come to the Pneumoconiosis Bureau for their first certificate, and two-thirds of them are rejected. In other words, only one-third are permitted to go to the mines. The hon. member has probably read the report of the Pneumoconiosis Bureau, at page 5 of which the statistics for the last three years are set forth—how many people reported for a first examination and how many were rejected, and according to the figures, 24.1 per cent were rejected last year. That is not even a quarter. The hon. member also said that there is not a single miner who has completed a lifetime in the mines without contracting pneumoconiosis. We tried to collect all the possible statistics in that regard we could lay our hands upon, and the statistics are not quite reliable, but according to the statistics we have, at most one out of every ten miners contracts pneumoconiosis. The hon. member has referred to the inadequate pension.

May I ask a question? Is the hon. Minister able to mention the number of a single miner in the history of the mining industry who began under the age of 25 years and completed his career at 60, and who did not contract pneumoconiosis? Then he replies to my question.

I do not want to quarrel with my good friend here. I am not in a position to give him any numbers, but I can place all the statistics for all the years at his disposal.

He has also compared the pneumoconiosis pension and the railway pension to show that the pneumoconiosis pension compares unfavourably. They are two completely different things. The one is compensation for a disease, and the other is a civil pension. The two cannot be compared, for the pneumoconiosis pension should rather be compared with the pensions under the Workmen’s Compensation Act and then you will find that it compares more favourably. The last thing I wish to mention is that my hon. friend says before we came along with an agreed measure, we should have appointed a commission of inquiry, where all the medical men in the country who know something about pneumoconiosis could have been consulted. I merely want to say it is not necessary. This legislation was drafted after consultation with all the people in the country who know something about pneumoconiosis, and there are some of our people who have achieved world fame, some of the advisers in our Department. But this Act is the result of three other investigations, the Allen Commission, the Beyers Commission and the Oosthuizen Committee, who were all working in the same direction. This Act is merely the completion of what they did. So the hon. member will appreciate that it was not necessary for us to appoint a commission again.

I have now, I think settled accounts with my good friend for the sake of the record, and I have replied to the most important points that have been raised, and I thank hon. members once again for the good spirit of the debate.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

I do so because it is our feeling that this question was not properly understood between ourselves and the Government when the second reading was discussed, and because it is a matter of vital importance to the success or otherwise of the measure before us. We feel on this side of the House that it is essential, as the Minister himself has stated, that we should have as clean a Voters’ Roll as possible when we have an election, and that the roll for any particular constituency should represent as nearly as possible the people who actually reside in that constituency, because that is our system of government and of democracy. It is our parliamentary system in South Africa, the system of the single-member constituency, where a Member of Parliament represents a fixed number of people who are confined within one constituency. As long as we accept that as the basis of our parliamentary representation, then, as the Minister himself has stated, it should be our objective to have as clean as possible a Voters’ Roll, reflecting as nearly as possible the people who are the actual registered voters in each constituency. In order to achieve that, with the growing number of people who move daily, weekly and monthly throughout South Africa, it is essential that there should be, as early as possible, an amendment of the Voters’ Roll to correspond with the movement of a person. When anybody moves out of a constituency, if we are to maintain a clean Voters’ Roll, it is necessary that that movement should be reflected as soon as possible on that Voters’ Roll; and because people are notoriously lazy, or because of specific electoral intention on the part of political parties and because there is no provision for that movement to be recorded, if the person so desires he can remain registered for five years after a general registration. The objection which we have heard—and that is why I feel it is wise for us to discuss it now—is that to make change of address compulsory you must thereby introduce contingent evils and problems which are even greater than the problem we are trying to solve; in other words, that you must re-introduce an objection system. Sir, we believe that is not necessary. We believe that we can have a compulsory change of address provision, which, by not altering the powers and the authority of the electoral officer, does not at the same time re-introduce the objection system, in that people cannot be removed from the roll. You merely place an obligation on the voter to notify his change of address. Now, I do not want to labour the point, but taking the figures at the supplementary registration after the last general election, we find that nearly 38,000 people reregistered on the supplementary roll in that period of four months. That is over 2 per cent of the total electorate. But within some constituencies the percentage of moves per month is almost unbelievable. In my own constituency we have buildings where we have had, out of 120 registered voters, 80 moves in one month. Particularly in the new modern blocks of flats with high rentals where people take a flat because they have little other option, and then find the rental is too high for them and then seek something cheaper, you find an almost continual flow of voters. And the same applies throughout South Africa. Flat-land is the particular curse of Voters’ Roll activity, because of this tremendous movement of people. We have found that already in South Africa there are 55 constituencies throughout the Republic, which to-day have a greater number of voters than their quota plus their maximum load. There are 54 constituencies which have fewer voters than their quota, under present circumstances, minus the minimum load. Now those are movements which have been recorded, but the unrecorded movements tend to make those figures inaccurate because you will find on studying these—and I do not intend going into detail on it—that it is clear that in many cases there are movements in or out which have not been recorded on the Voters’ Roll for political reasons. So you have two reasons, one the laziness of the voter and the second the desire to maintain your supporters in one area, contributing to an inaccurate Voters’ Roll. This leads, in turn, to an excessive number of postal votes. We find that in a constituency such as Queenstown over 30 per cent of the electorate voted by post in the last election. Over 3,400 postal votes were issued in one constituency.

Prior to introducing the voluntary change of address system, it was a very unusual thing to have more than about 1,500 postal votes in a constituency. I remember in 1953 the highest in the whole country was under 2,000. In those days it was necessary for people to notify their change of address, but since the removal of that compulsion in 1952, just the year before that election, and therefore not really affecting the Voters’ Roll at that time, the number of postal votes, has grown year after year. A great percentage of that growth is not only due to improved organization, but is due to the fact that people have not registered their change of address. Therefore we ask that this be made a matter for competent consideration by the Committee, so that one of the two serious weaknesses in our electoral system can be considered by the House in Committee. I trust that the hon. the Minister will give attention to this plea in the interest of gaining the very objective which he himself sets out to achieve through this measure, namely to have a clean Voters’ Roll. I move.

I second.

I rise to reply immediately and to state my party’s attitude in respect of the question of change of address. Past experience in regard to the change of address has not been very happy and I am afraid that even the slightly amended system suggested by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) will not improve it very much. The experience of all political parties has been, firstly, that the parties succeed in having each other’s voters removed from the roll on a large scale. People were taken off the roll for the most insignificant reasons; they were removed from the roll because they were not resident at their address at that time and because they were away on holiday at the time. Under the old system thousands of people ran the risk of being prosecuted because they had failed to register under their new address. What I find important in an electoral Act is the large-scale disfranchisement which takes place as a result of such a system in that a person who is travelling is left off the roll unbeknown to him, or he may know about it, but does not have the opportunity of registering himself again with the result that he is disfranchised.

I think I should just state the legal position briefly for the sake of the record because I do not think it will be so difficult to handle the position in terms of the present legislation. According to Section 30 of the Electoral Act a voter must—and I emphasise the word must—reply to an inquiry from the electoral officer within ten days, if an inquiry is made, inter alia, about his place of residence. If he neglects to do so he can be fined R50 or sentenced to three months imprisonment at the most, according to Sections 32 (1) (a) and 32 (1) (i). In terms of Section 16 a voter can notify his change of address two months after having so changed it. He may do it; it is not as though he must do it. The hon. member wants it to be compulsory. The notice will then be regarded as an application to be registered in the new constituency. But in terms of Section 18 (1) (d) an electoral officer must, if he is convinced of the fact, amend the voters’ roll by transferring the voter to the constituency to which he has moved. There rests an obligation on the electoral officer—and this is very important—to do so. He has no option. All that is required of the voter is that he must supply him with his new address and then he must send out the notice in terms of Section 30. It lies within his discretion, of course, to send out the notice, but it is necessary for him to have this disrection so that he can stipulate his requirements which will enable him to judge whether he is really dealing with a bona fide case. If he is supplied with the new address there is no reason for him to refuse to send out the notice. I am mentioning these points so that we can realize that we cannot forget this aspect of the change of address completely; that we should not just let them accumulate so that the records show that voters who have moved a long time ago are still living at that address. Although no obligation rests on any person, the electoral officer is obliged to do certain things provided he has been notified of it. As in the past a political party can inform the electoral officer that this or that person who was registered at such and such an address is no longer living there and in that case the electoral officer must send the usual notice to that voter. However, I agree with the hon. member for Durban (Point) in regard to the point he made and the figures he quoted that the position in regard to postal votes has almost got out of hand completely. There is a growing tendency in that respect. On the one hand it may perhaps be attributed to better organization on the part of both parties, but on the other hand it is disturbing to see how the numbers are increasing because I do not think that any party has a more expensive item to deal with than the canvassing of postal votes. As I see the position it would appear that there is a wrong approach to our Electoral Act. The ordinary voter who does not vote by post has only one option and that is to see to it that he is at the polling booth on election day. But you have to run after the absent voter, get him to complete a form and visit him a second time and if he does not feel too well and refuses to allow people to enter his home, you have to go a third and fourth time. As far as the absent voter is concerned, therefore, we are taking much more trouble in our Electoral Act than we do in the case of the voter who is on the spot and who votes at the polling station. Because I regard this question of the change of address and the cleaning up of the voters’ rolls as closely related to the postal vote system, I have had the opportunity, because this notice has been submitted to me a long time ago, of considering it and I have decided to include in broad terms this whole matter in the terms of reference of the commission of inquiry into the postal vote system. I feel that only something good can come of it. The commission can investigate the position and ascertain in what way, apart from what is already provided for in the new Bill, namely mechanization and a new system of general registration, the voters’ rolls can be cleaned up more often and what can be done to make them available sooner. The commission should also inquire into this matter if it will assist in not keeping people registered unnecessarily in a certain constituency, who should otherwise be registered at their right address. I undertake, therefore—and I hope this will give the necessary satisfaction—to instruct the commission to go into this matter as well so that the commission will not only concentrate on the question of change of address but will be able to suggest ways and means of reducing the number of voters on the voters’ rolls who have already left, something which will give us a cleaner voters’ roll. I think both parties are of the opinion that the voters’ rolls should be as up to date and reliable as possible. We do not want to disfranchise anybody; we want to ensure that the name of every person who is entitled to be registered should appear on the voters’ roll so that he can exercise his vote. I hope that will give the necessary satisfaction.

With leave of the House, the motion proposed by Mr. Raw was withdrawn.

I move—

over.

Agreed to.

On Clause 3,

I rise to move the amendment standing in my name—

The effect of the amendment will be to leave untouched the position of those who have been convicted of treason since 1931; in other words, they will not be able to register as voters. In approaching this question I do urge the other side of the House to consider what in fact the crime of high treason is. It has been defined as being committed by those who “with hostile intention disturb, impair or injure the independence or safety of the State or attempt or actively prepare to do so”. This offence has been singled out, along with the crime of murder and rape, in extreme circumstances, as justifying the death penalty. Treason and murder alone have always been regarded in our Electoral Laws as standing in a special position. The hon. the Minister, in giving the reasons of his side for their attitude towards this clause said—I may be wrong but I think that it amounted to this—that while there may be a difference of opinion between us one should let bygones be bygones and that there were six people involved here. Sir, I gladly approach this matter in the spirit that we should let bygones be bygones, that one should at all times be guided and encouraged by the adage that courtesy is infectious and that likewise tolerance is infectious. Approaching this particular clause in the best possible spirit, I think one has to consider very carefully the question of tampering with a matter of this kind particularly at this time. Should this House do anything at this time to minimize in the public mind the seriousness of the crime of treason? Does this House wish to do that, more particularly at a time when we have been concerned with much more legislation involving the safety of the State? It has been urged that these deeds were done many years ago. I am not concerned with the particular deeds, whatever they were. I think we should concern ourselves with the principle of it and bear in mind that doubtless from time to time in the future other people will be convicted of treason. Should one reduce the seriousness of it in any way, more particularly at this time? A person who is convicted of murder will obviously have no further voting rights if he is sentenced to death. On the other hand, should he go to prison, he will come out in due course, but the law-giver, this House, has never seen fit to give him back his voting rights after a certain period out of prison. A similar position exists in regard to those convicted and sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine. They may have been convicted and sentenced without the option of a fine for a period of a year or two, but as far as the Electoral Laws are concerned, the penalty persists well after that time—indeed I think for a period of three years after their sentence has run. Consequently, although one can appreciate that it is a serious thing to be and to remain disenfranchised, if one bears in mind that people who have been convicted of this offence will have been tried by a court of law and that they will have been found guilty of the crime of subverting the State and of endangering its independence and safety, we on this side of the House, while understanding the motives that impel hon. members opposite to come forward with this amendment, feel that we should leave well enough alone.

I am sorry that the hon. member has made that plea this afternoon. The war has been over for 17 years and there are members on that side of the House who did not approve of the war policy and there are members on this side of the House who did approve of the war policy; and where we are entering a new era in our history, where there are signs everywhere of a new spirit amongst our people, I think we should try to forget what happened during the time when we differed from one another and when there were disputes. I am not here to condone the acts which were committed; as a matter of fact I do not know acts were committed. I believe this clause affects six people. Although these people were found guilty of high treason during the war years I do not think they committed high treason in the sense in which the term is usually understood in legal language. There is no proof that these people desired in their heart of hearts to benefit the enemy; it was not proved that they were remunerated for the deeds they had committed. They may have been stupid but I want to make this appeal to hon. members that, where we are trying to engender a new spirit of unity in this country, not to press their plea in view of the fact that only a few people are concerned. Seeing that we want to forget the dissension and differences of the past I make this serious appeal to hon. members opposite.

This side of the House feels that this is not a matter which should form the basis of an acrimonious debate. The amendment contained in this clause has opened old wounds on which there are deep feelings on both sides of the House, and it seems to us that little good purpose can be served by scratching these wounds open wider. They are opened by this measure, but we will simply record our objection in principle and vote against this clause.

I move the amendment as printed in my name—

The object of this amendment which I have moved is to ensure that a great many voters will not be disfranchised as a result of the new system of registration, people who at the time of the election will not have had the opportunity of having their names placed on the voters’ roll. In terms of the new procedure to be followed all names will disappear from the voters’ roll; the name of every voter in the country will be taken off the voters’ roll and a brand new voters’ roll will be compiled, a voter’s roll which will only contain the names of persons who have completed a new registration form. The system under which that registration will take place has not as yet been tested; it is a new system and all we know about it is that the officials who have to carry it out hope and expect that they will be able to visit all the people in the country within a period of one month and that there will be a complete registration. But the registration system has not as yet been tested. We do not know whether we will have a sufficient number of officials; we do not know how many names will appear on that roll and how many will be omitted from it. It is necessary, therefore, to ensure that persons who, as a result of this system or who as a result of their absence either because of illness or any other reason, cannot complete their forms at a general registration, will have the opportunity of registering before an election. If this amendment is accepted it will mean that the existing voters’ roll will remain in operation until such time and after the first supplementary registration after a general registration has taken place. In other words, those persons whose names appeared on the old roll and whose names do not appear on the roll with the new general registration, will still have the opportunity of registering when the first supplementary registration takes place and that will ensure that the number of voters who will be disfranchised will be less. In practice it will mean that there will not be an election before the voters’ roll in respect of the first supplementary registration is in operation. Because no Government will hold an election on the strength of the old roll while a new general registration has already taken place. In practice, therefore, this amendment will ensure that an election will only be held after the first supplementary registration after a general registration has taken place.

I do not think it is necessary to assure this Committee that no government, and certainly not this Government, would ever hold a general election if the Government is not sure that there has been a full registration. What the hon. member asked for in his amendment has always been the practice. In other words, after a general registration we always have a supplementary registration, and since that is the practice I am prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw). I do not think it is really necessary but I am prepared to accept it. I also want to make this further point that if it appears in the future that general registrations are more effective than has been the case in the past, then of course it will be necessary in future to amend this section again, but while we are not sure how our new mechanization system, our new registration system, is going to work, I am quite prepared to accept this amendment.

I move this amendment standing in my name—

My reason for moving this amendment is to try to enshrine in this Act what I believe was intended in the Acts which went before it—for example, in the Separate Representation of Voters Act, where the rights of people in Natal were enshrined, especially the rights for the Coloureds and in certain cases the rights of Bantu who in Natal only had been accepted on these voters’ rolls. I am not worried, as I told the Minister on a previous occasion, about those people who already appear on the non-European section of the voters’ roll in Natal. I accept that those people are well provided for and that their rights will not fall away, but I am concerned with those people who for some reason or other, which we can go into a little later, might be classified or reclassified as Coloured people or who for some other reason appear on the existing rolls in the sections set aside for Europeans. In his second reading speech the hon. the Minister said that he was not prepared to worry about those cases; he regarded them just as hard-luck cases, but I hope to show the hon. the Minister as we go on that there is a little more to it than just being hard-luck cases. I believe that the number of people, for example, whom he is going to deprive of the vote is going to be far greater than the hon. the Minister thinks. It is not just a case of the odd hard-luck story or of the odd person who is going to lose his vote. I would like also to show the Minister later that the type of person he is going to disenfranchise here is probably the cream of the Coloured voters. Those are the people who with the passage of time have been transferred from the Coloured roll or who for many years before the Population Registration Act or Acts of that nature were included in the lists along with the Europeans.

When the business of the House was suspended, I was dealing with the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper. Sir, the position is this: On the Voters Roll in Natal there are two sections, it is divided into two sections, the one section contains Coloureds—and I have indicated to the hon. the Minister that I am not worried about their rights—but the other portion of the roll, I believe, contains a mixture of people, it contains Europeans and non-Europeans whose names are mixed together. Now these non-Europeans have come onto this part of the list by various means, some of them because they have always been there, some because they came there before the days of the Population Register, because they were accepted and were put onto the roll, and the hon. the Minister knows that it is not the job of an enumerator at times of census or in a general registration to check and classify the race of the voters he is registering. Where people have lived in European areas and where they perhaps have been accepted as Europeans, it is obvious that he would accept them and register them as Europeans. In addition to which many of them do not know that they have to fill in a separate card and make a separate application. Sir, there is one more point I would like to make in this regard and that is that at the time of the referendum a number of these people who were classified as Coloureds were removed from the roll entirely, and I question the hon. the Minister’s right to do that. I believe these people should never have been removed, because when the Separate Representation of Voters Act was introduced in 1951, Section 13 was there to provide for these very people, and I believe it was there to provide that, whether they were on the Coloured section of the roll or the European section of the roll—I don’t believe it made any difference, they were on the roll. I think the spirit of the Act is exemplified in this Section 13, which says—

Then it goes on in sub-section (2)—

It is my contention that he has not ceased to be qualified to be on the voters list because his classification has been changed. He qualified before possibly as a European; he still qualifies as a non-European, but he has at no time ceased to be qualified, because he was on the roll at the time of this Act. I am not talking about people who came on the roll after the Act was promulgated, but it is my contention, Sir, that if at the time that Act was promulgated his name was on the roll, I must question the hon. the Minister’s right to remove such a person entirely. But assuming that I am wrong, and I don’t think I am, what is the Minister actually doing to these people under this clause in this Bill? If they qualified as Coloured voters before, but their names for some reason or other were included in the section reserved for the names of Whites, if they fail to qualify under the White classification at the moment, they are being removed entirely from the roll, and it is my contention that that should not happen and that they should be then moved from the White section of the roll to the Coloured section of the roll. Those people are definitely being disenfranchised, and I want to put it to this hon. Minister, first of all that I question his right to remove these names entirely, and secondly, that he should very seriously consider accepting this amendment because it provides for these people who have qualified and probably have always qualified for inclusion on the Natal roll, who because they now fail to qualify for inclusion under the European section, are being removed entirely. I would ask the Minister not to do them that injustice but to move them from the White section to the Coloured section so that they don’t lose the right they have held for many, many years.

I think to get to the core of this whole problem, we must understand very clearly what the hon. member really aims at with his amendment as moved now. To me it seems that the hon. member wants a person who is registered on the White voters roll as a White voter and who now in terms with the population Registration Act is classified as Coloured, to have the right as a Coloured voter to be registered on that same roll.

On the Coloured section.

On the Coloured section of the Natal Voters’ Roll. That is the problem he poses. My point is this, and I want to make it very clear, that when these persons originally applied for registration as voters, they must have stated that they were Whites, or else they could not have come into the White Voters’ Roll. The test for a “White person” under the Electoral Act is much more severe than under the Population Registration Act. I think the hon. member appreciates that too. The reason is that descent also plays a part in registering these people as “Whites”. If therefore they are classified under the Population Registration Act as Coloureds it is quite clear that they could so much the less claim to be accepted as Whites for the purposes of the Electoral Act. They are registered as White voters as a result of incorrect information furnished by themselves, and I feel that they cannot now come to us and claim protection now that the truth has come to light. For those reasons it is impossible for me in the first place to accede to the request and to subscribe to all the arguments raised by the hon. member. The hon. member questions my right to remove these people. The only way to question that is to go to the court. I say that I have the right under the existing Act to do so.

I did not intend to come into this, but I do want to make a point here. The hon. Minister says that in refusing the amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) he relies on the fact that those people who were on the White section of the Roll and are now under the Population Registration Act classified as Coloureds got themselves off the White section because of their own statement, which in fact has proved to be erroneous in terms of the Population Register and/or the Electoral Act. I hope the hon. the Minister is not going to make that a ground. I want to remind the hon. the Minister that up to 1910 and for many years so far as Natal is concerned, on the registration of the birth of a child the child took the race of the father. The Minister can inquire into this. It was not a question of Whites or non-Whites in those days, but “European”. The child of a European father was classified as a European and that is how he was registered on his birth certificate. The result was that the people in Natal, whom in those days we called half-castes, that is to say the father was a White person, as we would say to-day, an immigrant from one of the Western countries, and the mother was a full-blooded member of the Bantu race, when the father registered that birth, he registered the child as “European” because that was his status and that was the law. For many years after Union the same procedure remained and those birth certificates and the old records still show that. Now, Sir, it is a big group of those people who went on to the European roll, and that is the way that they got there. There was no misrepresentation on their part. There are still some of those people who today come to us, the members who represent them from Natal, and who say: But look, here was our status fixed for us once and for all at the time of our birth, here is a copy of our birth certificate, why now are we classed as “Coloureds”? “We were at the time of our birth registered as ‘Europeans ’ and that has been our status all along.” I do not want the hon. the Minister to have a feeling that this is Nemesis catching up with people who have made a wrongful statement, or are guilty of a wrongful declaration for the purpose of getting themselves on the White roll. That is not the position with regard to these people. I want the hon. the Minister to accept my assurance for it. This situation has grown out of history, and where now it has come to the point of the basis of “White ’ and “non-White” this issue is being determined by a set of laws which were not at that time in existence, and these people have been caught in the toils, and they must necessarily accept the position. But to say to them, where there has been no mens rea at all: You had the franchise and you may have exercised it in election after election, but now because of the law, you are taken off the Voters’ Roll! In the Cape there would not be this difficulty, they would simply go to the other roll, but because of the special provision in the Separate Representation of Voters Act, and because they happen to be in Natal they now are told: You go off the White roll, and then you get no franchise whatever, not even the franchise that is going to be given to the Bantu in their own homelands where they have their franchise. The Minister will now be creating a group of people without any franchise at all. And please do not hold it against them that they are merely suffering because of their own wrongdoing in that they themselves were responsible for making a false declaration in the first place. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that is not the case.

I accept that, but that does not give us a solution for this problem. What is your solution? These people who are classified as Coloureds now does the hon. member want them to be kept on the White Voters’ Roll only as a result of the history that he has outlined to us?

The hon. Minister put our intention quite correctly when he first stood up to reply to the hon. member for Umlazi, which is that as the law stands we are satisfied that they are Coloured people for the purposes of our law. That being so, they must leave that section of the roll which is the White section. We have still only got one roll in Natal. They must leave that section which is the White section, but we say: “Do not let the provisions of the Separate Representation of Voters Act stand in the way which now debars them from registration on the Coloured section.”

But that cannot be done here. You would have to do that under the Separate Representation of Voters’ Act.

My point is that the hon. the Minister is doing it in regard to this one section of Coloured people.

You cannot put these people on to the roll. That falls under the other Act.

But they are on the roll. I hope the hon. the Minister is not going to allow that to stand in his way. We were told the other day, and we accept that, that we are a sovereign Parliament, and we were told that when we pass legislation which is in conflict with an earlier Act, to whatever extent, it is the later position which prevails. But what is the hon. the Minister doing now in Clause 4 of the Bill in front of us? In the Bill in front of us the Minister says: The Separate Representation of Voters Act stands in the way of Coloured people on the present roll in Natal who may be (may I put it that way) temporarily on no roll at all, because South Africa is going to create a new roll in terms of this Bill, a completely new roll; there will be no automatic movement from an old roll to a new roll but because there are Coloured people on the Coloured section of the roll in Natal and the Separate Representation of Voters Act stands in their way of moving across and registering on the new roll to be created here, the Minister puts a clause in, Clause 4 protecting them, giving them rights …

Those who were on the Coloured roll. They are protected.

Yes, you protect their rights to the extent that whereas the Separate Representation of Voters Act debars them from registering on this new roll, the Minister in this Bill says that he is going to allow them to register. That principle has been accepted and therefore it is no new principle for the Minister to say: Here is the White roll, there is the Coloured roll in Natal at the present time; let those who were on the White roll and are Coloured and those who were on the Coloured roll and are Coloured be grouped together on the new Coloured roll in Natal, because both of them have enjoyed franchise rights for long, long years in some instances. Then nobody loses his right of franchise merely because you are creating a new roll. Let them retain the franchise they have enjoyed, but do not take a section who have enjoyed the franchise as White people and say to them that they shall not even now have the franchise as non-Europeans. I do appeal to the hon. the Minister to see the position in that light, because otherwise I am afraid he will be doing a grave injustice to this section of the Coloured people who heretofore have been treated as Whites and enjoyed the franchise as White people.

Bearing in mind what the hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has said, I would like to remind the hon. the Minister that the Population Registration Act was the first indication of sorting these people out, and that was in 1950. In 1951 followed the Separate Representation of Voters Act. When that was brought in, obviously no provision was put in to protect these particular people. But I believe that the spirit of that clause, and the letter of it was to protect the existing rights of those Coloured people who were then on the roll. That is the point. That is what the Separate Representation of Voters Act of 1951 intended to do, and the Minister has indicated his willingness to bring that forward here because he has incorporated sub-section (2) in Clause 4 of this Bill. But I believe something is missing. At the moment if a person’s name appears on the Coloured section of the roll, he has the franchise. And let me remind the hon. the Minister that the roll is printed in the same book, it is just on the back pages, where they are treated just the same as a separate polling district, but they vote in the same polling booth for the same candidates and there is no distinction except the printing in the roll. At the moment all those people appear on the roll. Let us take the case of a Coloured who is at present on the roll as a Coloured and who applies for reclassification. The Minister has no difficulty in transferring his name from the Coloured list to the White list. That happens automatically. If he qualified as a White voter, then he enjoys his franchise just the same. But when the process is reversed, he loses his existing rights altogether. But I would like to remind the hon. the Minister that there is another type of a voter that he must think about too, and I mentioned this to him before, and that is the person who is on the White section of the roll now, who qualified for it under the then existing definition under the Population Register, and although the hon. the Minister promised us at the second reading of this latest amendment of the definition of “a White person” that he would not conduct a witch hunt, the hon. the Minister must realize that there are many people of the White section on the roll in Natal now, who if, this hon. Minister disappeared from the scene and somebody took over his portfolio who had not given any undertaking, could be reclassified under the new definition of the Population Registration Act and would then lose their vote. We saw this before the referendum where people who had no right as Coloureds to vote at the referendum (I accept that) were sought out in the roll and removed from the roll entirely, and those people have not been restored. I believe they should be restored. I don’t think the hon. the Minister had the right to remove them because if they did not qualify as Europeans they have not ceased to qualify as Coloureds. So they never ceased to qualify to be included in this roll in one section or the other, but they have been removed, and this process is going to go on, and a lot of the Coloured people whose rights were protected under the Separate Representation of Voters Act, and again here partially, are going to be or have been disenfranchised. I don’t think that was ever the intention of either the Separate Representation of Voters Act, nor do I believe that it is the hon. Minister’s intention now. But because this sub-section is incomplete and does not make the position clear, just as the clause in the 1951 Act was incomplete, because I don’t think we had realized then the impact that the Population Registration Act was going to have on these people in relation to their position on the Voters’ Roll, these people are not protected. So I would ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider this. It is not just as simple, as I have said before, of consisting of a few hard luck cases and a few odd cases. I believe a lot of people have been disenfranchised already, whose names should never have been taken off this roll, and I believe this could give them the opportunity of going back onto the Coloured section of the roll, not the White section, and to enjoy the rights that the Separate Representation of Voters Act intended they should enjoy.

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has painted a picture of the position with which I cannot quite agree. We are dealing with the Electoral Act. What we are doing in Clause 4 is to lay down precisely how the registration has to take place, who may be registered, how long it should take, etc. Then you come to (4) (2), from which it is very clear that special protection is given in the case of a general registration when the roll is brought up to date—

We realize that if we take their names off the Natal roll it may be difficult to get in touch with those Bantu and non-Whites in order to re-register them because you do not know where to find all of them, with the result that they will be disfranchised.

Not the Bantu.

Yes, the Bantu and the non-Whites. There are also Bantu on the roll. The only thing this clause does is to afford protection. I now repeat what I said across the floor of the House to the hon. member for South Coast: We are not discussing the Separate Representation of Voters’ Act of 1951 at the moment. That Act lays down who should be placed on the separate roll, and, as far as Natal is concerned, the roll in respect of non-Whites is frozen in that Act. That Act is not under discussion at the moment. We cannot defreeze it to-day and say that other non-Whites in Natal can come on to the list. We cannot do that under this Bill. Honestly, Mr. Chairman, as I see the position this amendment of the hon. member is completely out of order—I do not want to give any ruling which is your right to do. I do not think in the least that this amendment fits into the Electoral Act, because it has nothing to do with it. We will not take the non-Whites in Natal off the roll with a general registration. They will all disappear as death overtakes them and they are no longer there. The roll for Natal is frozen in the Separate Representation of Voters’ Act, and if it has to be amended to the effect that those who had appeared on the White voters’ roll and who have now been declared to be non-Whites and removed from the roll and disfranchised, must be restored as voters, there is only one hope of getting them on to the voters’ roll, and that is to amend the Separate Representation of Voters’ Act of 1951. That is how I see the position.

May I refer the hon. the Minister to Section 13 (1) of the Separate Representation of Voters’ Act, which reads—

On the separate list.

No, that is the point; it does not state “on a separate list”. It says “any non-White or Native who is registered as a voter in Natal”. It does not specify a voter on the White section of the common roll or the Coloured section of the common roll. I was the person who moved in Select Committee, because this clause was a clause added by the Select Committee (it was not in the original Bill) for the protection of these people, and I believe that my colleagues were as convinced as I was that the amendment was achieving the result of protecting persons entitled to registration on the voters’ roll in Natal. It was only after the hon. the Minister and other speakers had queried the point during the second reading debate that this matter came up, when we asked, not for an amendment, but merely for confirmation of what we believed to be the fact. Then we realized that an amendment was necessary in order to put what, to us, was already clear cut, beyond doubt. According to the Separate Representation of Voters’ Act, to which this Bill refers in Clause 4 (2), the position seems to us to be quite clear. Clause 4 (2) states—

The whole object of the inclusion of that clause into this amending Bill was to ensure that persons, whose rights were guaranteed by this Parliament, should not as a result of interpretation differences be robbed of a right which Parliament gave them.

Surely the Legislature could not have had in mind if there was a person registered as a White person who later on became a Coloured person that that person should not be registered on the roll.

But that is the whole point. There are hundreds of these people who quite genuinely and honestly were registered as White persons. I have canvassed many of them myself. I have got them in my constituency, as every Natal member has got them in his constituency, and when you go to them and say “Are you a White person?” they say “Yes, all my friends are White and I have been a White voter since 1910, or 1920 or 1930”.

But then they are accepted as White persons.

Yes, that is their interpretation, they say my friends are White, I have been a White voter since 1910 or 1930 and year after year, registration after registration change of address after change of address, they have genuinely and honestly completed an R.V.I. in the belief that they were entitled to do so, (a) because they always believed it, and (b) because their parents before them used to fill in the same card and were registered on the same voters’ roll.

As long as they are classified as Whites. …

But now we are bringing in a new law, a different law, a law not connected with the Electoral Act, a law dealing with the classification of people, and we say: Because another law classifies you as a non-White person, a right which you have enjoyed for 50 years or 40 or 30 years, is now to be taken from you. Those people did not deliberately and maliciously sign a false declaration. They signed a declaration in all honesty, believing that they were White. Now we pass another law, and because of another law, we are now going to do violence to the intention of this Parliament, when it passed the Separate Representation of Voters Act to preserve the rights of Coloureds in Natal. This House was given an assurance by the late Prime Minister and by the Minister who introduced the Bill that the Coloured voters of Natal would not lose their voting rights.

Correct.

Now let us take the converse: If a person were registered as a Coloured in Natal, had filled in a Coloured application form and was on the Coloured section of the voters’ roll, and subsequently in terms of the Population Registration Act, found that he in fact was a White person and not a Coloured and had been classified as a White person, would that person have been entitled to register as a White voter?

We are not discussing that principle now. The question is how far are we to amend this law.

Mr. Chairman, I am saying that the Minister has included a provision here which is not clear, and I am asking him to accept an addendum to that provision which clarifies the intention of sub-section (2) of Clause 4 of the Bill. Because if the opposite applies, if a Coloured person was found to be a White person and was issued with a White card, that person would be entitled to register as a White voter. If that person had been classified as a Coloured the day before the Separate Representation of Voters Act was promulgated, that person would have been a Coloured voter and the Act simply lays down that he could register as a voter in Natal, not in the White section or in the Coloured section. All we are asking is that the Minister should not in his amending Bill do violence to the sincere intention (I believe) of the Government that existing voters would in no case lose their right. You might as well say that women on the women’s section on the voters’ roll are different to men in the same voters’ roll. This Act simply says “voters on the voters roll in Natal”, not “male voters” or “female voters”, or “Coloured voters”, but simply “voters”. Those people were entitled to register as voters. The electoral officer accepted their right to register as voters. He accepted their cards, in many cases he interviewed them and accepted them as Whites, and then, in terms of a subsequent law, they were reclassified as Coloureds. Thereby the declared pledge given by this Parliament and by this Government to protect the rights of those people is being violated—unintentionally I believe. All we ask is that the position be clarified by putting beyond doubt the fact that we are not, by this amendment, going to take away a man’s right to register as a voter—a right which he enjoyed in the past and which, we ask, he should continue to enjoy. How many are affected? Only, I think, from 100 to 200 people, and if you want to play politics with it, it will not make that much difference. There are about 80 Coloured voters in Newcastle—at least there were; I do not know how many there are now; and there were about 50 in Vryheid. The rest are all in the central area of Durban. It has no political significance whatsoever, but is a question of justice and fairness to people who are, unwittingly, being deprived of a right which is valuable to them. I hope the hon. the Minister will regard the matter in this light.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to dispute the contentions of the United Party in this matter and wish to do so on quite a number of grounds. The case now being put to the Committee, is that the United Party is trying to obtain objective justice for a small section of voters. In the first place, if that is the intention, why then did members of the United Party fail to raise it in the Select Committee? Furthermore, why is the amendment which has been moved and which is now under discussion framed in such a way that it does not reflect the case the United Party is trying to put? The case of the United Party is now being reduced to this, namely that they say that in 1951, with the Separate Representation of Voters Act, there were certain persons who, if they had elected to be registered as Coloured voters, would have been eligible for registration and would have been registered. Furthermore, their right to vote would have been secured by Section 13 of the said Act, but by virtue of the fortuitous circumstance that they regarded themselves as Whites at that time, they were not registered on the Coloured voters roll and their rights were, in consequence, not entrenched. If that is the case—and it is in fact—then the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Umlazi should have limited the protection which he seeks, to people who were registered on the Natal voters roll in 1951. He has not introduced this date of limitation which clearly indicates that the United Party did not consider this aspect fully when they drew up the amendment. This was an argument which was developed subsequently. Their amendment does not reflect the arguments which they advance in support of it. I now come to my second and more important point on which I should like to dispute the contentions of hon. members opposite. In 1951 special protection was given to the then registered Coloured voters. People who failed to register themselves as Coloureds or who purposely elected to register themselves as Whites, were not protected by that Act. Is it not reasonable, therefore, that some sanction should follow upon their failure to register as a Coloured voter at that time if indeed the particular voter was a Coloured and not a White person. Is it not fair that a person who wrongly elects to register himself as a White voter and not as a Coloured …

Unwittingly!

Let me then say who correctly registered himself as a White and not as a Coloured voter. Is it not right that he should forfeit the special protection granted to Coloured voters? The last point I want to mention is the possible number of voters involved. Mention has been made of a few hundred, but I am quite sure that those figures are grossly inflated. The standard under the Electoral Act was clearly one of descent. If a person is White by descent he cannot be reclassified as non-White unless both his present associations and his appearance are dead against him. It is a logical impossibility that a person who was White by virtue of the definition of the Electoral Act and the subsequent Supreme Court decisions on that point, can to-day be reclassified as a Coloured person. If, however, such an exceptional case should occur, it could only affect possibly one or two individuals. In the circumtances, it is clearly a hypothetical case which is being argued here. In any event, the amendment proposed is not an amendment in conformity with the arguments advanced by the hon. members for Umbilo and for Umlazi.

Let me say at once that the particular form of the amendment which has been proposed, is a matter which can be considered. If the legal form in which this amendment is couched, is not the correct legal form, then that is a matter which could easily be put right. I should like to remind the hon. the Minister, however, that he was not at that time, i.e. at the time the Separate Representation of Voters’ Act was passed, a member of Parliament. Therefore, I should like to inform him of the circumstances under which this section which is now under dispute came to be inserted in that Act. Let us go back to the position which obtained at the time of Union. It was then provided that a person who was qualified to vote as a voter in the provinces before amalgamating into Union, would continue to enjoy those franchise rights under Union. The franchise provisions which existed in the different provinces, differed from province to province. Now, provision was made in the original Separate Representation of Voters Act—which was at first declared to be unconstitutional but later validated—that the Coloureds would be removed from the common roll and placed on a separate roll. Provision was made for their representation in the Cape Provincial Council and in this House. In the initial stages, however, it appeared to have been completely overlooked that there were persons who were still on the voters rolls in Natal for whom no provision was made in the Act, as originally drafted, for representation. This then became a matter which troubled a considerable number of members and if the hon. the Minister goes into the history of it, he will find that it also troubled Dr. Malan and Mr. Havenga who were both members of this House at the time. After discussing the matter, a protecting provision was included in the Separate Registration of Voters Act. The reason why such a protecting provision was included was this: The argument was advanced at that time that so far as the Coloureds of the Cape were concerned, they were being given another form of representation. It was recognized that in respect of Natal, however, there was no suggestion of another form of representation for those Coloured persons who might be removed from the roll.

I think it is abundantly clear that Coloured persons were entitled to registration subject to certain qualifications, but the placing of the different colour groups on separate rolls and providing separate voting facilities for them, was, in general, purely a matter of convenience and, I believe, was so in this case. Here we have persons whose right to be on the Voters’ Roll, were specifically protected by the party of the hon. the Minister and by the Government drawn from that party. What is being asked now is that the rights which were protected at that time should continue to be respected. The hon. the Minister, however, says that these persons are on the White roll but that he does not regard them as Whites and that they, therefore, should not be there at all in terms of the Population Registration Act. But that is not the issue here. The first issue which is to be decided, Mr. Chairman, is the question as to whether these persons are persons whose right to be registered as voters is protected and if that right is protected—and it was protected after long consideration by the hon. the Minister’s Party—then I say they are still entitled to have those rights respected in this Bill. That is the simple point at issue. The particular form of the amendment is a matter on which the hon. the Minister can consult his legal advisers in order to determine the best form it should take. I am not seeking to argue for the present amendment although I believe it will achieve our purpose. That, however, is a matter which can quite easily be gone into by the hon. the Minister. I should like to put it squarely to the hon. the Minister, however, that these are persons whose rights to representation were respected by his party because they would have had no other form of representation whatsoever after having been removed from the Common Roll. I say, therefore, that, in the light of this, it is the bounden duty of the hon. the Minister and his party to see that the word of honour given to these persons at that time is honoured—even if they were wrongly registered and even if they were registered as Whites. In this connection it must be remembered that the qualification for voting was based on a Natal law and the fact that a person might be described in terms of the custom, practice and law of Natal, as falling within a certain racial category is, even if that person was described otherwise in the other provinces, quite irrelevant. The whole question which the hon. the Minister has to consider is whether these persons had the right to registration. But this is beyond question. They had a right to registration in Natal in terms of the law of Natal at the time of Union. That right was, and very rightly so, recognized by the Nationalist Party Government at the time the Separate Representation of Voters Act was passed. They agreed, in fact, after considerable discussions, that these persons would have no other form of representation whatsoever and, therefore, they decided to preserve their rights to be on the Common Roll. It did not give the right of registration to any additional persons but only preserved the right of those who were already registered at that time.

In the circumstances, I do appeal to the hon. the Minister and say that there is a duty on him in this regard. If he is not satisfied with the form of the amendment, I suggest he should move for this clause to stand over in order to enable him to investigate the question as to the correct way in which to protect the rights of these persons. He himself can then bring in a clause which will protect those rights.

Section 13 of the Separate Representation of Voters Act, 1951, provides that no non-Europeans or Natives in the Province of Natal shall be entitled to be registered as voters after the date of commencement of that Act. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) seeks to secure the right for White voters in Natal who may subsequently be reclassified as Coloured persons in terms of the Population Registration Act, 1950, to be registered as Coloured voters on the voters’ list in that province. In my opinion the object which the hon. member has in view can more properly be achieved by an amendment of the Separate Representation of Voters Act. I am further of the opinion that the amendment seeks to introduce a new principle not contemplated by the Bill as read a second time and I regret, therefore, that I cannot accept it.

May I point out to you, Sir, that the people we are talking about were on the Voters’ Roll?

Order! I have considered this matter very carefully. I realize what the motives are of hon. members on both sides of the House. As I said, what the hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) seeks to do, cannot be done here, but should be done in the form of an amendment to Act No. 46 of 1951.

But it is not a case of motives, Sir, but a case of the language. I think the language is as clear as it can be.

I have given my ruling after very careful consideration and I am sorry, therefore, but I cannot depart from it.

May I then draw your attention to sub-section (2) of Clause 4, i.e. the clause we are dealing with? That subsection deals precisely with those people with whom we are concerned here!

I am sorry, I cannot consider the matter any further. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (Umlazi) has been ruled out of order.

May I, as the mover of the amendment, address you on this matter, Mr. Chairman?

No, I am sorry; I cannot allow it. I cannot allow discussion on it. I have given my ruling and I believe it is the correct one. Mr. TUCKER: Will you not allow me to put a question to you with the object of seeking your guidance? The CHAIRMAN: No, I am sorry; I cannot. Mr. RAW: Mr. Chairman, as far as my amendment is concerned, I wish to point out that the hon. the Minister has not yet had an opportunity of dealing with it fully.

I accept your amendment.

I should like to take the opportunity which a discussion of this clause affords me of clarifying a statement I made during my second reading speech. In discus sing the principle of this clause on that occasion, I, in referring to the names of certain persons in my constituency as appear on the voters’ roll named certain persons whom, as I discovered from my speech in Hansard, I had stated had the same initials. I wish now to correct that statement. What I intended to say was that amongst the persons that I listed and who had the same names, there were per sons with the same initials. Mr. THOMPSON: Mr. Chairman, I wish to move—In line 19, after “thereafter” to insert “his first Christian name and”. The effect of this amendment is to require the first Christian name of voters to be included on the voters’ roll. If the Bill is passed as it stands at present only the initials of voters will be included on the voters’ roll. Heretofore all the Christian names of every voter have been included in the roll. What is more, it has proved most useful to political parties who have to conduct elections. I suggest it must also have been useful to the electoral officer himself, because errors could thereby be avoided especially where hand writing is indistinct and doubt exists in regard to the initials of a person. Mr. D. E. MITCELL: It was useful also for the voter himself. Mr. THOMPSON: Yes, that is so. Where initials only are shown, a mistake can easily occur with the result that a man’s name with the initial “B” might be placed under “P”, or something of that sort. A voter by the name of B. Smith, could then come to the conclusion that his name has been omitted from the list. I know that it has been advanced that there is no room on the new voters’ card which is going to be used for even one Christian name which we are asking for. I find it difficult, however, to believe that that is the case. There must surely be some space avail able in which Christian names can be inserted. At any rate, there ought to be space for the inclusion of one Christian name. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to inform us that it will be possible under the new system to include at least one Christian name. All parties will agree that that would be very useful. If, on the other hand, a card is being used which does not allow for this being done, I think it is unfortunate that the Department has decided to use such a card.

The hon. member has already advanced arguments why this amendment should not be accepted. In this regard I want to ask members to abide by the findings of people who have investigated this matter thoroughly. The officials who investigated the position to ascertain the most effective way in which our process of mechanization could be applied, stated unambiguously that when the Christian names were added, it would not be possible to give all the data in one line. Who are we in this House to desire the opposite after the officials who had investigated the matter had come to that conclusion? I think, therefore, that hon. members should join me in subscribing to the findings of those officials.

There is another very good reason, however, why it cannot be recommended that the Christian names should be reflected and that is that the serial and identity card numbers distinguish the people. Say, for example, there are four J. F. Bothas, you can tell from the address with which one you are dealing. If the address is the same you can look at the profession to find out the difference. If the profession is also the same the identity card number will indicate that you are dealing with different people. But what difference does it make, in the long run, which J. F. Botha is crossed out when he comes to vote before we introduce the identity card system? I do not see, therefore how this new system can give rise to any difficulty. I wish to inform the hon. member, however, that this is not a matter which we need quarrel about. I want to assure the hon. member that if it is possible to give the first Christian name we should like to give it. As a matter of fact, that will surely be done. If, however, it is impossible to do so I hope the hon. member will be satisfied when he sees the first voters’ roll which is published under the new system.

When this matter was discussed in 1950, the hon. the Minister was not a member of this House, and I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Finance, who was responsible for voters’ lists then, is not in the House now. When he spoke about mechanization on that occasion, I brought to his notice that the method of mechanization which he proposed to introduce then, was not the latest method. I can refer the hon. the Minister to Hansard, Col. 3080 of 16 March 1950 in this connection. I told the then Minister on that occasion that at that time there was a Hollerith limit of 80 columns. I suggested to him then that he should place an order—although it would have taken four or five years before they could be delivered—for the latest electronic recording machines.

We had our investigation only last year.

In any event, I suggested to the Minister then that if he were to acquire those machines, he would be able to include on the card a good deal more information. It is all very well for the Minister to shake his head. If he consults the C.S.I.R., he will find that the C.S.I.R. knows of computers which can print out 1,000 lines per minute on almost double full-scap size. They are using the ordinary Hollerith punch card system. So if the Department were to use the latest electric computer, with the latest reading devices, it would find that it could include much more information than that with a limit of 80 columns. I suggest, therefore, that the Department would be able to print all surnames of a person and a good deal of other information besides. I can take him to a mining group to-day where 89,000 non-European paysheets are being printed out with full details of their names, of their passes, of their employment number, of their health, deductions and pay, etc. The Minister says that the card will not be conclusive. I accept that the present card will not be conclusive. Anyone who knows anything about the output of the modern electric computer cannot possibly accept the assurance of the Minister that a machine can only show the surname and initials. I refer the Minister to my Hansard of 1950. I informed the Minister of the Interior then that he would be running into trouble, and the trouble I predicted he has indeed run into, and the Minister’s difficulty is that he got a machine with limited capacity. What I said in 1950 has been proved right and I suggest that the Minister make a further investigation.

I want to assure the Committee that we sent people overseas. We had demonstrations carried out. We also consulted the C.S.I.R. Everything possible was done, last year, and I want to assure this Committee that if it is necessary to go further before we put mechanization into practice, we will do it. We will take every possible step. I will take heed of what the hon. member said, but I want to assure the Committee that it was not done haphazardly, but that we are working on a very definite plan.

I want to put one point to the hon. the Minister. I do not think the matter is as simple as the Minister makes it out to be, this question of mechanization and keeping the roll clean. We are not legislating here to adapt the rolls to mechanization, but we are legislating to stop abuse and to see that all voters are registered and that on election day every voter can exercise his right to vote, without any hindrances whatsoever.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the amendment.

The Minister himself said that if it should appear later that the Christian names can be added to these cards it will be considered—thereby the Minister already admits the merit of this amendment. He recognizes that to have this amendment is possibly a necessity. What the Minister neglects to mention here is that in the other provisions of the Bill the manner in which voters’ rolls are going to be drawn up will be entirely different from the way in which it was done in the past. Formerly voters’ rolls were divided into the male and the female sections, and the names were listed alphabetically, and that in itself prevented a considerable amount of confusion. But now the rolls are going to be prepared with the names of males and females listed consecutively in alphabetical order, and you will inevitably get the position where you have people with precisely the same initial and Christian name, residing at the same address, and possibly having the same occupation, and in case the voter is absent that may possibly lead to abuse. I have in front of me my own constituency’s voters’ roll. I was examining it while the Minister was talking and merely at a glance, taking e.g. the name of Smith, I find two examples of where you get Jan Hendrina Smith, but then you also get Johanna Hendrina Smith, probably the spouse of one of those two Smiths. You can get examples of this in practically every single instance, where you get this similar initials and of people residing at the same address.

Read your amendment.

The amendment is to insert the first Christian name. But you get people living at the same address. The Minister talks about a distinction in occupation, but I can show him cases where you find a journeyman classed as a machinist and you find his wife classed as a machinist because she happens to work in a garment factory. So they are classed as having the same occupation. Here you are working fundamentally in a polling booth, asking people to identify themselves in a short time, and there may be hundreds of voters and there is no distinction any more as to sex. This system will not be so easy now. You will no longer have the consecutive number of the voter either, as formerly. I put it to the Minister for him to put in the one Christian name in this mechanical system, if the Minister admits that he can do it …

I did not admit it. I said I would go into it, and if it is possible we will do it, but at this moment it is not possible.

If it means that the Minister has to scrap his machinery and buy new machinery, which will result in the elimination of all confusion between voters, it will be justified. I repeat that we are not legislating here for a mechanical system, but for the right of a voter to exercise his right. That is the issue. If the Minister says it is possible to include the Christian name in the card, then he admits the necessity and the merit of the amendment moved.

I do not know why hon. members get so hot under the collar about this matter. Everyone of us who has experience of elections knows that you have to deal with people with similar names and very often they have the same address and follow the same profession. If people have similar names, addresses and professions, it makes no difference whether you have their Christian names it remains difficult to distinguish between them. You will still have their identity card number in future. In other words, it could happen in the past that a person arrived at the polling station and voted on somebody’s name whereas he himself was not really registered. Let me give an example. Say, for instance there are two persons with the name of Hermanus Johannes Botha, or conversely, only one Botha is registered with the name of Hermanus Johannes Botha, but there are really voters; the one being the father and the other the son. The son may already have moved but he is the first to arrive at the polling booth and he votes in the name of his father and nobody can say he is not that person. Then his father arrives and the son says: But I thought it was I who was registered. By introducing the identity card number that problem is completely eliminated. I want to say to the hon. member for Turffontein that if he reads this clause correctly, he will notice that on the new voters’ roll the maiden name of a married woman will appear in brackets behind her name and if she is unmarried the word “Miss” will appear. In other words, I am of opinion that this system will operate much more smoothly at elections. We always had the difficulty that the women were separated from the men on the voters’ roll and when you started looking for a woman you first had to ascertain whose wife she was. In future she will appear on the roll immediately after her husband and even if it is not immediately after him then close to his name. In other words, it will no longer be necessary to go to all the trouble which we had to go to in the past to trace a number of loose women. [Laughter.] What I am telling you, Sir, is the truth. We have more women than men in South Africa. In other words, you always have a number of loose women.

I do not know about Pretoria (West), Sir, but we have no loose women in Durban (Point). [Laughter.] I think the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) are devoting all their attention to the problem of duplication, duplication of the same surname and the same Christian name, but they lose sight of the problem of the party organizers who have to send out notices, for example, and address envelopes. The mistakes will arise in compiling the canvassers’ lists because there are so many letters which sound similar—B, C, D, P, etc. You cannot work with the identity card number in your party organization. You only work with the surname and initials. You will send out your notices and your propaganda material and you cannot control the position if typographical mistakes are made in the canvassers’ lists.

But you have the serial number.

Yes, but the canvassers’ list is not the voters’ roll. The canvassers’ list may show Mrs. P. Botha and it may be Mrs. B. Botha, and there may not be such a person.

That is bad organization.

There we have the political aspect again, Sir; those hon. members do not care whether it is the right person or not. They accept the vote and say thank you, but we look for the right person. [Laughter.]

I really rose to say that there was another sub-section to which we objected, and that is sub-paragraph (e) which refers to the identity card number. I do not intend discussing that. We have already discussed that fairly fully at the second reading and have stated clearly that we were opposed to the use of the population register in our electoral legislation, for the simple reason that it gave a political flavour to an Act which we believed should be kept outside party politics. It is a question of principle. I think my friends are finding it somewhat difficult to realize that there are persons with principles and who observe them, but we stand by our principles, and we are, therefore, going to vote against Clause 10 because the population register is to be used in the compilation of the voters’ rolls. For that reason we will vote against the clause.

I am surprised at the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) for not following the lead given by one of their most important newspapers. When this Bill was published, none other than the newspaper, the Star …

Whose newspaper is that?

It is a very important supporter of the United Party. In a leading article on the use of the identity card numbers, it wrote as follows—

I wish to quote from another article of theirs, or their party organizers …

Order! The principle was accepted at the second reading and cannot be discussed at this stage.

We value the attitude of the Minister in meeting us and in saying that if possible he would be willing to include the first Christian name in these cards so that they may be included in the voters’ lists. I rise to try to ensure that that course is open to him. But it seems that as the Act stands, and as the amendment stands, that will not be possible. I shall be glad to hear that I am wrong, but in fact Clause 10 (a) reads that a voters’ list “shall show the surname, the serial number and” immediately thereafter “the initials.” It would seem, therefore, that the voters’ list must “show the initials and may not show the first Christian name. Consequently, although the hon. the Minister may be prepared, and indeed glad, if it is found possible to include the Christian name, to do so, that course is not open to him. I would like to move a further slight amendment to the amendment which I have moved already, which would make it possible for the Minister to do that. It would simply require one to insert certain words to leave that alternative open, and I would like to indicate what would be required, viz. In line 19 on page 7 after the word “his” when it occurs for the second time insert “remaining” and after the word “initials” in the same line to insert “or his initial”.

It would be better if the hon. member were to ask leave to withdraw his original amendment and thereafter to move a new amendment which would embrace both amendments.

Then the clause would read that there should be his surname and immediately thereafter his first Christian name and his remaining initials or his initial. It seems to me that that would give the Minister an opportunity to include the first Christian name, if it is found possible.

I am not such a legally trained person as the hon. member, but I do not think I am forbidden from doing it. When you talk about somebody’s initials I do not think you are forbidden from giving his name; his surname and Christian name and all his initials. I think it is quite possible. I am informed that the law lays down the minimum requirement and I can insert more details than the minimum requirements. Consequently I can insert more than is provided for here. It is, therefore, possible to do so without the amendment of the hon. member.

If the Minister and his Department will act in that sense, perhaps it is not necessary to press it, although some people might conceivably argue that since the word “shall” is used—some people do not like their Christian names to appear and they may feel injured in some way, and that may in turn drive the Department to play safe, and consequently not include a Christian name which would be valuable.

The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. member withdraw his original amendment?

Does the hon. member withdraw his original amendment?

I think the sensible thing would be to leave the amendment as printed and not to move any additional amendment.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and the Committee divided:

I wish to move the following amendment—

Section 29 of the original Act provides that the electoral officer should provide adequate machinery for the checking of voters’ lists and the comparison of voters’ lists between one electoral area and another. The Minister will recall that during the second reading this point was raised and he indicated that it was not his intention to abolish the existing central register whilst the introduction of the new machinery was taking place. This amendment I have moved is to give effect to this intention the Minister indicated, that whilst the electoral officer will still have the permissive power in regard to establishing this machinery for the comparison of voters’ rolls of one electoral division with another, he can only do so as long as procedure is introduced which establishes that no duplicate registration can take place. In view of the assurances the Minister gave in the second reading, I hope he will see his way clear to accept this amendment.

I really do not think the amendment which has been moved is necessary. I said so very clearly at the second reading; nor is the amendment very clear to me. But if it is the intention of the hon. member who moved it that the central index should only be abolished when alternative procedure has been provided whereby duplicate registrations can be traced, I just want to inform the hon. member that the O & M officials have already suggested the alternative procedures which can be followed. Alternative procedures have already been laid down whereby duplicate registration will be eliminated. However, the central index will not be abolished until we are absolutely certain that duplications will be eliminated. My amendment already provides for that.

Why don’t you say it then?

But it says so in the Act. I just want to tell hon. members that the governing party is just as concerned as the Opposition when it comes to the question of duplications. Why should you allow duplication? The central index system serves only one purpose and that is to eliminate duplication and if you can evolve another method of eliminating duplication, a cheaper method—this machinery is very expensive, the central index, and is fairly worn out—there is a permissive provision under which you can abolish it, but only when duplication can be eliminated by means of another method. I really do not think hon. members need harbour any fears. You can only adopt that method when you have your mechanical system working and when your method of eliminating duplication appears to work effectively without using the central index. Otherwise you cannot do so and you have to use the central index. For that reason I regard it quite unnecessary to accept this amendment.

It is difficult to understand the hon. the Minister’s attitude. He gave an assurance to this House that the central index would not be abolished until there was a secure checking of duplication, and he has repeated the assurance now. We thank the Minister. We accept that statement with both hands, we write it on a piece of paper and we put it into the Bill, but he says: Oh no, I am not having you record my words in the Bill. That is what it amounts to. All we ask is that the exact promise given by the Minister now, that the central index would not be abolished until the officials were satisfied that there was a complete check on duplication, should be put into the Bill, by amending the clause to say that the electoral officer may abolish the central register, provided that adequate procedure is introduced for the checking and elimination of any duplicate registrations on all voters’ lists. In other words, we accept the Minister’s statement and we are grateful to him for it, but we ask him to incorporate it in the Bill. We say we accept that that is his intention, so let us make it clear that that is the intention and put those words into the Bill. To reject this amendment must indicate that the Minister is against an assurance that there will be a complete checking of duplications. Otherwise, why oppose this amendment?

It is unnecessary.

It is not unnecessary because these are words which define the circumstances under which the central register can be abolished. If this Minister should take over another portfolio to-morrow or be knocked down by a bus, then a new Minister takes over. The Act will then enable that register to be abolished at any time without restriction, without limitation, without proviso. We say that in order to make sure that the intention of this permissive power is clear, let us put it into the Bill. The Minister agrees with us. He says that it is not necessary but that is only his opinion. When this Bill comes law, the Act will provide that the electoral officer may cause the voters’ rolls to be compared. And if he feels lazy or just does not want to do it, the law will entitle him not to do it; for no other reason. He may not feel like doing it and the law will say “You need not do it” We are merely laying down in this Bill by this amendment the intention of the amendment itself. If the Minister opposes this then we must ask what other ulterior motive is there behind this? If the Minister will not accept this amendment then there must be another motive for it. We are accepting his word as to the motive and his assurance and we say to put it beyond let us put those words into the Bill.

I just wish to make quite sure in this connection and for this reason I move—

Agreed to.

On Clause 20,

Here too our objection is

based on principle. I do not intend debating the question. Once again we have the principle of the identity card number in sub-section (d) of this clause. We are against it in principle and we will consequently vote against the clause.

I move the amendment as printed—

The amendment moved by the hon. the Minister is in keeping with his agreement that these provisions of the Bill dealing with postal votes should be sent to a commission when Parliament prorogues. I wish to move the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn)—

This clause amends Section 57 of the original Act which deals with the manner of voting of an absent voter. It also sets out how that voter should be identified. I do not want to debate the question of identity cards again. But I do want to put this to the Minister. When we come to a later Clause the hon. the Minister will be moving an amendment containing exactly the same principle as this amendment namely that the identity card by itself should not of necessity be the sole proof of the identity of that absent voter. If the voter has mislaid it or it has been destroyed, he should be able to prove his identity in some other way in order to exercise his vote. The Minister concedes the point that when a voter is challenged his identity card should not be the only proof of identity but that that voter will be able to bring other proof to prove that he is the voter entitled to that particular vote. I hope that the hon. the Minister will accept this amendment which contains precisely the same principle which he himself is prepared to accept in a later clause.

I just want to say this as far as this amendment is concerned. I do not think you can compare it with the amendment which will be moved later on to Clause 38 and which I cannot discuss at this moment. This has to do with the use of the identity card. The use of the identity card is watered down by this amendment. I wish to point out to the Committee that the identity card can only be used in terms of Clause 25, which we are discussing at the moment, after a proclamation has been published in the Government Gazette that it should be used and when the time is ripe for it. In other words, it is not something which is being introduced immediately. I repeat that when it comes to an electoral law it has the same meaning to both parties, it affects them equally. When it is introduced some day and misused it will be like a sword cutting both ways. In other words, where the identity card comes into the picture and where the identity card number has already been accepted as forming part of the voters’ roll, I just want to say that I am very sorry but I cannot accept this amendment nor the other amendment standing on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Yeoville.

I just want to make one point. The Minister says that to accept this amendment will water down the purpose of the identity card. I would like to submit to the hon. the Minister that having once accepted, as this Committee has now done, the use of the identity number, the Minister has achieved his objective of identifying the person who is going to be on the voters’ roll. In other words, the presence of a person on the voters’ roll will be subject to the population register. All this amendment moved by the hon. member for Turffontein provides is that when the person comes to vote and for any reason his identity card is not available, he will be able to produce alternative means of identifying himself. Unless the Minister accepts that amendment, it means that every person in South Africa who mislays his identity card on election day is going to be disenfranchised because there is literally no other way that a person will be able to identify himself in order to vote.

This only comes into operation after proclamation.

But it will come into operation even if it is proclaimed in a hundred years’ time. I do not think humanity will have changed in a hundred years’ time to the extent that people won’t lose things. You never know, there may be a reasonable government in five years’ time, but that is only a hope. People will continue to lose things. Even if it is only proclaimed within five or ten years’ time, the Minister is making it in effect an offence carrying the penalty of disfranchisement to mislay your identity card on a particular day of the year.

Who will judge?

Nobody is going to be the judge. The law is laying down that there is no other form of identity.

Supposing your amendment is accepted and he can bring some other form of identification, who is going to be the judge?

The same sort of proof as the Minister is prepared to accept in Section 80 of the original Act; the presiding officer must be the man who judges. If the man comes along and he says “Here is the sergeant of police, he will identify me” and the sergeant of police says “Yes, that is the voter of the hon. member for Onnosel Baai and his name is Piet van Poggenpoel. I am a sergeant of the police and I know him”, that will be identification.

[Inaudible.]

This does not apply to goats, so the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) will not be assisted by this amendment. The point is this, Sir: Assume that I as a voter am at the opposite end of my constituency and I go to vote and I have not got my identity card with me. It may be laying in a drawer at home. If I cannot get back in time to collect it I will be disfranchised. The Minister is depriving the man of his most sacred democratic right for the simple reason that he is not able to produce his identity card. It may be stolen from him. It may have disappeared for any other reason. For instance, Sir, a “Sap”-voter’s wife might be a Nationalist, and the wife says “I am going to fix my husband to-day; hy sal nie stem nie” and she takes his identity card and hides it. [Laughter.] Hon. members may laugh, but I have known a United Party wife take away her husband’s car keys so that he could not go and vote Nationalist; she knew he would be making a fool of himself. I do not think the Minister appreciates the significance of this matter. We accept that at the second reading this House accepted the principle of the identity cards. We are not arguing against any principle. We are merely stating that there should be the opportunity for an alternative form of identification. If the Minister wants to change the wording let him change it. He may say “identification satisfactory to the returning officer”; he may specify that it must be a letter from the local magistrate. Let the local magistrate at least be entitled to issue a temporary identity permit stating that he knows that person, this is his identity number “and I hereby certify that he has this day collected it from me”

And if the magistrate does not know him?

If the magistrate does not know him then it is just too bad. Then he must go to the local “dominee” or he must go to the local undertaker if he is a ghost vote and say to him “come and certify that you have not buried me yet”. There are other people whose word will be accepted. The Minister cannot in all reason say that a man who is bona fide and whose identity has been established beyond doubt, should be forbidden the vote because, in the extreme example I have mentioned, his wife may disagree with him and hide his identity card on that day. He may have lost it or there may be some other reason why he cannot produce it at that moment. We are not asking for anything out of line with the principle of the Bill; we are not watering down the value of the identity card. We are merely providing, even if this is only proclaimed at some future date, for a guarantee against disfranchisement.

Mr. Chairman, the argument used by the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) is really so childish that one should not reply to it. If a person values his vote and he knows that he requires his identity card in order to vote I can assure the House that that person will ensure that he is armed with his identity card when he goes to the polling station. That argument is so childish that you can use the same argument and say that if a person loses the key of his motor car and it is too far to walk to the polling station he is being disfranchised. That is the most ridiculous argument which can be advanced. The principle that the identity card is necessary when you go to vote has already been accepted at the second reading. That principle has already been accepted. We cannot change that principle in the Committee Stage. The arguments advanced by the hon. member are just so many words; they mean nothing. I can assure him that the person who is anxious to go to vote will make sure that he has his identity card with him. The Minister has given the assurance time and again that this requirement to produce your identity card will be proclaimed at a date when it will be practically possible. I want to ask the Minister not to change his mind in any circumstances. We will put up a hard fight for this. Those of us who have been concerned with elections for many years know exactly what happens. We have seen people disappointed. Talk about disfranchising anybody! I have seen how people have been disfranchised people who could not vote because somebody else had already voted in their name. That person was disfranchised not as a result of the fact that he did not produce his identity card, but precisely for the reason that it was not required of him to produce it. Hundreds of honourable voters have been disfranchised in that way.

Sir, I do hope the Minister will take note of what has been said on this side of the House. I did not want to enter into this debate at all as it has been so clearly put. The man may have lost his identity card for some reason or other entirely beyond his control. It may have been stolen from him or his house may have been burnt down the night before and he cannot replace his identity card in time. Surely it is quite simple. The hon. member says this side of the House is talking nonsense! If a man’s car breaks down he can get another car but if he has not got his identity card he cannot get another one in time to vote. Surely the position is quite simple. If the electoral officer is the judge and a voter comes along and satisfies the electoral officer that he is the man he claims to be he will allow him to vote. Say he makes an affidavit and he makes a false affidavit he will go to gaol for it—that is a very serious offence. Surely it is as simple as all that, Sir. If the electoral officer is satisfied he passes him; if he is not satisfied he turns him down. Why are we quarrelling over something like this? By depriving a man of his right to vote because he has not got his identity card with him might even change the results of the election—seats have been won by one vote before.

I do not know why the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Mr. G. P. van den berg) thinks that in moving this amendment which provides for another form of identification, that is a one-way traffic. It is a two-way traffic, Sir. Do the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Wolmaransstad for one moment believe that by the mere production of a piece of paste-board with a number on it is the only criterion to entitle a man to vote? What about the man who produces his piece of paste-board or his pass or his identification card and he is challenged at the polling booth because it is said that that is not his number? If this amendment is accepted the presiding officer will then say: “I am not satisfied that you are the person who is producing this identification card; I require you to produce some other form of identification.” This amendment does not only operate in one direction.

You are talking nonsense.

It is no use the hon. member making silly interjections like that. This amendment is moved in order to ensure two things, namely that a voter will not be deprived of his right to vote and that there will be no chance of falsification. If there is any case or suspected case of falsification of an identity card then the presiding officer will require that voter to produce another form of identification. What I cannot understand, Sir, is the assumption on the part of the Minister that the mere production of a card is going to be a qualification for a voter to vote. By what argument does the Minister substantiate the production of a piece of paste-board with a number on it as proof of that person’s identity? [Interjections.] Sir, if anything is easy to falisfy, to duplicate, it is the identification card issued by the Government. They can be falsified by their thousands. It is the easiest thing in the world. The Minister lives in the delusion that this piece of paste-board is a document which cannot be changed or that the number on it cannot be altered. Surely the Minister is not so naïve.

I challenge you that you will not change it.

I will give the Minister a few tips privately as to how these things can be done if he is unaware of it at the moment. The Minister justifies his rejection of this amendment on the fact that production of the identity card is sufficient proof of the identity of the person concerned. I do not want to use the arguments which I used in the second reading speech but I would ask you to cast your eye upon the person of the hon. member for Wolmaransstad and upon the person of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout). I am sure I can produce a photograph very similar to those of those two gentlemen, photographs which even a presiding officer in his haste will not be able to distinguish from the photograph on their identity cards.

Sir, this amendment is moved in all seriousness. I cannot discuss clauses that we will be discussing later, the hon. the Minister knows that. But the hon. the Minister himself is prepared to move an amendment accepting this principle that some other form of identification is necessary in those cases where a man is challenged. And this principle is precisely the same. The Minister said in his second reading speech that when we got to the Committee Stage he would move an amendment to the clause …

Nonsense.

Sir, this is the second time to-night the hon. the Minister has found himself in difficulty in respect of assurances he has given.

You cannot discuss Clause 38 now.

I know I cannot. But I am indicating that the Minister agreed to the acceptance of this principle.

You are not indicating correctly; that makes all the difference.

I am of course in this difficult position that I cannot discuss a later clause but all hon. members have seen the amendment which the hon. the Minister is going to move. It is precisely the same principle namely that other forms of identity can be accepted in place of the identification card. The identification card is not the only criterion of identification.

There is a vast difference. You will have to swallow your words again when we come to Clause 38.

I will discuss Clause 38 with the Minister as long as he wants to. I want to say to the Minister that surely the acceptance of this amendment will not detract in any way from the value of the identity card as a form of identity but it will protect people who by misfortune or by some other mishap cannot find their identity card on the day they have to vote. Do not deprive them of their right to vote if they can produce other proof to the presiding officer that they are the persons entitled to the issue of the ballot papers. Surely that is reasonable. We do not want to deprive anybody of his right to vote. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to reconsider his decision.

I only want to make one point. In the event of an identity card being lost and an application being submitted for a replacement would that not be acceptable by a returning officer; will that not entitle the returning officer to accept the person’s word that he is the person he claims to be? Surely because an identity card is lost—his home may have been burnt down—he should not be deprived of the right of exercising his vote. All we are asking the Minister is to agree that in those circumstances sufficient proof can be produced to prove to the presiding officer that he is the person whom he claims to be and who wishes to vote. I submit that in those circumstances an application for a new identity card should be accepted by the presiding officer as proof of identity. As the clause reads at the moment that person will be deprived of his vote.

Mr Chairman, I just want to say that I am very sorry that hon. members opposite want to detract from the entire principle which was accepted at the second reading. The principle of the identity card was accepted at the second reading. The object of the amendment is that apart from the identity card other proofs should also be valid. The entire argument of hon. members opposite amount to this that the identity card system is not acceptable to them. I can imagine what will happen when the proclamation is published that the identity card must be used. Every United Party supporter will say to their voters “Don’t bring your identity card; bring your driver’s licence; bring a testimonial from a minister of religion or from the magistrate or from anybody else”. I said quite clearly and unequivocally that this clause has been inserted with the specific object of making use of the identity card at a time when the people of the Republic will have become accustomed to the idea of using their identity cards without that causing any disenfranchisement. The point is simply this that neither this Government nor any other Government will publish a proclamation to the effect that the identity cards must be used if that will affect it detrimentally. It will be to its detriment just as it will be to the detriment of the Opposition. I cannot understand why we have this hullabaloo about this matter except in this one sense that this amendment is tearing the identity card to pieces and detracting from its value. The arguments advanced by hon. members opposite hold no water. In spite of the fact that we have been working together very well indeed up to the present, I regret to say that I cannot accept it.

At 10.25 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.